NucNews August 6, 2006 -------- NUCLEAR Helen Caldicott's new book: Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer Sunday, August 06, 2006 VHeadline (Venezuela) http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=65443 VHeadline.com commentarist Stephen Lendman writes: No one writes with more passion, commitment and knowledge about the immense dangers of nuclear technology in all its forms than Australian physician and nuclear expert Helen Caldicott. Since writing her first book (must reading for everyone), 'Nuclear Madness,' in 1978, Dr. Caldicott has worked tirelessly to expose the real threat this technology from hell poses to human survival. In her first book she wrote: "As a physician, I contend that nuclear technology threatens life on our planet with extinction. If present trends continue, the air we breathe, the food we eat, and the water we drink will soon be contaminated with enough radioactive pollutants to pose a potential health hazard far greater than any plague humanity has ever experienced." Dr. Caldicott has now written six important books on nuclear technology and its dangers. Her latestn just publishedn is 'Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer.' In it she's written a carefully documented account of the reasons why. Like her other books, this one, too, is must reading, and those doing it will never forget its vital message. The book is a basic text on all things wrong with commercial nuclear power and why, as Dr. Caldicott explains, this technology must be abandoned before it destroys us as it surely will if its use and proliferation aren't halted everywhere. This book is about commercial nuclear power in contrast to her last one, 'The New Nuclear Danger,' that was a powerful and convincing indictment of the military-industrial complex and its addiction to nuclear weapons of mass destruction and the Pentagon's intent to use them as needed preemptively. Dr. Caldicott makes her convincing case in 10 chapters, each one covering a separate crucial issue about commercial nuclear power. Eight of them explain in detail its dangers and problems, and the two final ones propose sensible and urgently needed solutions so far largely unaddressed. But she begins in her introduction with a clear statement that our government has now embarked on a disingenuous and sinister campaign to sell the acceptability of the use and expansion of commercial nuclear technology to the US public long turned off on it by the near disaster at the Three Mile Island (TMI) nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania in March, 1979 and the catastrophic Chernobyl meltdown and explosion in the Ukraine in April, 1986. She begins her detailed account that, contrary to government and industry propaganda, nuclear power is neither efficient, reliable, cheap, clean or safe. It's a very sophisticated, expensive and dangerous way to boil water, turn it to steam, which then turns a turbine to generate electricity. Dr. Caldicott explains, contrary to government and industry propaganda, that the generation of nuclear power causes the discharge of significant emissions of greenhouse gases as well as hundreds of thousands of curies of deadly radioactive gases and other radioactive elements into the environment every year. It also requires huge and unjustifiable government subsidies including protection against catastrophic accidents to make it attractive to investors. In addition, and most disturbing, there's the real threat of an attack against any of our 103 nuclear power plants in blowback retaliatory response to hostile US acts against other nations in the past, the two current illegal aggressions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, our one-sided support for Israel's long-running conflict with and current aggression against the defenseless Palestinians and people of Lebanon, and our possible intent to spread the present Middle East conflict to Iran and Syria with the preemptive use of nuclear weapons. US nuclear power plants are notoriously inadequately protected and are thus vulnerable easy targets to strike if a committed antagonist wished to do so. If it happens, the result will be a catastrophic disaster irrevocably affecting the area struck and people now living there. Adding further to the danger, these plants are atom bomb factories. A 1000 megawatt nuclear reactor produces 500 pounds of plutonium annually, only 10 pounds of which is needed as fuel for a bomb powerful enough to devastate a large city and make it unlivable essentially forever. Dr. Caldicott explains all this and much more in her book, and her mission in writing it and her others, as well as her role as President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute is to counteract the false rhetoric of governments worldwide and the nuclear power industry touting the so-called benefits of nuclear technology. In her duel roles, she's become perhaps the world's leading advocate for the abolition of a technology too unsafe to be tolerated any longer. She spends all her time dedicated to writing and speaking out around the world telling the public the truths they never hear in the mainstream about this dangerous and unacceptable form of producing energy to get them to demand it be abandoned. Below is an account of the clear evidence Dr. Caldicott explains and documents, chapter by chapter. Chapter 1 -- The Energetic Costs of Nuclear Power -- It Takes Fossil Fuel Burning Power to Produce Nuclear Energy The American nuclear industry's task of selling its technology to the public is the responsibility of its trade association -- the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). They do it through a false and misleading campaign of deception to convince the public that nuclear energy is "cleaner and greener" than conventional sources of generating electricity. The truth, however, is quite different. Although a nuclear power plant releases no carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere causing global warming, it requires a vast infrastructure, called the nuclear fuel cycle, which uses huge and rapidly growing amounts of fossil fuels. Each stage of the cycle contributes to the problem starting with the largest and unavoidable energy cost to mine and mill uranium fuel which requires fossil fuel to do it. It continues with the problem of what to do with the mill tailings produced in the uranium extraction process that require great amounts of these greenhouse emitting fuels to remediate when this process is undertaken as it always should be. Other steps in the nuclear fuel cycle also require the use of fossil fuels including the conversion of uranium to hexafluoride gas prior to enrichment, the enrichment process, and the conversion of enriched uranium hexafluoride gas to fuel pellets. In addition, nuclear power plant construction, dismantling and cleanup at the end of their useful life require large amounts of energy. But the process and problems don't end there. The contaminated water that cools the reactor core must be dealt with, and the enormous problem of radioactive nuclear waste handling, transportation and disposal/storage remains unresolved. Chapter 2 -- The True Economic Costs of Nuclear Energy -- The Price in Dollars and Cents Nuclear industry and government propaganda notwithstanding, nuclear power is expensive, and when an inevitable catastrophic meltdown eventually occurs near or in a US city we'll know in grim detail just how much so. The industry falsely claims nuclear power costs 1.7 cents per kilowatt hour to produce compared to 2 cents for coal and 5.7 cents for natural gas. But a report by the New Economic Foundation titled "Mirage and Oasis - Energy Choices in An Age of Global Warming" calculated the true cost to be three times the industry figure if all costs, including capital ones, in the nuclear cycle are included. And even these costs exclude the additional ones of managing pollution, accidents that occur, insurance and security to protect against an attack or internal sabotage. The true costs and risks of nuclear power are so unattractive to investors that this industry couldn't exist without the many billions of dollars of government spending support it gets including most of the $111.5 billion on energy R & D spent from 1948-1998. But heavy government funding will now become even greater as a result of the 2005 Energy bill that's part of an attempt to jump-start this moribund industry. This outrageous bill offers a lavish array of "cradle to grave" subsidies that include tax credits and breaks, loan guarantees, R & D help and risk insurance. It also assures the government will cover the cost of the complex infrastructure needed to transport and store nuclear waste, provide military protection against potential blowback attacks and more. In addition, it reauthorizes the current Price-Anderson Act that will make taxpayers and not the industry pay 98% of the cost in case of a worse case nuclear meltdown that's sure to occur one day. It's part of the same scam that's in place for all other major US industries. It's called socialism for large corporations that write the legislation serving their interests guaranteeing them huge government subsidies and other benefits and capitalism for the rest of us who must pay for them through our taxes. One of the major and most egregious provisions of the 2005 Energy bill is the repeal of the important Public Utilities Holding Company Act (PUHCA) passed in 1935 as a cornerstone of New Deal financial reform that corrected the abuses of utility holding companies that scammed ratepayers. Now it's again open season for giant power monopolies and other dominant corporations to own nuclear power plants and exploit the public free from regulatory oversight or competition to restrain them. It's all part of a business-government scheme to develop a dangerous industry, largely free it from regulatory oversight, make it profitable for giant US corporations to own and dominate, and get the public to assume all the risks and foot the bill at inflated prices. Chapter 3 -- Nuclear Power, Radiation and Disease -- The Unaddressed Human Toll The overall cost of nuclear energy rarely, if ever, includes the very significant toll it takes on human health. Those paying the price include uranium miners, nuclear industry workers and potentially everyone living close to these operations. Also affected are residents in areas close to nuclear power plants that routinely or accidentally emit toxic radioactive releases that can cause illness, disease and death over time. Chicago is a prime example of what may go wrong. The city is surrounded by 11 nuclear power plants, many of them aging and all of them with histories of safety violations caused by aging and shoddy maintenance. Even if accident free, these facilities (and all others everywhere) discharge enough radiation daily in their normal operations to contaminate the food we eat (even organic food), water we drink and air we breathe into our lungs. But if a core meltdown ever occurs at any of these plants (a real possibility no one is prepared for) and Chicago is downwind of the fallout, the city and suburbs alone would become uninhabitable forever and would have to be evacuated quickly with all possessions left behind and lost (including people's homes) except for what could be carried in suitcases or family vehicles. Two other groups especially also have and continue to pay an overwhelming and largely hidden price from the toxic effects of radiation poisoning -- the people of Iraq and US military force invaders and occupiers who now serve there, have served or will in the future as well as those participating in the 1991 Gulf war. Most of them have potentially been exposed to the deadly effects of so-called depleted uranium (DU) poisoning because of the extensive use of DU munitions by the US military in both Iraq conflicts. These weapons were first developed for the Navy in 1968 and tested by Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur war under US supervision. Except for that test, they were never before used by any country prior to the US Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Since then, the US has used them freely, routinely and with deadly consequences to those affected by their fallout. DU is part of the radioactive waste resulting from the enrichment process used to produce enriched uranium fuel for nuclear reactors. When the Pentagon discovered that solid "dense metal" (1.7 times the density of lead) DU projectiles in all forms (missiles, bombs, shells and bullets) greatly increased their ability to penetrate and destroy a target, they knew they had a new technology they could use advantageously in combat and now have done so for the last 15 years in four wars. Despite their effectiveness as a weapon, however, DU munitions have a serious and deadly side effect. In all their forms, they're radioactive and chemically toxic after striking, penetrating and incinerating inside a target after which they aerosolize in a fine spray which then contaminates the air, soil and water around and beyond the target area. The toxic residue is permanent and those ingesting this ceramic uranium oxide have a permanent dose that potentially can cause many diseases including cancer, leukemia, birth defects and ultimately death or at least a shorter, more painful life. No one has kept track of the precise toll DU poisoning has had on the Iraqis although it's known the cancer rate in the country is far higher now than before 1991. But much is known about how DU toxicity has affected the US military who served in the Gulf war. Thirty percent or more of them are now on some kind of disability or have died from a serious illness likely the result of their military service in the Gulf. We're also just beginning to learn that those serving in Iraq since March, 2003 are reporting disturbing symptoms. Over time, it's likely they'll multiply greatly, affect a greater number of our forces than those serving in the Gulf war because of longer and repeated deployments to the region and eventually cause an even greater number of serious illnesses and deaths because the DU weapons now used contain plutonium, neptunium and the highly radioactive uranium isotope U-236. A UK Atomic Energy Authority 1991 study found these latter two isotopes were 100,000 times more dangerous than the U-238 used earlier in DU munitions. By any interpretation of the appropriate Hague and Geneva Conventions banning the use of all chemical, biological or any other "poison or poisoned weapons" in war, the US use of DU munitions constitutes a war crime that has and will continue to take an immense and tragic toll on those individuals exposed to them. The danger to human health from the use of nuclear power in any form is unavoidable even under the best of circumstances outside of a war zone. But whenever serious accidents happen, as they have and will again, the consequences can be calamitous. The link between radiation exposure and disease is irrefutable dependent only on the amount of cumulative exposure over a long enough period of time. Dr. Caldicott explains that "If a regulatory gene is bio-chemically altered by radiation exposure, the cell will begin to incubate cancer, during a 'latent period of carcinogenesis,' lasting from two to sixty years." As little as a single gene mutation can eventually turn out to be fatal and too often is. No amount of radiation exposure is safe, and it's thought that 80% of known types of cancers are environmentally caused by such exposure combined with the potentially carcinogenic effects of about 80,000 different inadequately or untested chemicals in common use acting synergistically in our bodies to harm us. But just the combined effects of routine allowable radiation from nuclear power plants, uranium mining and milling operations, uranium enrichment, and fuel fabrication can be devastating to all those exposed to any of their effects. Add to that the insoluble problem of radioactive waste disposal/storage and the certainty of devastating nuclear accidents, it's no exaggeration to say the human species is playing an insane game of nuclear Russian roulette it can't win and that will eventually have a disastrous and possibly fatal ending if we can't stop it in time. Chapter 4 - Accidental and Terrorist-Induced Nuclear Meltdowns - A Devastating Nuclear Event is Certain Many experts agree it's only a matter of when and where, not if, a devastating meltdown will occur in one or more of the 438 nuclear power plants located in 33 countries worldwide. It may result from human error, a plant owner's unwise or unsafe attempt to minimize operating costs, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) imprudent accession to industry pressure to allow 20 year operating extensions to plants designed to run only for 40 years, the effects of a tsunami or high enough magnitude earthquake in areas vulnerable to them or from a deliberate attack or internal sabotage. When this does happen, if it's near a large city and its full impact is felt and known, the world may never be the same again. But it will be too late for the residents in and around that city (which could be New York, Chicago or Paris) who'll lose all their possessions, be forced to evacuate their homes, and never again be able to return to them because of the permanent irremediable toxic radiation there. Dr. Caldicott explains that "Every US power plant is moving into the old-age cycle" because no new ones have been built here since the TMI accident in Pennsylvania in 1979. As a result, the number of near-misses and near-meltdowns has increased mostly resulting from human error, aging equipment and inadequate maintenance and regulatory oversight. With the dangers so high and inevitable and the supposed benefits totally without merit, why would the leaders and residents of any community ever be willing to allow the construction or operation of a nuclear power plant near enough to them to destroy their lives should a catastrophic nuclear event happen as it surely will potentially at any of the world's nuclear plants. Chapter 5 - Yucca Mountain and the Nuclear Waste Disaster - This Congressionally Chosen Area for Storage is Known to Be Unsafe For a geological nuclear waste storage site to be safe, it must be able to prevent any leakage and seepage into the environment for at least 500,000 years. The chosen Yucca site can't achieve this mandate for many reasons. It's close to groundwater that will be contaminated from leakage from corroded casks that will spread to spring water irrigation areas used for farming and by protected species. Yucca is also located in an active earthquake zone where in 1992 a major 7.4 Richter measured quake occurred followed two days later by an additional 5.2 quake that caused $1 million of damage to the Department of Energy (DOE) building located six miles from the Yucca site. Yucca Mountain was thought to be waterproof as its soil must be dry to prevent corrosion. But much more water inside was discovered there than originally estimated meaning this site is far too dangerous for a permanent home for nuclear waste storage. In addition, this site is located close to Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada where new military jet aircraft are tested, war exercises are held and crashes happen that may have serious and unacceptable consequences. Finally, and crucially, is the issue of radioactive waste transport from around the nation to this one site on highways and by rail. It will take 30 years to move the 70,000 metric tonnes of civilian and military spent fuel Yucca is authorized to store from its temporary sites around the country to this one location. Currently there's no prohibition on the shipping of this waste through highly populated areas nor during periods of bad weather like severe snow storms making driving hazardous. But it's been predicted as many as 50 accidents a year may result, three of them involving serious releases of toxic radiation that will contaminate the surrounding environment. In addition, and compounding the problem, all 11 of the storage casks currently approved and used by DOE for radioactive waste transport have been found to be defective. But none of these concerns have diminished the Bush administration's determination to proceed with the Yucca storage plan. Clearly, it has no concern whatever for public safety. For those in the administration, only corporate profits matter along with their plan for world dominance to enhance them. Chapter 6 -- Generation IV Nuclear Reactors -- They Will Increase Operational Risks and Are Unacceptable The majority of the world's operating nuclear power reactors are so-called Generation II types. But there are serious and potentially fatal problems associated with them, and yet the industry wishes to move ahead to new designs that promise to be even more dangerous. Currently there are Generation III reactors operating in the US only slightly different from the Generation II ones. A 2005 Greenpeace study of nuclear reactor hazards showed most of these newer versions to be little different than their dangerous predecessors despite false industry claims about their added safety. Still about 20 different Generation III designs are now under development which the industry expects to be built and operational by 2010. The Generation III and a so-called III+ design represent "evolutionary changes" from their predecessors despite the dangers associated with them. Undeterred, a newer Generation IV "revolutionary" design is under development that relies on fuel and plant performance standards that have not been tested and may turn out to be unachievable. Despite the danger involved, and with the public footing the bill and risk, the industry has made the outrageous and unproved claims that these reactors are ideal fuel providers, safe, proliferation resistant, economically competitive and free from greenhouse gas emissions. Dr. Caldicott debunks all these notions and calls them as "baseless today as (the absurd) 'too cheap to meter' (claim) was fifty years ago." She goes on to explain that "People with an intimate understanding of the nuclear industry are severely opposed to a nuclear renaissance" because of the unacceptable risks and most all other falsely claimed benefits associated with it. Dr. Caldicott concludes that so-called Generation III and IV reactor designs "are controversial and contentious, and seem not be be based upon sound economic, environmental safety, or proliferation-resistant principles." Based on the industry/government's long-standing record of lies and deception in promoting the safety and benefits of nuclear power, one can hardly disagree with her. Chapter 7 - Nuclear Energy and Nuclear Weapons Proliferation - This is Madness and An Unacceptable Risk Experts who know, explain that the nuclear arms supermarket and the dissemination of nuclear technology is vast, growing and dangerous. It's likely only a matter of time before a rogue nation or element obtains and makes one or more crude highly-enriched uranium nuclear bombs and sets one of them off in a major city probably located in the US. New York and Washington, DC are clearly the most obvious likely targets, and if it happens, those cities will be have to be evacuated and will be uninhabitable forever if the bomb is large enough and strategically placed. The chance of that happening will increase if, as proposed, 2,000 nuclear power plants are built in countries wanting them in the decades ahead. Those plants in operation would produce an inventory of about 20,000 metric tonnes of plutonium, the most deadly of all toxic substances known (as little as one-millionth of a gram is a carcinogenic dose), dwarfing the current amount in the world today and increasing the potential danger from it enormously. Dr. Caldicott calls this "plutonium madness." Twelve years ago, the National Academy of Sciences called the US and Russian military-derived plutonium stockpiles alone "a clear and present danger to national and international security" because of the chance of any of it falling into rogue hands. If a vastly larger stockpile is produced in so many places, it would be much harder to secure or keep track of. It's generally accepted that it takes just five kilograms (11 pounds) of weapons grade plutonium or 8 kilograms (17.6 pounds) of reactor grade plutonium to make a nuclear bomb. With so much of this substance around, and much of it likely inadequately secured, the temptation to do it would be enormous. The danger is even greater because today 18 countries have uranium enrichment facilities enabling them, if they wish, to produce fuel for nuclear weapons. Nine of these countries are now known to possess nuclear weapons, and the IAEA estimates that within 10 years as many as 40 or more nations may be able to make them, and many likely will to have available at least in self-defense. In addition, 70 countries now have legally acceptable small nuclear reactors, mostly fueled by highly enriched uranium. These reactors also manufacture plutonium, and both fuels can be used to make nuclear bombs if elements in any of these countries have the know-how and wish to do so. Many of them will be forced to do it in response to threats posed by hostile neighbors and especially by the US that openly claims the right to use nuclear bombs preemptively in any future conflict for any reason it claims is justifiable and certainly will unless restrained. If this happens, it's only a matter of time until a nuclear bomb is set off on US soil with all the devastation that will follow from it. Chapter 8 -- Nuclear Power and "Rogue Nations" -- Those Having Nuclear Weapons or Threaten to Use Them Are the "Rogue" Ones to Fear Two nations clearly are at the head of the "rogue" nuclear pack -- the US and Russia that combined have 97% of the total known arsenal of about 30,000 nuclear bombs. Because these two nations maintain thousands of these weapons on "hair-trigger" alert, a nuclear exchange between them would cause a nuclear winter and likely end all life on all or most of the planet. It could happen despite the end of the cold war as relations between the two countries have become more frosty and Russia's early warning system is hopelessly outdated, flawed, inadequate and subject to false alerts with only moments to react before it's too late. In addition, other countries having nuclear weapons or sure to develop them in the future, will certainly respond with them (if able) if they're attacked with these weapons or possibly even by conventional ones. Responsible leaders of any nation are likely to develop and use whatever weapons they have in self-defense if forced to do so. It's a very real and dangerous possibility and reason enough to argue for the abolition of this technology from hell that may destroy all human life if left unchecked. The case of Iran stands out at this time as it's become a target of the Bush administration for regime change which the Iranian government knows and realizes it must act in its own self-defense to prevent. Iran is pursuing a nuclear option it claims is for commercial use only. The country is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and, as far as known, is in full compliance with it while India, Pakistan and Israel (all having known nuclear arsenals) are not, haven't signed it and don't comply with it. There is no way to know what Iran's intentions are, but it would be irresponsible for its leaders not to be undertaking all measures it can to prevent a hostile attack or deter one if it occurs. The Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pointedly observed in September, 2005: "Every day they (the Americans) are threatening other nations with nuclear weapons." He added that Western countries were "relying on their power and wealth to try to impose a climate of intimidation and injustice over the world." It's logical and likely to assume most or all nations with concerns for their security will take whatever measures they can to protect themselves and retaliate if attacked. But it must also be pointed out that no nation ever has or is now or in the near future likely to threaten the US with a hostile attack -- not Iran, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela or any other. It's quite clear to them all and to the West that if any did, the US would destroy them. Only one nation above all others is a threat to world security and peace, and that nation is the most "roguish" of all. It's the US, and all other countries know it. The US is now waging two illegal wars in the Middle East and Central Asia, unconditionally supports Israel's right to do the same against the defenseless Palestinians and Lebanese and is threatening additional conflicts against Iran, Syria, Venezuela (to remove a three-time democratically elected President loved by the great majority of his people), and possibly North Korea. In addition, the US claims the right and intent to preemptively use nuclear weapons if it wishes and went to great lengths to undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Review conference at the UN in May, 2005. It happened under the aegis of the thuggish US Under Secretary for Disarmament at the time John Bolton (now UN ambassador) who deliberately sabotaged the meeting by refusing to participate in meaningful discussions. Other nations at the conference were outraged and disgusted with his actions and the nation he represents - to no avail, especially after Bolton assumed his UN role and prevented any disarmament discussions in that capacity. Even UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, who nearly always is unreservedly submissive to US authority, uncharacteristically expressed his disgust calling the US action a "real disgrace" as it surely was. Nonetheless, because of the total US dominance over the UN and its actions, no progress on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation has been made nor is any likely to be at least as long as the Bush administration remains in office, and probably much longer. Can the world afford to take a chance and wait, hoping for the best that may never come without forceful action? Chapter 9 -- Renewable Energy: The Answer -- Alternatives Exist but Are So Far Unaddressed and Insufficiently Developed Dr. Caldicott makes an impassioned plea throughout her book and her others to free the planet from the scourge of the nuclear threat that may destroy us. In this chapter she states: "there is no need to build new nuclear power plants to provide for the projected energy needs of the future ... it would be possible, using other forms of electricity generation to close down most of the existing nuclear reactors with a decade. There is enough wind (power) between the Rocky Mountains and the Mississippi River alone to supply three times the amount of electricity that America needs." There are other alternatives as well to the use of nuclear power that hold some promise including the conversion of coal to a synthetic fuel. Dr. Caldicott, however, concentrates on renewables in this chapter. She mentions that today that about 2% of electricity in the US comes from this safe and clean source whereas nuclear power supplies 20%. However, if hydroelectric power is included in the mix, about 9% of our electricity came from renewables in 2004 and 18.6% of it worldwide. Clearly, the rest of the world is far ahead of us, and the main problem in this country is the power of the fossil fuel and nuclear industries that have a stranglehold on US policy making and the politicians who make it. Unless they decide it's profitable to move to renewables, it won't happen and we'll continue down the same destructive road to an inevitable bad ending. Those on opposite sides debate whether alternatives alone can solve this nation's electricity needs. However, the respected journal, The New Scientist, recently wrote that the combination of wind and tidal power, micro-hydro, and biomass make renewable power increasingly practical. It said wind power and biomass are now almost as cheap as coal, and wave power and solar photovotaics are becoming more competitive. A report from the New Economics Foundation supports these conclusions. It said renewables are easy to build, cheap to harvest, economical to use overall, safe, flexible and clean. Despite industry resistance and support for it by complicit governments, especially in the US, the mounting evidence of the destructiveness of carbon emissions and nuclear proliferation dictates the urgent need to implement safe alternative solutions to our energy needs and do it now. The threat of global warming is the most obvious one, and that issue has entered mainstream discussion to some degree. It's now clear the planet is becoming warmer, the number and intensity of destructive storms are increasing, and the phenomenon of catastrophic environmental events are becoming more common. Still, the US pretends it isn't so as evidenced by its refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol in 2001, weak and ineffective as it is. It's now up to the public and individual states to act in lieu of the federal government and hope a future administration may be more responsible than this one - a faint hope given the power and influence of energy industry that so far refuses alternatives to its interests and has been able to get its way. But the public can't stop trying because the alternative is catastrophic and mustn't be allowed to happen if at all posssible. Chapter 10 -- What Individuals Can Do: Energy Conservation and Efficiency - If the Government Won't Do It, People on Their Own Can Western Europeans are able to maintain a high living standard similar to people in the US using half the amount of energy we do. If they can do it comfortably, so can we, but we need the urging and mandating of reduced energy standards by government at the state and local levels combining to pressure the federal government to do the same. Dr. Caldicott lists a menu of ways we can live responsibly using energy-efficient technologies that have been available for many years and are becoming more sophisticated and cost effective all the time. They range from what we can do in our homes, the type of cars we drive and way we use them to how new buildings are constructed and much more. The key is the urgency to act, and the goal is energy efficiency and safety and the benefits to be gained from them. Everyone needs to be involved and many cities, states and businesses already are if only for the cost savings achieved by acting responsibly. A 2004 study by Synapse Energy Economics titled "A Responsible Electricity Future," offered a pragmatic and workable plan. It concluded that energy efficiency can reduce US electricity demand by almost 28% by 2025; non-hydro renewable energy, including geothermal, landfill gas, biomass, solar thermal, solar power generation, and especially wind power can provide 15% of US electricity needs by 2025; combined heat and power generation will produce 10% of it; oil, coal, and gas-fired generators can be retired after fifty operating years; and no new nuclear plants need be built and all old ones can be closed after 45 years of operation. The net result of this plan is many billions of dollars saved, a reduction in global warming, and a cleaner and safer environment free from the destruction guaranteed by the continued use of fossil fuels and nuclear power. Can it be done, and is there still time to do it? Some experts claim no on both counts, and they may be right. But that's no excuse for giving up and allowing a fate too frightful and devastating to allow to happen without a concerted effort to prevent it. Hope sustains us and when combined with commitment and enough effort by those of us willing to expend it, anything is not only possible, it quite likely can be attained. We have no time to waste because we've already wasted so much of it. Everyone should read Helen Caldicott's important new book and her previous one The New Nuclear Danger. The two combined clearly explain how threatening the military and commercial use of nuclear technology is to human survival. It's no exaggeration to say either we must destroy it or it will destroy us. Albert Einstein, whose theories led to the development of atomic power, knew this well and believed the splitting of the atom changed everything and threatened us all. In 1946, he said, after he understood the horror of Hiroshima: "Our world faces a crisis as yet unperceived by those possessing the power to make great decisions for good and evil. The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe." Einstein believed and was saying that unless nuclear technology is abolished, we face the real threat of our extinction. Helen Caldicott in her new book and her others is saying the same thing. Are we listening, do we understand, and will we act in time to save ourselves and our progeny? Stephen Lendman lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net * Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net -- also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com http://www.vheadline.com/lendman -------- africa Iran's plot to mine uranium in Africa Jon Swain, David Leppard and Brian Johnson-Thomas The UK Sunday Times August 06, 2006 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2300772,00.html IRAN is seeking to import large consignments of bomb-making uranium from the African mining area that produced the Hiroshima bomb, an investigation has revealed. A United Nations report, dated July 18, said there was no doubt that a huge shipment of smuggled uranium 238, uncovered by customs officials in Tanzania, was transported from the Lubumbashi mines in the Congo. Tanzanian customs officials told The Sunday Times it was destined for the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas, and was stopped on October 22 last year during a routine check. The disclosure will heighten western fears about the extent of Irans presumed nuclear weapons programme and the strategic implications of Irans continuing support for Hezbollah during the war with Israel. It has also emerged that terror cells backed by Iran may be prepared to mount attacks against nuclear power plants in Britain. Intelligence circulating in Whitehall suggests that sleeper cells linked to Tehran have been conducting reconnaissance at some nuclear sites in preparation for a possible attack. The parliamentary intelligence and security committee has reported that Iran represented one of the three biggest security threats to Britain. The UN security council has given Iran until the end of this month to halt its uranium enrichment activities. The UN has threatened sanctions if Tehran fails to do so. A senior Tanzanian customs official said the illicit uranium shipment was found hidden in a consignment of coltan, a rare mineral used to make chips in mobile telephones. The shipment was destined for smelting in the former Soviet republic of Kazakhstan, delivered via Bandar Abbas, Irans biggest port. There were several containers due to be shipped and they were all routinely scanned with a Geiger counter, the official said. This one was very radioactive. When we opened the container it was full of drums of coltan. Each drum contains about 50kg of ore. When the first and second rows were removed,the ones after that were found to be drums of uranium. In a nuclear reactor, uranium 238 can be used to breed plutonium used in nuclear weapons. The customs officer, who spoke to The Sunday Times on condition he was not named, added: The container was put in a secure part of the port and it was later taken away, by the Americans, I think, or at least with their help. We have all been told not to talk to anyone about this. The report by the UN investigation team was submitted to the chairman of the UN sanctions committee, Oswaldo de Rivero, at the end of July and will be considered soon by the security council. It states that Tanzania provided limited data on three other shipments of radioactive materials seized in Dar es Salaam over the past 10 years. The experts said: In reference to the last shipment from October 2005, the Tanzanian government left no doubt that the uranium was transported from Lubumbashi by road through Zambia to the united republic of Tanzania. Lubumbashi is the capital of mineral-rich Katanga province, home of the Shinkolobwe uranium mine that produced material for the two atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. The mine has officially been closed since 1961, before the countrys independence from Belgium, but the UN investigators have told the security council that they found evidence of illegal mining still going on at the site. In 1999 there were reports that the Congolese authorities had tried to re-open the mine with the help of North Korea. In recent years miners are said to have broken open the lids and extracted ore from the shafts, while police and local authorities turned a blind eye. In June a parliamentary committee warned that Britain could be attacked by Iranian terrorists if tensions increased. A source with access to current MI5 assessments said: There is great concern about Iranian sleeper cells inside this country. The intelligence services are taking this threat very seriously. ---- Seized uranium was headed for Iran Aug. 6, 2006 Washington Times http://washingtontimes.com/upi/20060806-112731-4290r.htm A huge shipment of smuggled bomb-making uranium, uncovered by customs officials in Tanzania, was headed for Iran, a United Nations report says. The uranium came from the same central African mining area in Congo that produced the Hiroshima bomb, the Sunday Times of London reports. The disclosure, coming on the same day Iran said it would defy a U.N. Security Council resolution and expand its uranium enrichment, has heightened Western fears that Iran will use enriched uranium to make atomic bombs. A senior Tanzanian customs official told the newspaper the illegal uranium shipment was found hidden in drums of coltan, a rare mineral used to make chips for cellphones. The shipment was destined for smelting in the former Soviet republic of Kazakhstan, delivered through Bandar Abbas, Iran's biggest port, the United Nations report says. Security officials at a port discovered the uranium 238 during a routine Geiger counter inspection to measure radiation. In a nuclear reactor, uranium 238 can used to breed plutonium used in nuclear weapons. ---- NUCLEAR WAR-FEAR Iran's smuggling of uranium from African mine uncovered Shipment of bomb-making material from 'closed' Congo site intercepted August 6, 2006 WorldNetDaily.com http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51405 Tanzanian customs officials have uncovered an Iranian smuggling operation transporting large quantities of bomb-making uranium from the same mines in the Congo that provided the nuclear material for the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima sixty-one years ago today, reports the London Sunday Times. A United Nations report, outlining the interception last October, said there is "no doubt" the smuggled uranium-238 came from mines in the Democratic Republic of the Congo's mineral-rich Katanga province. The Shinkolobwe uranium mine was officially closed and its main shafts covered with concrete in 1961, before the country became independent from Belgium, but U.N. investigators have reported evidence of ongoing mining operations. In the late 1990s, the government allowed small-scale mining for cobalt, leading to uncontrolled and dangerous mining activities that grew to 6,000 miners a day entering the former Shinkolobwe mine site. The U.S. demanded that the Congalese government regain control over the site because of fears that uranium could be bought and sold on the black market. Despite a ban on access to Shinkolobwe issued by President Joseph Kabila in January 2004, nine people were killed in a collapse at the site in July of that year. "The situation in Shinkolobwe could be described as anarchistic - there is no respect for mining safety regulations," Bernard Lamouille, an expert in small-scale mining who participated in the U.N. assessment, told the Environment News Service. According to reports in 1999, Congolese authorities sought assistance from North Korea to re-open the mine. The smuggled uranium discovered by Tanzanian customs agents was hidden in shipment of coltan, a rare mineral used to make chips in mobile telephones. According to the manifest, the coltan was to be smelted in the former Soviet republic of Kazakhstan after being shipped to Bandar Abbas, Iran's largest port. "There were several containers due to be shipped and they were all routinely scanned with a Geiger counter," one customs official said. "This one was very radioactive. When we opened the container it was full of drums of coltan. Each drum contains about 50 kilograms of ore. When the first and second rows were removed, the ones after that were found to be drums of uranium." Uranium-238, when used in a nuclear reactor, can be used to create plutonium for nuclear weapons. "The container was put in a secure part of the port and it was later taken away, by the Americans, I think, or at least with their help," he said. "We have all been told not to talk to anyone about this." According to the U.N. report, which has been submitted to the sanctions committee, Tanzania provided "limited data" on three other shipments of radioactive materials seized over the past ten years. "In reference to the last shipment from October 2005," the report reads, "the Tanzanian government left no doubt that the uranium was transported from [Katanga province] by road through Zambia to the United Republic of Tanzania." ---- Seized uranium was headed for Iran Aug. 6, 2006 United Press International http://www.dailyindia.com/show/49005.php/UPI-NewsTrack-TopNews DODOMA, Tanzania (UPI) -- A huge shipment of smuggled bomb-making uranium, uncovered by customs officials in Tanzania, was headed for Iran, a United Nations report says. The uranium came from the same central African mining area in Congo that produced the Hiroshima bomb, the Sunday Times of London reports. The disclosure, coming on the same day Iran said it would defy a U.N. Security Council resolution and expand its uranium enrichment, has heightened Western fears that Iran will use enriched uranium to make atomic bombs. A senior Tanzanian customs official told the newspaper the illegal uranium shipment was found hidden in drums of coltan, a rare mineral used to make chips for cellphones. The shipment was destined for smelting in the former Soviet republic of Kazakhstan, delivered through Bandar Abbas, Iran's biggest port, the United Nations report says. Security officials at a port discovered the uranium 238 during a routine Geiger counter inspection to measure radiation. In a nuclear reactor, uranium 238 can used to breed plutonium used in nuclear weapons. ---- Iran denies reported bid to import uranium from DR Congo by Staff Writers Tehran, Aug 6, 2006 (AFP) http://www.spacewar.com/reports/a060806125757.xptmmvg7.html Tehran on Sunday rejected a British newspaper report that Iran had tried to import uranium for its nuclear program from the Democratic Republic of Congo, calling it part of the West's "psychological war." The report "is utterly untrue, because we do not need to import uranium while we have uranium mines and a plant to reprocess it," Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani told reporters. "This is part of a psychological war which the Americans resort to once in a while to feed the public mind," Larijani added. Citing a senior Tanzanian customs officer, the British daily Sunday Times reported that a huge shipment of uranium 238, or U-238, bound for Iran's southern port of Bandar Abbas was intercepted on October 22, 2005 by customs officials in Tanzania during a routine check. The British publication also cited a United Nations report, due to be considered by the Security Council, which said there was "no doubt" that a large shipment of U-238 discovered in Tanzania was transported from the Lubumbashi mines in the DR Congo. The unnamed customs official said the uranium shipment was found hidden in a consignment of coltan, a rare mineral, which was destined for smelting in Kazakhstan after being transported through the Iranian port. U-238 is the stable heavyweight isotope which comprises more than 99 percent of raw uranium ore, but it is the lighter weight fissile isotope U-235, less than one percent of raw ore, which is the focus of enrichment processing because it can produce energy by splitting into smaller fragments. Larijani on Sunday also said his country would not suspend uranium enrichment, in a clear rejection of a UN resolution calling for a freeze of the sensitive nuclear work. Iran insists it wants to enrich uranium only to make reactor fuel for power stations but the West suspect Tehran wants the capacity to make weapons-grade uranium. A recent UN resolution called on Iran to halt uranium enrichment and other sensitive nuclear fuel work by August 31 or face the prospect of sanctions. -------- britain Reactors radioactive dirty laundry 06 August 2006 UK Sunday Herald By Rob Edwards http://www.sundayherald.com/57100 THE nuclear industrys attempt to clean up its image in support of Tony Blairs promised programme of new reactors has been marred by some dirty washing. The Sunday Herald can reveal that the laundry at Hunterston nuclear power station in North Ayrshire has sprung a leak. Radioactive water escaped from a tank, causing it to be shut down. The revelation is described as very worrying by anti-nuclear campaigners, who are calling for an independent investigation. But British Energy, the company that runs Hunterston, dismisses the leak as a relatively minor occurrence. Overalls worn by workers in contaminated areas have to be washed in Hunterstons laundry to remove traces of radioactivity. Dirty water from the wash is pumped into two tanks, where it is stored before being disposed of. But on the night of 18-19 July one of the tanks started leaking. As a result, British Energy has stopped using it while it carries out repairs. According to the company, waste water leaked only into a contained area around the tank and the levels of radioactivity in the water were negligible. But this was little comfort to Rita Holmes, who represents Fairlie Community Council on the Hunterston Site Stakeholder Group. It makes it sound like Hunterston is falling to bits, she said. British Energy cant even seem to do its dirty laundry without making a radioactive mess. The incident casts doubt on the competence of the nuclear industry and should be immediately investigated by the safety regulators. According to British Energy, however, the incident did not breach any regulations so did not have to be formally notified to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency or the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate. The leak was identified quickly and immediate action taken, stressed the companys spokeswoman, Sue Fletcher. At no time did water leak outside the building. She said: Laundry water is currently being stored in and discharged from the second tank only until repairs are completed. We are one tank down, but the procedure for discharges remains the same, and we continue to be well within consented discharge limits. ---- Nuclear power links to 'sham' energy review Firm that handled submissions 'misrepresented' benefits of atomic power Juliette Jowit, environment editor Sunday August 6, 2006 The UK Observer http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1838079,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=15 Key consultants working on the government's controversial energy review, which recommended a new generation of nuclear power stations, have strong links to the nuclear industry, The Observer can reveal. Experts on both sides of the debate criticised the use of AEA Technology, formed by the privatisation of the Atomic Energy Authority, to handle hundreds of submissions to the review's public consultation earlier this year. The company has sold most of its nuclear businesses, but still has a nuclear waste unit, and senior executives and staff have links to the old authority and other parts of the nuclear industry. Critics claim objections to nuclear energy were ignored or misrepresented in AEA Technology's report. However, The Observer can reveal that the report found nuclear power got by far the lowest support of 15 energy options. The revelations will add to widespread criticism that the review, published last month, was a 'sham', designed to push through nuclear energy because it was favoured by the Prime Minister. Dai Davies, the independent MP whose question in the House of Commons forced ministers to reveal the identity of the consultants, said he was not anti-nuclear but was worried the company's industry links would undermine public confidence in the review. 'I wondered why it [nuclear] was being pushed and pushed and pushed,' said Davies, who stood as an independent after quitting Labour because he felt it had changed too much. 'Vested interests is the worry... Unless we are open and honest and debate openly, that suspicion is going to be with us for a long, long time.' David Moorhouse, chief executive of Lloyd's Register, the risk management group which has analysed risks in the energy industry, said he also does not oppose nuclear, but was worried about using a company 'whose livelihoods depended on nuclear up until their sale into the private industry'. He said: 'While AEA may have given this its absolute best and neutral approach, it doesn't smell like that to the average man.' Other experts who made submissions said they felt their evidence was underplayed and misrepresented; that there were concerns that ministers allowed only 12 weeks for the consultation; and that it was done before other important studies on nuclear waste and safety regulation were published. There was praise, however, for AEA's publication of a summary table of the most-supported low-carbon technologies, which showed that nuclear power was the only one of the 15 to get more opposition than support. The widest support was for wind power, solar and bio-fuels. Of the 18 responses included in the summary which commented on nuclear, 10 were opposed to the nuclear option and eight were in favour. The 10 opposing submissions were all from individuals, the eight favourable responses were all from organisation. 'There's a great gulf between what's in the review and what's in the submissions,' said Bob Everett, lecturer in renewable energy at the Open University. 'When I think of all the people who sent in submissions, I think they'll be very, very angry, but not surprised.' AEA Technology defended its professionalism, saying it wins work around the world because it has wide expertise beyond the nuclear industry and by 'being respected for the quality and independence of our work'. The company's clients include the European Commission, the World Bank and the UN. 'AEA Environment is a large independent environmental and energy consultancy,' it said. 'As well as covering the full breadth of environmental issues, we are acknowledged to be experts in energy efficiency, renewable energy, and clean coal technology. We are also acknowledged to have experience and skills in independently assessing the results of consultations on these and other environmental issues.' The DTI said AEA Technology was chosen to help with the review because of its 'experience of this kind of work and in a broad range of sustainable energy issues'. A spokesman also defended the resulting review. 'We considered evidence received on energy policy in the round - both demand and supply - and the outcomes are a balanced package of measures on energy efficiency, on renewables, on cleaning up fossil fuels and on nuclear energy,' he added. Last month Stephen Hale, the former special advisor to the previous Environment Secretary, Margaret Beckett, wrote in The Observer that the energy review was a 'sham' and the Prime Minister 'refused to consider the alternatives'. Since the review, nuclear power has suffered a number of set-backs. The Finnish government announced that construction of the first of a new generation of nuclear power stations in Europe, seen as an important forerunner for the UK, would be delayed by a year. During the recent heatwave nuclear reactors in mainland Europe have had to be shut down, and others allowed to release harmful hot water into rivers. The US-based Nuclear Information and Resource Service opposition group also reported uranium prices have risen 600 per cent in five years, threatening nuclear's traditional operating cost advantage. Special report The nuclear industry http://observer.guardian.co.uk/Guardian/nuclear/0,,181325,00.html Useful links British Energy http://www.british-energy.com/ Department of Trade and Industry http://www.dti.gov.uk/ British Nuclear Fuels Ltd http://www.bnfl.com/ Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament http://www.cnduk.org/ Greenpeace http://www.greenpeace.org/homepage/ Come Clean WMD awareness programme http://www.comeclean.org.uk/ UK atomic energy authority http://www.ukaea.org.uk/ National Radiological Protection Board http://www.nrpb.org.uk/ Friends of the Earth http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/climate/press_for_change/dump_nuclear/index.html World Nuclear Association http://www.uilondon.org/ World Nuclear Transport Institute http://www.wnti.co.uk/ -------- iran Iran plans to expand nuclear activities Updated 8/6/2006 (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-08-06-iran-nuclear_x.htm TEHRAN, Iran Iran's top nuclear negotiator said Sunday that Iran will expand uranium enrichment, in defiance of a U.N. Security Council resolution giving the Islamic Republic until Aug. 31 to halt the activity or face the threat of political and economic sanctions. Ali Larijani called the U.N. Security Council resolution issued last week illegal and said Iran won't respect the deadline. "We reject this resolution," he told reporters. "We will expand nuclear activities where required. It includes all nuclear technology including the string of centrifuges," Larijani said, referring to the centrifuges Iran uses to enrich uranium. He said Iran had not violated any of its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, and that the U.N. had no right to require it suspend enrichment. "We won't accept suspension," he said. Larijani said the Security Council resolution contradicted a package of Western incentives offered in June to persuade Tehran to suspend its enrichment activities. He reiterated that Iran would formally respond to the incentives package on Aug. 22. Iran has said it will never give up its right to produce nuclear fuel, but has indicated it may suspend large-scale activities to ease tensions with the West. Larijani said the world should blame the United States and its allies for acting against their proposed package and seeking to deny Iran its rights under the NPT. The United States has accused Iran of seeking nuclear weapons. Tehran maintains its program is peaceful and intended to generate electricity. In February, Iran for the first time produced a batch of low-enriched uranium, using a cascade of 164 centrifuges. The process of uranium enrichment can be used to generate electricity or to create an atomic weapon, depending on the level of enrichment. Iran said it plans to install 3,000 centrifuges at its enrichment plant in Natanz, central Iran, by the end of the year. Industrial production of enriched uranium in Natanz would require 54,000 centrifuges. Hard-liners within Iran's ruling Islamic establishment have called on the government to withdraw from the NPT in response to the U.N. resolution, but the government has not heeded the call. ---- Iran insists it will not freeze nuclear work by Hiedeh Farmani Tehran, Aug 6, 2006 (AFP) http://www.spacewar.com/reports/a060806113456.7qwh2gfj.html Iran insisted Sunday it will not freeze uranium enrichment, in defiance of a UN resolution and warned it could even expand its nuclear programme which the West fears is a cover for efforts to build the bomb. "Our activities respect the Non-Proliferation Treaty... so we will not accept the suspension (of uranium enrichment)," nuclear chief Ali Larijani told a news conference, in the first formal reaction to the July 31 resolution. "They should know that such resolutions will not affect our determination. We will pursue the nuclear rights of Iranians which are enshrined in the NPT." The UN Security Council resolution requires Iran to halt uranium enrichment and other sensitive nuclear fuel work by August 31 or face the prospect of sanctions. "This resolution has no legal credibility and it negates the purpose of the (International Atomic Energy) Agency," Larijani said. The resolution was pushed through after Iran ignored a previous non-binding deadline and failed to respond to an international offer of a package of incentives in exchange for a moratorium on nuclear fuel work. Iran, OPEC's second largest oil exporter, insists it wants to enrich uranium only to make reactor fuel for power stations, but there is widespread suspicion the country wants the capacity to make weapons-grade uranium. And Larijani warned world powers against imposing sanctions, suggesting that Iran could use oil as a weapon. "It will have a huge international impact. They will lose more than us. They should not do something that will leave them shivering in winter". Larijani also said that Iran could expand its nuclear activities by increasing the cascade of centrifuges used for uranium enrichment. In April, Iran said it had successfully enriched uranium to 3.5 percent using 164 centrifuges. It also plans to install 3,000 centrifuges at its enrichment plant in Natanz, central Iran, by the end of the Iranian year in March 2007. To reach weapons-grade material, the enrichment level has to reach more than 90 percent. Larijani however said that Iran was still studying the package of incentives offered by Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States on June 6, saying it "had the potential to resolve the nuclear issues". The package, handed to Tehran on June 6, offers trade, technology, diplomatic and other incentives as well as multilateral talks -- also involving the United States -- if Iran agrees to freeze enrichment. Larijani said Iran would respond to the offer by August 22, but that the UN resolution had "badly affected the opportunity (represented by the offer) and our attitude". "The question is not what Iran's response will be, but to create an atmosphere to pursue the process (of negotiations)." "The proposal has positive points as well as ambiguities. Negotiations must be constructive and away from pressure, to enable the ambiguities to be removed," he added. "Even if they (the UN Security Council members) have any reasons to (demand) suspension of enrichment they should address them in negotiations. But they cannot prescribe it before talks," he said. The Security Council has charged IAEA chief Mohammed ElBaradei with reporting back on Iranian compliance. If it does not comply, the council would consider adopting "appropriate measures" under Article 41 of Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which relates to economic sanctions. ---- Iran Vows More Atom Work By REUTERS August 6, 2006 http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-nuclear-iran.html?pagewanted=print TEHRAN - Iran vowed on Sunday to expand its atomic fuel work and warned that any U.N. sanctions aimed at halting its uranium enrichment would incur a painful riposte, possibly including a cut in oil exports. Chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said Iran would expand the number of atomic centrifuges it was running. Centrifuges enrich uranium by spinning it at supersonic speeds. ``We will expand nuclear technology at whatever stage it may be necessary and all of Iran's nuclear technology including the (centrifuge) cascades will be expanded,'' he told a news conference. Such remarks flatly reject a U.N. Security Council resolution demanding Tehran halt its nuclear work by August 31 or face the threat of sanctions. The West fears Iran will use enriched uranium to make atomic bombs. Iranian officials, who argue they need enriched uranium only to run power stations, say the resolution was illegal and that Tehran has every right to produce fuel from the uranium ore that it mines in its central deserts. Iran said in April it had produced enriched uranium from a cascade of 164 centrifuges. It has told the International Atomic Energy Agencyit will start installing 3,000 centrifuges later this year, enough to produce material for a nuclear warhead in one year. IRAN WILL HIT BACK AGAINST SANCTIONS Larijani said the expansion of atomic work would be conducted under the supervision of the IAEA but even that could be in question if Iran felt unfairly treated. ``We do not want to end the supervision of the agency, but you should not do anything to force Iran to do so,'' he said. He warned the U.N. Security Council not to impose sanctions on the world's fourth biggest exporter of crude oil. ``If they do, we will react in a way that would be painful for them. They should not think that they can hurt us and we would stand still without a reaction,'' he said. ``We do not want to use the oil weapon, it is they who would impose it upon us. Iran should be allowed to defend its rights in proportion to their stance,'' he added. Although Iran has intermittently threatened to use its massive oil exports as a weapon in international diplomacy, Tehran receives 80 percent of its export earnings from energy and would find such a cut hard to maintain. ``Do not force us to do something that will make people shiver in the cold. We do not want that,'' said Larijani, stressing Iran's reluctance to cut energy supplies. Iranian officials often say that sanctions would hurt the West more than Tehran by lifting already high oil prices to levels that would be unmanageable for industrialised economies. However, analysts and diplomats point out Iran's economy would be highly vulnerable to sanctions on gasoline imports, European financing and industrial components. ---- Iran Vows to Expand Uranium Enrichment By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS August 6, 2006 http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Iran-Nuclear.html?pagewanted=print TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran vowed Sunday to expand its uranium enrichment, defying a U.N. Security Council deadline for it to suspend its nuclear activities by the end of the month or face the threat of political and economic sanctions. Top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani's statement was Tehran's first warning since the resolution passed that it could step up its atomic program. It suggested Iran is feeling emboldened in its main confrontation with the West, over its nuclear program, as Europe and the United States scramble to deal with the escalating violence between Israel and Lebanon-based Hezbollah militants. ''We will expand nuclear activities where required. It includes all nuclear technology including the string of centrifuges,'' Larijani said, referring to the equipment Iran uses to enrich uranium, which can be used as fuel for a nuclear reactor or fissile material for an atomic warhead. Iran also gave its Hezbollah allies a green light to keep fighting in Lebanon, saying that the United States -- which put forward a cease-fire plan with France Saturday -- can't be a mediator in the crisis because of its support for Israel. The U.S. has ''no right to enter the crisis as a mediator'' in the Mideast fighting, hard-line Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in a telephone conversation with his top ally, Syrian President Bashar Assad, according to a report on Ahmadinejad's official Web site. ''They (the U.S.) think that through the U.N and the Security Council they can achieve the goals which they could not achieve militarily,'' he said. The outbreak of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah -- triggered by a July 12 militant raid into Israel that ended with the capture of two Israeli soldiers -- has moved the focus of the Security Council's attention from its efforts to halt Iran's uranium enrichment program. Many in the U.S., Europe, the Arab world and Israel accuse Iran of fueling the warfare in Lebanon through Hezbollah in a bid to show its regional strength. Iran denies that it is arming the guerrillas and says it wants a cease-fire -- but on terms fair to Lebanon. Meanwhile, the United States and many in Europe also accuse Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, though Iran denies the claim, saying it aims only to generate electricity. Larijani denounced the July 31 U.N. nuclear vote as ''illegal'' and said, ''We reject this resolution.'' Larijani said Iran intends to meet Tehran's previously announced goal of responding by Aug. 22 to a package of incentives put forward in June by the U.S. and Western nations to entice Iran into suspending enrichment. The United Nations said the sanctions threat in the deadline would be revoked if Iran accepts the package -- but the resolution reflected Western impatience over the months Tehran has taken to respond to the offer. Larijani said the deadline threat was ''contrary'' to the incentives package and blamed the West for damaging efforts for a diplomatic solution. ''We were expected to hold talks ... to remove ambiguities ... but they issued a resolution (at the U.N. Security Council) and killed it (talks). They should explain why they damaged the path of dialogue,'' he said. Larijani insisted the U.N. had no right to require Iran suspend enrichment, saying his country has not violated any of its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty. He said any expansion of enrichment would remain under the supervision of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency. The U.S. and France agreed last week on a draft U.N. resolution calling for a cease-fire, but Hezbollah has effectively rejected it, saying it doesn't address Lebanese demands and would leave Israeli troops in Lebanon for the time being. Saeed Laylaz, an Iranian political analyst, said the Mideast fighting has prompted Iran to toughen its line on the nuclear issue and ''conclude that the West is intent on confronting Iran. It shows how the situation has exacerbated in the Mideast.'' A cease-fire on the terms laid out in the draft resolution could be a setback for Hezbollah, which has won support across the region by the tougher than expected fight it has put up against the Israeli military. Iran's comments Sunday signaled that it wouldn't back down easily on either front, Lebanon or the nuclear issue. Iran's state-run radio said in a commentary that Iran was serious in its defiance of the U.N. resolution demanding a suspension of enrichment. ''Iran stands ready to pay the necessary price in defending the rights of the Iranian nation,'' it said. -------- israel U.S. & Israel Selecting Targets for Cruise Missile First-Strike Attack Date: Sun Aug 6, 2006 8:41 am From: "Global Network" U.S. & Israel Selecting Targets for Cruise Missile First-Strike Attack Multiple military sources have told the Global Network that Pentagon personnel responsible for selecting targets for cruise missile first strike attacks have been sent to Israel. This indicates that U.S. and Israeli military strategists are now likely meeting to plan a join attack on Syria and/or Iran. The Persian Gulf war and the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq both began with cruise missile attacks by the U.S. from Naval ships. It would be wise to recognize that Bush has decided to expand the current war and chaos into the entire Middle East region. The implications for the U.S. will be enormous. Israel's recent bombing of Lebanon near the Syrian border indicate to me that they are trying to draw a response from Syria. So far Syria has not responded. Look for more such efforts by Israel and the U.S. to provoke Syria. I would highly recommend local peace groups call on their members of Congress and ask them to speak out against a further widening of this already insane war. More and larger public protests should be organized immediately. Bruce K. Gagnon Coordinator Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space PO Box 652 Brunswick, ME 04011 (207) 729-0517 http://www.space4peace.org globalnet@mindspring.com http://space4peace.blogspot.com (our blog) -------- japan Memories still strong for Japanese A-bomb survivors August 6, 2006 The Yomiuri Shimbun http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060806/NEWS/608060339/1002/NEWS01 HIROSHIMA, Japan Survivors of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945, have mixed feelings about the recent interest in the battleship Yamato, another symbol of World War II, which was built in a dockyard in Kure, Hiroshima Prefecture. The number of visitors to the Yamato Museum in Kure exceeded 2 million in July, reflecting the box-office success of the war movie "Yamato," which earned 5 billion yen in theaters. But for Yasuo Yasugi, a 78-year-old former crew member of the giant battleship, the museum is not the place where his strongest wartime memory rests. Yasugi was walking along a riverbank in Hiroshima the day after the bomb explosion when someone suddenly grabbed his right leg. "Give me water, please," a boy said in a faint voice. Yamato had 3,332 crewmembers on board when it sank in April 1945. Only 276 survived. Yasugi is one of five people, out of less than 30 crewmembers alive today, who suffered a double tragedy in being exposed to radiation in Hiroshima. He was involved in a training mission on the outskirts of Kure when the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and was ordered to join reconstruction efforts at Hiroshima Station the next day. There were numerous casualties in the city, but Yasugi and other men were ordered not to engage in rescue efforts. They were told to give priority to re-building the station, which was a strategic point for the military supply line. Yasugi, who now lives in Fukuyama, Hiroshima Prefecture, regrets following the order and not helping the boy. He has never returned to that riverbank. He also kept the story to himself for 60 years until his memoir, "Battleship Yamato, a Will of the Last Crew," was published last year. "I want the younger generations to think deeply about what human life means," he said, explaining what motivated him to write the book. Sunao Tsuboi, another survivor of the atomic bomb attack and chairman of the Japan Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Sufferers Organization, paid a visit to the Yamato Museum in April. The 81-year-old Tsuboi saw the real Yamato being built in a naval dockyard in Kure before the war while on his way to school. He was struck by a sense of nostalgia in seeing a one-tenth-scale model of Yamato in the museum. "I used to be a pro-military boy who believed Japan would never lose as long as we had the Yamato," he said. But Tsuboi was not satisfied with the exhibition at the museum because it showed only one piece related to the atomic bomb a picture of a mushroom cloud taken in Kure. "The reality behind the atomic bomb explosion can get obscured by all the craze about Yamato," he said.Tsuboi felt the bomb explosion 61 years ago, just over a kilometer away from ground zero. He still has a scar on his forehead from the burn he suffered from the ensuing heat wave. Sunday, the 61st anniversary of the horrific event, will be just another day for Tsuboi to continue his life's work of telling children what people experienced in Hiroshima on that day. ---- A-bomb survivors leery of battleship hype The Yomiuri Shimbun Aug. 6, 2006 http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/20060806TDY03001.htm Survivors of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945, have mixed feelings about the recent interest in the battleship Yamato, another symbol of World War II, which was built in a dockyard in Kure, Hiroshima Prefecture. The number of visitors to the Yamato Museum in Kure exceeded 2 million in July, reflecting the box-office success of the war movie "Yamato," which earned 5 billion yen in theaters. But for Yasuo Yasugi, a 78-year-old former crew member of the giant battleship, the museum is not the place where his strongest wartime memory rests. Yasugi was walking along a riverbank in Hiroshima the day after the bomb explosion when someone suddenly grabbed his right leg. "Give me water, please," a boy said in a faint voice. Yamato had 3,332 crew members on board when it sank in April 1945. Only 276 survived. Yasugi is one of five people, out of less than 30 crew members alive today, who suffered a double tragedy in being exposed to radiation in Hiroshima. He was involved in a training mission on the outskirts of Kure when the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and was ordered to join reconstruction efforts at Hiroshima Station the next day. There were numerous casualties in the city, but Yasugi and other men were ordered not to engage in rescue efforts. They were told to give priority to building the station, which was a strategic point for the military supply line. Yasugi, who now lives in Fukuyama, Hiroshima Prefecture, regrets following the order and not helping the boy. He has never returned to that riverbank. He also kept the story to himself for 60 years until his memoir, "Battleship Yamato, a Will of the Last Crew," was published last year. "I want the younger generations to think deeply about what human life means," he said, explaining what motivated him to write the book. Sunao Tsuboi, another survivor of the atomic bomb attack and chairman of the Japan Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Sufferers Organization, paid a visit to the Yamato Museum in April. The 81-year-old Tsuboi saw the real Yamato being built in a naval dockyard in Kure before the war while on his way to school. He was struck by a sense of nostalgia in seeing a one-tenth-scale model of Yamato in the museum. "I used to be a pro-military boy who believed Japan would never lose as long as we had the Yamato," he said. But Tsuboi was not satisfied with the exhibition at the museum because it showed only one piece related to the atomic bomb--a picture of a mushroom cloud taken in Kure. "The reality behind the atomic bomb explosion can get obscured by all the craze about Yamato," he said. Tsuboi felt the bomb explosion 61 years ago, just over a kilometer away from ground zero. He still has a scar on his forehead from the burn he suffered from the ensuing heat wave. Today, the 61st anniversary of the horrific event, will be just another day for Tsuboi to continue his life's work of telling children what people experienced in Hiroshima on that day. ---- Peace declaration skirts new nuclear threat The Yomiuri Shimbun Aug. 6, 2006 http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/editorial/20060806TDY04006.htm Why could the tragic atomic bombings of Japan in 1945 not have been avoided? Today marks the 61st anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, and Wednesday will mark the same for Nagasaki. Is it not time to begin calmly discussing responsibility for the atomic bombings without being swayed by the ideological or political confrontation between conservative and progressive forces? The rules of engagement agreed on by warring parties in World War II prohibited the use of weapons that inflict unnecessary suffering and attacks on defenseless cities. Some observers suggest the atomic bombings could violate this agreement. Just 10 years have passed since the International Court of Justice in The Hague issued an advisory opinion that, in general, the use of nuclear weapons violates international law. Even in the cities obliterated by the atomic bombs in 1945, movements have sprouted that question why the bombs were dropped and where responsibility for their development and the decision to drop them rests. In July, a mock international trial organized in Hiroshima by citizens, mainly atomic bomb victims and lawyers, found 15 Americans treated as defendants, including former U.S. President Harry Truman, who made the final decision to use the atomic bombs, guilty of committing crimes against humanity through their roles in the process that eventually led to the bombs being dropped. Differing perceptions In the United States, the commonly accepted view is that the atomic bombings helped hasten the end of the war, thereby reducing the number of war casualties that could have been expected had the fighting dragged on. Although a wide perception gap over the atomic bombings remains between Japan and the United States, discussing the matter is imperative. The mock trial likely was held in a mood of anti-U.S. sentiment typical of many conventional antinuclear movements. Calm, rational discussion was at a premium in the trial. Some observers suggest the atomic bombings could have been avoided if the war had ended earlier. Chances for the guns to fall silent sooner they did presented themselves many times, such as the time of Germany's surrender, the end of fighting on Okinawa, and the announcement of the Potsdam Declaration in which the Allied Powers presented Japan with conditions for its surrender. Discussion on responsibility for the destruction wrought by the atomic bombs also must home in on the actions of Japan's leaders and why they dilly-dallied when it come to ending the war. A missed chance Days commemorating the atomic bombings will come about one month after North Korea test-fired seven missiles, which could be used to carry nuclear warheads, in defiance of warnings from the international community. Hiroshima and Nagasaki officials have a prime opportunity to issue a message conveying the atomic bomb victims' anger over Pyongyang's brazen act. However, Hiroshima Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba will not touch upon such a message in the Peace Declaration he will make Sunday. Instead, the pillar of his declaration will be an action program that urges 1,403 cities in the world belonging to the "Mayors for Peace," an organization headed by Akiba, to press nuclear powers to confirm whether their cities are targets of the weapons and, if they are, to exclude them from the target list. But would any nation realistically disclose top military secrets, such as which cities are in its nuclear sights? If Akiba's declaration throws up only starry-eyed slogans far removed from the current international situation, he will be turning a blind eye to the gravest nuclear attack threat facing Japan. ---- Pilgrims in Hiroshima pray for peace on 61st anniversary Thousands call on world leaders to abandon nukes By ISSEI KATO Reuters News Service Aug. 6, 2006 http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/4097362.html HIROSHIMA, JAPAN - Tens of thousands of people from around the world gathered in Hiroshima today to pray for peace and urge the world to abandon nuclear weapons on the 61st anniversary of the first atomic bombing. In an annual ritual to mourn the more than 240,000 people who ultimately died from the blast, a crowd including survivors, children and dignitaries gathered at the Peace Memorial Park, near ground zero where the bomb was dropped. "Radiation, heat, blast and their synergetic effects created a hell on Earth," said Hiroshima Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba. Lamenting a global trend toward nuclear proliferation, Akiba called for a campaign to free the world of atomic weapons. "Sixty-one years later, the number of nations enamored of evil and enslaved by nuclear weapons is increasing," Akiba told the crowd gathered under a blazing summer sun. "The human family stands at a crossroads. Will all nations be enslaved? Or will all nations be liberated?" The Peace Bell tolled at 8:15 a.m. the moment the Enola Gay B-29 warplane dropped the bomb on Aug. 6, 1945 as the crowd stood and bowed their heads for a moment of silence. The United States dropped a second atomic bomb on the southern city of Nagasaki on Aug. 9. Six days later, Japan surrendered. Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi vowed to abide by Japan's pacifist constitution and nonnuclear policy. "Japan, the only country that has suffered atomic bombings in the human history, has the responsibility to keep telling the international community about its experience," Koizumi said. "With the resolve not to let the tragedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki repeat itself anywhere, Japan has delivered on its pledge not to wage war in the past 61 years." Under Koizumi, Japan has enacted legislation allowing its troops to play a greater security role abroad and sent soldiers to Iraq on a reconstruction and humanitarian mission, the military's largest and riskiest operation since 1945. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan expressed fear that nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of "nonstate actors." "More than six decades after the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the unspeakable horror of nuclear weapons remain etched in our collective consciousness," Annan said in a message read on his behalf during the 45-minute ceremony. "The worrying possibility of dangerous nuclear material falling into the hands of nonstate actors should energize efforts to strengthen the nonproliferation regime." Photos: Tens of thousands call for peace at A-bomb anniversary http://english.people.com.cn/200608/06/eng20060806_290347.html ---- A voice for healing A woman who survived Hiroshima as a child and built a new life in the U.S. heads back to her homeland, bearing a musical message of peace, love and hope for the future Sunday, August 06, 2006 KATY MULDOON The Oregonian http://www.oregonlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/living/1154742939314890.xml&coll=7 A bright day had faded to dark in Ashland, and although Hideko Tamura Snider was tired, she sat tall in a church's front pew, clasping her hands as tightly as a mother might hold a child's. She wasn't praying. She was listening. At the altar, her 33-year-old daughter, Miko Rose, rehearsed a solo, filling the First Congregational Church with her sweet, resonant voice. The notes she sang were familiar: the tune to "Danny Boy." But Miko had crafted new lyrics, so the song would honor Hideko's mother, lost long ago to war. With just a month left before she, her mother and others in the Rogue Valley Peace Choir planned to leave for performances in Japan, Miko needed to perfect her "Prayer for Hiroshima." It was Hideko's idea: Her choir should take its message of peace and harmony to Japan, particularly during a year when bloodshed dominates the world's headlines. She was glad when Miko agreed to join the program, singing "Prayer for Hiroshima" today near the spot where their family's history, and the world's, changed 61 years ago. On that Aug. 6, Hideko (pronounced HEE-decko) was 11 years old, relaxing on a sunny morning at her grandfather's home a mile from ground zero, when the atomic bomb fell. Silver-haired now and wearing the graceful creases of 72 years around her eyes, she evokes the quiet wisdom of a woman who has worked a lifetime to heal herself and others. Still, the memories bring tears. Hideko expects them to brim in her brown eyes today, when Miko sings her solo during a ceremony in Hiroshima's Peace Memorial Park. If spirits and souls rest there, Hideko said, "they will be calmed by her singing -- because one grain of wheat survived." World War II raged. To safeguard children from bombings, Japanese authorities ordered them to evacuate the cities. Hideko was 11 years old with short black bangs and a mischievous smile. Her parents prepared her belongings and packed her a lunch bursting with hard-to-find treats: eggs, fishcakes, sweet beans and shiitake mushrooms. And before dawn on April 10, 1945, they watched their daughter and a swarm of her schoolmates board a train that chugged away from Hiroshima's station. Some children wept for hours as they traveled toward a mountain village, where they would live together in a temple and attend the village school. As she remembers it, life in exile was a miserable mix of substandard schooling, forced labor, hunger, head lice and homesickness. Toothaches plagued Hideko, and her stomach churned with anxiety. She begged to come home, and, eventually, her parents relented. On the afternoon of Aug. 4, 1945, Hideko's mother, Kimiko Tamura, traveled from Hiroshima to collect her daughter. Her mother suggested they stay an extra day in the village and rest before the return trip. But persuasive Hideko insisted they get home as quickly as possible. They left at dawn the next day, Aug. 5. After traveling by horse cart and truck, they arrived that afternoon back at her grandfather's tranquil, walled estate a mile from Hiroshima's center. Hideko couldn't have been happier. She woke the next morning on her own futon in her own room. On her breakfast tray was rice porridge and a soft pickled plum. The sky was bright and the day stretched ahead, full of promise. Her mother was taller than most Japanese women and preferred Western styles to kimonos. With her large, expressive eyes and long lashes, Kimiko Tamura turned heads, her daughter remembers. That morning, she had to work on the mandatory community task of demolishing vacant buildings to reduce the fire danger from bombings. Hiroshima's homes and industrial buildings were constructed largely of wood, so fire was a constant concern. In her autobiography, "One Sunny Day: A Child's Memories of Hiroshima" (Open Court, 244 pages, $17.95), Hideko recalls walking her mother to the backdoor. In her gentle, soft-spoken manner, she told Hideko, "See you in just a short time." Hideko returned to bed. A breeze blew through the bedroom window, and she picked up a book, the story of a samurai duel. About 7:15 a.m., the air-raid siren blared. She'd heard it before and had practiced running to a shelter. She turned on the radio to get details. Three enemy planes -- not many by war standards -- were headed toward Hiroshima. One hour later, a B-29 called the Enola Gay dropped the atomic bomb -- dubbed "Little Boy" -- on Hiroshima. "On that day . . . the sun and the earth melted together," Hideko wrote many years later in the book she penned so that her daughter and son would know the story. She remembers the blinding flash and the thermal wind's swift, swishing sound, like a rushing waterfall. Then boom! A thunderous explosion shook the ground, her home -- everything -- so violently that, 61 years later, she hasn't forgotten the terror she felt. Hideko braced her little-girl body between a heavy beam and a cupboard, but she couldn't stay upright. As thick, black air swirled, the room's contents crashed around and on top of her. Finally, the shaking stopped and the wind calmed. The sooty air began to clear. The beam Hideko grabbed had protected her. She dug out of the debris and got a glimpse outside the house. In her grandfather's garden, the sun shone on mossy rocks, as if nothing had happened. Glass had sliced open Hideko's right foot, and bruises marred her skin. But compared with what she was about to see, she was in good shape. Inside the garden gate, she found her uncle. Shards of glass protruded from his body, and a nail was imbedded in his throat. He was alive but kept saying that the end had come. Hideko remembered her mother's warning: If she ever survived a bombing, she should run because fire surely would follow. Sure enough, she saw a fireball rising from a nearby factory. She begged her dazed aunts and uncles to leave with her. None did. Outside her home's walls, Hideko found flattened buildings, ongoing explosions and billows of smoke. Bloodied neighbors wandered the streets in shock. Many were so hideously burned that blistered skin hung from their limbs like strips of fabric. Hideko moved, as her mother had taught, toward the Ota River, where she could wash her bleeding foot and, if need be, escape fire. Where, she wondered, were her parents? Her mother had been in the city center and her father, a draftee in the Imperial Japanese Army, worked as a transportation officer at Hiroshima's harbor. In the days that followed, she accepted rides, meals and beds from strangers. A farmer who helped her also tracked down her father, told him that Hideko was OK and relayed the message back that she was to reunite with uncles, aunts and her grandmother, who had taken refuge in a guest room, 50 miles outside Hiroshima. She did, but soon returned to the city with relatives to search for her mother and a cousin. At rescue stations they encountered the burned, the barely living and, mostly, the dead. Hideko remembers the charred skin and the stench. She recalls someone begging for water, and how helpless she felt with none to give. She found neither her mother nor her cousin, who was her best friend. But others had seen them. Both, she learned, were dead. In the weeks that followed, Hideko recalls, many who didn't appear injured grew ill with rashes, vomiting and bleeding gums. The radiation poisoning killed some swiftly. Estimates vary dramatically, but of the roughly 255,000 people living in the southern Japan city, it's thought that 66,000 to 110,000 died the day the bomb fell. Most were civilians. By December, casualties from the bomb and its effects rose to as many as 140,000, according to the A-Bomb WWW Museum, an online project of Hiroshima City University and others. In the years that followed, bomb-related deaths climbed to perhaps 200,000 as radiation poisoning and cancer claimed survivors. Many children born after the bombing suffered physical and mental defects. The psychological toll on survivors is immeasurable. And many who lived through the blast became outcasts: Men declined to marry survivors because of the risk they might not bear healthy children. Some employers wouldn't hire survivors, fearing health problems would hamper their attendance and productivity. To this day, people worldwide debate whether the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and on Nagasaki three days later were necessary to swiftly end the war. But this was the U.S. view: Roughly 200,000 American lives already had been lost fighting the Japanese; 72,000 Americans died in the Battle of Okinawa, and many more would have died, it was expected, if the United States invaded Japan. By the end of August, the radiation poisoning that had sickened others struck Hideko. She felt exhausted, and her legs grew as scaly as a lizard's. Hideko remembers counting the lesions that appeared on her thighs, shins and calves, losing track at 75. Boils turned to scabs, and her fever rose until she was delirious. The army had detained her father to help dismantle the military and to clear corpses and debris from the city. But Hideko was so sick that the family sent for him. One passage in her book describes what happened next: Her father's sister had just arrived from an island with what she called a special cure -- a live snapping turtle. Her father was to behead it and collect the blood for Hideko to drink. Reluctantly, she swallowed the vile fluid. The next morning her fever fell. She recovered. Hideko and her father lived in the countryside with relatives for the next three years. Finally, they returned to Hiroshima, where her father sent Hideko to a Methodist mission high school that employed American teachers. He figured it would be important for her to learn English in order to thrive in the postwar world. School, especially learning English, was difficult, but Hideko's home life felt harder still. Her father remarried, and her relationship with his new bride was, at best, uneasy. In the throes of adolescence, living every day with the emotional scars the bomb had carved, Hideko sank into deep depression. She remembers plotting suicide, and got as far as the tracks, where she intended to throw herself in front of a train. But an old man had just beaten her to that fate. His shoes, she remembers, sat next to the tracks, unharmed. She returned home. Back at school, Hideko met a visiting African American minister who preached about rising above oppression and the value in helping others do the same. His message gripped her, and he gave Hideko an idea: She could get the college education she wanted, in social work and theology, in the United States. At the minister's suggestion, she applied to Bennett College, a traditionally black, women's school in Greensboro, N.C. The minister's church in Harlem collected money to pay for her boat passage, and on Sept. 4, 1952, 18-year-old Hideko left Hiroshima. For Hideko, schooling worked like therapy. In "Casework 101," she learned about such basic human requirements as the need to feel safe. She studied the dynamics of relationships. She listened to lectures on separation, abandonment, survivor guilt and the damage that confronting death can cause to body and psyche. She began to understand that just because she routinely had visions of her late mother, and of her own death, didn't mean she was crazy. "It was almost," she said recently, "like being released from a prison of self-blame. . . . I was hungry for healing." By studying what others who suffered and grieved had required to heal, Hideko began to close the wounds she'd carried since the day the bomb fell on Hiroshima. Eventually, she earned graduate degrees from McCormick Theological Seminary and from the University of Chicago, which has required its social-work students to read her autobiography, its foreword written by author Studs Terkel. After 10 years studying in the United States, Hideko returned to Hiroshima. But opportunities seemed few, and the grief she associated with her hometown overwhelmed her. To heal and to live, Hideko decided she had to leave. She would make her life in America and would spend her career as a clinical social worker and psychotherapist in the Chicago area. She went on to help others learn how to cope after organ transplants or radiation treatments, or to heal from neuroses, addictions or the kind of bitterness that can last a lifetime. Three years ago, Hideko retired to a subdivision at the edge of Medford. She immediately got busy and accepted a position as a multicultural commissioner for the city of Medford. For fun, she joined a group of Asian women who gather monthly. At one meeting, she asked, "Don't you folks like to sing?" Someone mentioned a group that had just formed, the Rogue Valley Peace Choir. Hideko lit up. "What?" she remembers asking. "I love to sing. And peace songs? That would be absolutely perfect." In one of the early rehearsals she attended, as she and the others sang an African freedom song, Hideko was surprised to find tears streaming down her cheeks. She remembers thinking, "Oh my God! There's energy singing for peace. . . . I must take this sound to Japan. "I want the Japanese people to hear the folks who dropped the bomb -- the folks who we fought as enemies -- singing these songs. Even though the United States is projected as a warring nation, I want them to know this side of the American people." The three-year-old Peace Choir hadn't performed outside of Oregon, and its members' singing skills ranged from amateur to professional. But the choir board and its director, Dave Marston, thought a journey to Japan was a fine idea -- as long as Hideko carried the lion's share of the planning and others volunteered to help. Choir members organized fundraising auctions and concerts, while Hideko, who stands 4 feet 11 and is as slim as a feather, worked her connections in Japan. She spent more than a month there last autumn negotiating performance details, travel and housing arrangements. When she returned to Oregon, she gave hourlong Japanese language lessons before choir practice each Thursday. And members exchanged books and movies about Japanese culture and history. Of the Rogue Valley Peace Choir's approximately 130 members, 38 departed July 28 for performances in Kyoto, Kobe and, finally, today in Hiroshima. There, they'll deliver 1,000 origami cranes -- symbols of peace folded by children and adults across the Northwest. In English and in Japanese, they'll sing such songs as "Never Again the A-Bomb" and "Cranes Over Hiroshima." The Peace Choir's men will team with a Japanese men's choir for "Tenting Tonight," an American Civil War tune, in which soldiers sang about being weary of war and yearning for peace. And Hideko's daughter, Miko, a student of osteopathy who was classically trained in voice since she was young, will, to the tune of "Danny Boy," sing her "Prayer for Hiroshima" -- part requiem for all those lost, part love song to the grandmother she never had the chance to know: "For to the wind, I've sang out for your calling "Hoping through song, your soul would hear my prayer "So on the banks, I sing granddaughter's calling "Dear Obachan, I pray you rest in peace ". . . Hiroshima, we pray you rest in peace." Katy Muldoon: 503-221-8526; katymuldoon@news.oregonian.com ---- Tadatoshi Akiba Mayor The City of Hiroshima Tehran Times Political Desk August 6, 2006 http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=8/7/2006&Cat=2&Num=015 http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/declaration/Engl ish/2006/index.html HIROSHIMA On the 61st anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, solemn ceremonies were held yesterday in Hiroshima and other cities in memory of the victims of that tragedy and to encourage people to work for world peace. Every year, the mayor of Hiroshima delivers an address at the ceremony. Following is the text of Hiroshima Mayor Tadatoshi Akibas Hiroshima Peace Declaration 2006: Radiation, heat, blast and their synergetic effects created a hell on Earth. Sixty-one years later, the number of nations enamored of evil and enslaved by nuclear weapons is increasing. The human family stands at a crossroads. Will all nations be enslaved? Or will all nations be liberated? This choice poses another question. Is it acceptable for cities, and especially the innocent children who live in them, to be targeted by nuclear weapons? The answer is crystal clear, and the past sixty-one years have shown us the path to liberation. From a hell in which no one could have blamed them for choosing death, the hibakusha set forth toward life and the future. Living with injuries and illnesses eating away at body and mind, they have spoken persistently about their experiences. Refusing to bow before discrimination, slander, and scorn, they have warned continuously that "no one else should ever suffer as we did." Their voices, picked up by people of conscience the world over, are becoming a powerful mass chorus. The keynote is, "The only role for nuclear weapons is to be abolished." And yet, the world's political leaders continue to ignore these voices. The International Court of Justice advisory opinion handed down ten years ago, born of the creative action of global civil society, should have been a highly effective tool for enlightening and guiding them toward the truth. The Court found that " the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law," and went on to declare, "There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control." If the nuclear-weapon states had taken the lead and sought in good faith to fulfill this obligation, nuclear weapons would have been abolished already. Unfortunately, during the past ten years, most nations and most people have failed to confront this obligation head-on. Regretting that we have not done more, the City of Hiroshima, along with Mayors for Peace, whose member cities have increased to 1,403, is launching Phase II of our 2020 Vision Campaign. This phase includes the Good Faith Challenge, a campaign to promote the good-faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament called for in the ICJ advisory opinion, and a Cities Are Not Targets project demanding that nuclear-weapon states stop targeting cities for nuclear attack. Nuclear weapons are illegal, immoral weapons designed to obliterate cities. Our goals are to reveal the delusions behind "nuclear deterrence theory" and the "nuclear umbrella," which hold cities hostage, and to protect, from a legal and moral standpoint, our citizens' right to life. Taking the lead in this effort is the US Conference of Mayors, representing 1,139 American cities. At its national meeting this past June, the USCM adopted a resolution demanding that all nuclear-weapon states, including the United States, immediately cease all targeting of cities with nuclear weapons. Cities and citizens of the world have a duty to release the lost sheep from the spell and liberate the world from nuclear weapons. The time has come for all of us to awaken and arise with a will that can penetrate rock and a passion that burns like fire. I call on the Japanese government to advocate for the hibakusha and all citizens by conducting a global campaign that will forcefully insist that the nuclear-weapon states "negotiate in good faith for nuclear disarmament." To that end, I demand that the government respect the Peace Constitution of which we should be proud. I further request more generous, people-oriented assistance appropriate to the actual situations of the aging hibakusha, including those living overseas and those exposed in "black rain areas." To console the many victims whose names remain unknown, this year for the first time we added the words, "Many Unknown" to the ledger of victims' names placed in the cenotaph. We humbly pray for the peaceful repose of the souls of all atomic bomb victims and a future of peace and harmony for the human family. ---- World Conference 2006 against A and H Bombs (in Hiroshima, 2-4 August): Declaration of the International Meeting From: Sukla Sen Date: Sun Aug 6, 2006 4:10 am Never again Hiroshima! Never again Nagasaki! For over 60 years since the atomic bombings, the voices of the Hibakusha have moved the hearts and minds of people around the world to speak out against nuclear weapons and for peace. The mounting people's opinion built by grassroots movements has many times prevented the use of nuclear weapons. Along with the efforts made by both local and national governments, this movement has developed into a global force demanding the elimination of nuclear weapons. Let us keep building this momentum to win a world free of nuclear weapons. Even now, close to 27,000 nuclear warheads are deployed or stockpiled in the world. These weapons, whether of the declared nuclear weapons states or of the non-declared, pose a grave threat to the very survival of humankind. Their total abolition remains an urgent task and is the prerequisite for passing on a safe and peaceful world to future generations. Accounting for one half of the world military expenditure with military bases all over the world, the U.S. launched a war of preemptive attack on Iraq. It now declares a long war on the ground of preventing terrorism and proliferation. Making the use of nuclear weapons a declared key policy to this strategy, the U.S. is promoting the development of new nuclear weapons along with the Missile Defense program. At the NPT Review Conference and at the World Summit of the U.N. last year, the U.S. refused even to discuss nuclear disarmament, thus blocking the move to abolish nuclear weapons. We must overcome this backsliding and move forward to prevent the use of nuclear weapons and open a sure path to the abolition of nuclear weapons. No doubt we must oppose every act of proliferation, i.e., new states acquiring nuclear weapons. But it is clearly hypocritical and dangerous for nuclear weapons states to resort to force and even to nuclear threats to prevent proliferation or terrorism, while trying to justify their own nuclear arsenals and condoning the proliferation to certain countries. Abolition of nuclear weapons is the only fundamental solution to the danger of nuclear proliferation. We demand a convention totally banning nuclear weapons, with negotiations to achieve this beginning immediately. It is also urgent to defend and consolidate the order of peace based on the U.N. Charter while preventing preemptive attacks by countries whose underlying strategy includes the option of using nuclear arms. It is also urgent to oppose the reorganization and reinforcement of foreign military bases. In cooperation with many local authorities and national governments, we call on the United Nations and other international bodies to take swift and effective steps toward eliminating nuclear weapons. In its first resolution, the United Nations pledged to eliminate nuclear arms from national arsenals. In May 2000, the Nuclear Five made the unequivocal commitment to complete elimination of their nuclear arsenals. Established to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, the U.N. should fulfill its mission to swiftly bring relevant resolutions and agreements into realization. We call on all national governments to adopt a resolution for an international convention totally banning nuclear weapons at the U.N. General Assembly. We welcome all initiatives that lead to the abolition of nuclear weapons, including the convening of the 4th U.N. Special Session on Disarmament and a U.N. decade for complete nuclear disarmament. For this, let us develop the signature campaign in support of the Swift Abolition of Nuclear Weapons and many other forms of action that will link the grassroots movements with the U.N. Let us press our own respective governments to work to reach this goal. The world can no longer be dominated by massive military force. People are joining in a wide range of actions in opposition to outrages of the superpower. Voices of people calling for the elimination of nuclear weapons are gathering force worldwide. Having reached a dead end in the occupation of Iraq, criticism against the U.S. war policy is increasing within the U.S. Facing the deteriorating situation in the Middle East/West Asia, demands for a peaceful resolution of conflicts are growing, including an end to the occupation of Iraq, a negotiated settlement of nuclear issued with Iran, and an immediate ceasefire in Lebanon. The deepening economic crises caused by neo-liberalist policies are eliciting protests against the economic domination of the world by major powers. A nuclear weapon-free, peaceful and just world is a common desire of the overwhelming majority of the world's people. In solidarity with all movements, including those opposing war and military bases, providing relief for nuclear test victims, victims of Agent Orange and other war damages; working to ban DU weapons; and demanding economic justice, redirection of military spending to meet social needs, social equality, women's rights, and environmental protection, we must increase public support for the movement calling for a total ban and elimination of nuclear weapons. With the Hibakusha, the Japanese peace movement has spread the demand for the elimination of nuclear weapons among the people and tirelessly organized various actions. More and more young people are getting involved and willing to take on these actions. Movements defending Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution that renounces war and the possession of military force are rapidly gathering support in Japan and overseas. We extend our firm solidarity with the Japanese movement in their effort to keep their country from going to war overseas with the U.S. forces, and to get Japan out from under the nuclear umbrella. The Hibakusha have dedicated their lives which have been filled with pains and hardships to warning humankind of the danger of nuclear disaster, to stand with the will to save humanity from its crisis through the lessons learned from our experiences, while at the same time saving ourselves (Message to the World, proclaimed at the founding of Nihon Hidankyo, the Japan Confederation of A-and H-Bomb Sufferers' Organizations). Activities by young people determined to carry forward Hibakusha desires and commitment are our common hope for the future. Hand in hand with the Hibakusha, and with the younger generations, let us move toward a coordinated global movement for a nuclear weapon-free, peaceful and just world. No More Hiroshimas! No More Nagasakis! No More Hibakusha! ---- Club can't shake its fatal attraction The Japan Times Sunday, Aug. 6, 2006 http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ed20060806a1.html As the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki this week mark the 61st anniversary of the first atomic bombings in human history, the world faces the likelihood of the further spread of nuclear weapons. The atomic bombing of Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945, and of Nagasaki, three days later, caused the immediate deaths of about 140,000 and 74,000 people, respectively. These events were not just tragic episodes in the closing days of World War II; the killing and injuring of hundreds of thousands of people also heralded the advent of an age in which the annihilation of countries and civilizations by nuclear weapons has become a possible reality. A report by the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, an independent panel of international experts funded by the Swedish government and headed by former United Nations chief weapons inspector Mr. Hans Blix, offers a bleak picture. Humankind has accumulated some 27,000 nuclear weapons, with more than 12,000 of them deployed. These figures are "extraordinary and alarmingly high" in themselves, yet the "existing nuclear powers" -- the U.S., Russia, China, France and Britain -- continue modernizing their nuclear arsenals. Under the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), to which nearly 190 states are parties, these five states are supposed to take initiatives toward cutting their nuclear arsenals and to refrain from developing new nuclear weapons. But the world still waits to see such moves. India, Pakistan and Israel, which have remained outside the NPT regime, are considered "gray" states in possession of nuclear arsenals. In addition, suspicion is mounting that North Korea and Iran are pushing programs to produce nuclear weapons. The 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, aimed at prohibiting all nuclear-test explosions, has not yet entered into force due to inaction or refusal by several states. For the treaty to go into effect, ratification by 44 named states is necessary. India, Pakistan and North Korea have not signed the treaty, while eight other states, including the U.S., China, Iran and Israel, have signed but not ratified the treaty. Last September a clue to breaking the impasse over North Korea's nuclear development appeared to emerge when North Korea and five other nations issued a joint statement in Beijing: The North pledged to abandon its nuclear programs and return at an early date to the NPT and to IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) safeguards while the U.S. asserted that it had no nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula and no intention of attacking or invading North Korea with either nuclear or conventional weapons. Yet North Korea has refused to resume the six-nation talks since November, citing the U.S.-imposed financial sanctions against it. To make matters worse, North Korea test-fired seven ballistic missiles into the Sea of Japan on July 5. The United Nations Security Council adopted a resolution condemning the North's missile tests and urging it to return to the six-nation talks without preconditions. The missile launches prompted several Japanese politicians to talk about whether Japan should consider arming itself with the capability to carry out a preemptive attack on an enemy missile base. Some foreign media took these thoughtless and shortsighted remarks as an indication of Japan's desire to possess nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the international community's suspicion of Iran's nuclear-related activities is so strong that the Security Council adopted a resolution calling on Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment and reprocessing by Aug. 31 or face the threat of economic and diplomatic sanctions. Both North Korea and Iran have rejected the resolutions directed at them, but they should act quickly to clear away the clouds of suspicions about their activities. In March the U.S. and India signed an agreement in which the U.S. will provide civilian nuclear-energy technologies and fuel to India. Although India has agreed to declare 14 of its 22 reactors as commercial facilities and to open them up to international inspectors, the deal is likely to undermine the basic NPT tenet, which entitles all member states, other than the five recognized nuclear-weapons states, to the use of nuclear power for peaceful purposes if they give up the right to possess nuclear weapons. Other countries might cite the U.S.-India deal as an excuse for pursuing the development of nuclear weapons as well as commercial nuclear-power generation. As momentum appears to favor further growth of the nuclear-weapons club, members have a heavy responsibility to spearhead efforts to halt it, especially by reducing their own arsenals. Japan must renew its resolve to play a unique and leading role in pushing for a nuclear-weapons-free world. ---- Japan Marks 61st Hiroshima Anniversary By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS August 6, 2006 http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Japan-Hiroshima-Anniversary.html?pagewanted=print http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-08-06-hiroshima-anniversary_x.htm HIROSHIMA, Japan (AP) -- The mayor of Hiroshima on Sunday called for the elimination of all nuclear weapons as he marked the 61st anniversary of the world's first atomic bomb attack, which killed more than 140,000 people in the Japanese city. Expressing concerns over the global proliferation of nuclear weapons, Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba urged the government of Japan -- the only nation to suffer atomic bomb attacks -- to take a leading role in the effort to eliminate nuclear arsenals. ''Sixty-one years have passed since radiation, heat rays and an atomic blast created hell on earth,'' Akiba said in a speech at Hiroshima Peace Park, near the bomb's epicenter. ''But the number of nations enamored of evil and enslaved by nuclear arms has increased. The only role nuclear weapons have is to be demolished.'' A bell rang at 8:15 a.m., marking the time when the American B-29 bomber Enola Gay dropped its deadly payload on Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945. It was the first atomic bomb ever used in war. About 45,000 survivors, residents, visitors and officials from around the world prayed for the bombing victims by observing a minute of silence in Hiroshima, 430 miles southwest of Tokyo. Hundreds of doves were released afterward. An estimated 140,000 people were killed instantly or died within a few months after the bombing. Three days later, another U.S. warplane dropped a plutonium bomb on the city of Nagasaki, killing about 80,000 people. This year's anniversary comes amid concerns over North Korea's recent missile tests, Iran's suspect nuclear program and intensified fighting in the Middle East. Akiba urged Japan, a participant in the stalled six-nation talks on North Korea, to ''forcefully insist that nuclear arms-possessing nations fulfill their obligation to sincerely carry out negotiations aimed at nuclear disarmament.'' He also urged the government to observe Japan's pacifist constitution, which bars the use of force in international disputes and prohibits Tokyo from keeping a military for warfare. It was drafted by U.S. occupation forces after World War II and has not been changed since 1947. Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's ruling party is proposing constitutional changes to make it easier for the Japanese military to fight if it comes under attack and to participate in international peacekeeping. ''We will observe the pacifist clause of the constitution, maintain the principle of nuclear nonproliferation and lead international efforts to achieve lasting global peace,'' Koizumi said Sunday in a memorial speech. Ceremonies will also be held on Wednesday's anniversary of the Nagasaki attack. Japan surrendered on Aug. 15, 1945, bringing World War II to an end. ---- Hiroshima Commemorates 61st Anniversary of US Atomic Attack Sunday, August 6, 2006 by the Agence France Presse http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0806-02.htm Photo: Paper lanterns are adrift on a river in front of the gutted A-bomb dome (rear) in Hiroshima, August 6, 2006 to comfort the souls of victims of the 1945 atomic bombing on the city of Hiroshima. REUTERS/Toshiyuki Aizawa http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/images/0806-01.jpg The Japanese city of Hiroshima marked the 61st anniversary of the world's first atomic attack on Sunday as its mayor renewed calls for a nuclear-free world and further support for aging survivors. Some 45,000 people recited silent prayers at 8:15 am (2315 GMT), the exact moment in 1945 when a single US bomb killed more than 140,000 people and fatally injured tens of thousands of others with radiation or horrific burns. Government officials and foreign guests from a record 35 countries laid wreaths before a memorial to the dead against the backdrop of the famous A-bomb dome, a former exhibition hall burned to a skeleton by the bomb's heat. "Sixty-one years later, the number of nations enamored of evil and enslaved by nuclear weapons is increasing," Hiroshima Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba said in a speech. Akiba said his city and atomic bomb survivors have long sought the abolition of nuclear weapons. "Yet, the world's political leaders continue to ignore these voices," he said. "I call on the Japanese government to ... forcefully insist that the nuclear-weapon states negotiate in good faith for nuclear disarmament," Akiba said. The 61st anniversary of the world's first nuclear attacks comes amid growing tension in the region with North Korea posing a missile threat and sticking to its nuclear ambitions. News reports said last week Pyongyang had been building new underground missile bases along its east coast, targeting Japan and US military facilities in Japan. The communist nation set off new alarm bells in the region with its July 5 test-firing of seven ballistic missiles which splashed in the Sea of Japan (East Sea). In 1998, it test-launched a missile over Japan. In his speech, Akiba also called for additional measures to support aging survivors of the atomic bomb. "I further request more generous, people-oriented assistance appropriate to the actual situation of the aging hibakusha," he said using the Japanese word for victims of nuclear bombings. On Friday, survivors of the Hiroshima atomic bombing won a victory with a court ruling that the Japanese government was too inflexible in determining who was eligible for benefits. The Hiroshima District Court said that 41 plaintiffs, aged from 62 to 94, deserved to be recognized as survivors, which would pave the way for them to receive Japan's generous benefits for their illnesses. -------- security State simulates terror attack A drill next week will tests responses to a nuclear detonation By Gregg K. Kakesako gkakesako@starbulletin.com Sunday, August 6, 2006 Honolulu Star Bulletin http://starbulletin.com/2006/08/06/news/story09.html For 34 straight hours beginning Aug. 15, state Civil Defense planners will be manning the command center inside Diamond Head Crater in an exercise to cope with the effects of the detonation of a low-yield nuclear bomb planted by terrorists. It's one of 15 scenarios -- wiping out 30 percent of the communications in the downtown area and killing 10,000 people -- involving improvised nuclear devices that the Defense Threat Reduction Agency wants states to prepare for, according to Edward Teixeira, state vice civil defense director. "The state civil defense's job will be to tie into the various, state, city and non-governmental agencies and to coordinate their efforts," Teixeira added. The mock half-kiloton nuclear explosion would take place at the entrance of Honolulu Harbor and would result in immediate casualties of nearly 400 people within 2,000 feet of ground zero, Teixeira said. But because it will take place near government centers of the state Capitol and City Hall, "the electromagnetic pulse could knock down 30 percent of our communications ability," he added. "That means not all of our emergency radios and other communications will be operable and we will have to finds ways to communicate using couriers and other means. It will be a test of the continuity of government services. How will government maintain its services?" Teixeira said the drill is relevant because such communication loss could occur during any natural disaster like a hurricane and "it is something the state must constantly be ready to remedy." "We have to constantly enhance our capabilities," Teixeira added. "Hopefully, we will never see anything like that that, but we have to be prepared." Coordinating the combined state-county-federal operation will be Maj. Gen. Vern Miyagi, who is the mobilization assistant to Adm. William Fallon, head of Pacific Forces in the Pacific. More than 700 state, city and military planners will participate in the mock exercise, dubbed "Exercise A Kele," running Aug. 15-17. Because the state did not want to interfere with the operations of Honolulu Harbor, Bellows Air Force Station will be the stand-in for the harbor. "There's a lot of room there and we will be able to simulate search and rescue, decontamination and other operations there," Teixeira said. The Coast Guard will run its operations from the Clean Island Council on Sand Island The Queen's Medical Center also will be utilized. Teixeira, a retired Army colonel who used to work with Pershing nuclear rockets, said the scenario envisions 10,000 casualties during the first 48 hours not only from the immediate blast but also from the nuclear fallout. Teixeira said the nuclear explosion projected in this month's exercise is 100 times greater than the April 19, 1995, terrorist attack where Timothy McVeigh packed 2 1/2 tons of ammonium nitrate, common farm fertilizer, mixed with fuel oil, into a rental truck and parked it next to the federal building in Oklahoma City. The blast tore down half of the building, killing 169 people. "No question all of urban Honolulu and maybe even as far as Ewa Beach will feel such a blast," Teixeira said. "But in the early moments no one will know whether it was natural or manmade or that it's even nuclear." The blast zone would encompass Sand Island and the Coast Guard Station and the state park located there, he said. "The prevailing trades would then take plume out over the ocean moving parallel down the coast to Ewa." Teixeira said the state's nuclear war plans during the Cold War called for the evacuation of Oahu, turning island streets into one-way traffic patterns with people moving to the Windward side. That same plan also called for sending 100,000 people to the Neighbor Islands by military airlift. He noted that the Department of Homeland Security has devised several scenarios for states to use involving the detonation of 10- and 20-kiloton improvised nuclear devices. In 1945 the U.S. dropped a 15-kiloton bomb on Hiroshima and a larger 22-ton kiloton bomb on Nagasaki. The first A-bomb, "Little Boy," blasted Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945, and "Fat Boy" was dropped on Nagasaki three days later. However, for this month's mock exercise, Teixeira said the state chose to test a half-kiloton nuclear device because "it is a more plausible weapon a terrorist group might use." "An improvised nuclear device of that size may be a more real threat," Teixeira said, "and a terrorist group planting it at a harbor is a real possibility." Teixeira said in Hawaiian "a" can mean "hot and fiery," while "kele" can be translated to mean "impurity." There is no Hawaiian word for radiation. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- pennsylvania Dry-cask nuclear storage worries some By PAUL RUPPEL and SARAH LARSON Bucks County Courier Times August 6, 2006 http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/111-08062006-694048.html The Limerick nuclear power station will begin storing used nuclear fuel outside its plant by 2008 and likely will keep it there for years, until a controversial national disposal site is developed. The move worries some, who feel it increases the chance of an accidental radiation leak or a terrorist strike against the plant. And if something were to go terribly wrong at Limerick, the plants immediate neighbors wouldnt be the only the ones affected. Still, the nuclear industry, federal regulators and even the leading nuclear watchdog group say storing used nuclear fuel outside the plant presents no more of a risk than the plants themselves and their existing water pool storage. Whether in the pool or in dry casks, theyre all safely and securely managed, said Melanie Lyons, spokeswoman for the proindustry group, the Nuclear Energy Institute. Called a dry-cask storage system, the reinforced containers proposed by Exelon Corp., parent company of PECO Energy, are in use at dozens of other nuclear plants across the country. Dry-cask storage is a widely used, safe technology that will allow Limerick station to continue its clean, safe and reliable operations well into the future, plant vice president Ron DeGregorio said in a written statement. When used fuel needs to be removed from a nuclear reactor, the rods are moved to a deep pit filled with water, typically in a separate building near the reactor. The rods are stored in the pool, where the water helps dissipate the heat they give off and shield workers and the public from radiation. For years, thats where Limericks rods have stayed. But it and other plants nationwide are running out of room. Limerick is just the latest nuclear power plant to need to