NucNews August 17, 2006 -------- NUCLEAR -------- accidents and safety Fire at power station Peach Bottom blaze quenched in 21 minutes CHARLES SCHILLINGER 8/17/2006 York PA Dispatch http://www.yorkdispatch.com/business/ci_4195703 Exelon's Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station extinguished a small fire in a backup diesel generator, but not before it prompted an "unusual event" emergency. The fire occurred Tuesday afternoon during testing of the four emergency generators that are expected to kick on should the nuclear power plant in Peach Bottom Township lose power. The exhaust gasket on one of the four engines caught fire at about 6:14 p.m., 20 hours into a 24-hour endurance test of the system. The fire was out 21 minutes later and required no response from state or local officials. Because the fire was not extinguished within 15 minutes and the engine was located in a "protected area" -- the classification for a limited access area at the station -- an unusual event was declared. The unusual event was terminated about two hours later. Under the classifications set by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, an unusual event is the lowest of four emergency events, which required Exelon notify the public. Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, called it a "pretty timely response." "We are following up very closely to make sure the company is not only looking for the root causes of the fire, but also to ensure there's no commonalities between this problem and the other diesel generators," Sheehan said. Peach Bottom power plant spokeswoman April Schilpp said there was no threat to personnel, and there was no danger to the plant or its equipment. No injuries were reported. Although it took longer than 15 minutes to extinguish, Schilpp said the company was satisfied with the prompt detection and response to the fire -- especially given the fire broke out on the roof of the diesel generator building. The company continues to investigate how the exhaust system caught fire, Schilpp said. -- Reach Charles Schillinger at 505-5431 or cschillinger@yorkdispatch.com. ---- Swedish Nuclear Reactor in near-Meltdown Scare 17/08/2006 Melbourne IndyMedia http://melbourne.indymedia.org/archives/archive_by_id.php?id=9956&category_id=13 On Tuesday the 25th of July an incident occurred at Forsmark-1 nuclear power station in Sweden that left one of the reactors without power for its safety systems. It took 20 minutes before the reserve generators could be started. "It was the worst situation since Chernobyl and Harrisburg. We were horrifyingly close to a really dangerous situation." said Lars-Olov Höglund, the former head of the construction division of the reactor. The events in Sweden “in one fell swoop bring back into awareness the terrors of atomic energy”, said anti-nuclear German activist Jochen Stay, who has called on all nuclear opponents in Germany to reinvigorate opposition to nuclear power. A German environment protection group says a nuclear power station near Hamburg is worse prepared for a critical breakdown than the Swedish Formark-1 reactor. -------- australia US to support PM's uranium plan August 17, 2006 The Australian http://www.news.com.au/sundayheraldsun/story/0,,20157043-5005961,00.html The US Government will support Australia developing a uranium enrichment industry, despite a White House policy to restrict additions to the world nuclear club, a senior US official says. Australia is currently exploring the possibility of nuclear energy, with a prime ministerial task force appointed to look into uranium enrichment and whether nuclear power stations would be economically viable. Last year, the Bush administration unveiled the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, which is designed to restrict the number of countries enriching uranium to existing players such as the US, Britain, China, Russia and France. But Dennis Spurgeon, assistant secretary for nuclear power in the US, told today's The Australian newspaper that “special rules” would apply to Australia and Canada. “Obviously you are the two countries that have the majority of economically recoverable uranium resources,” Mr Spurgeon told the newspaper. “I think Australia is viewed as a totally reliable and trustworthy country, so I don't think there is any issue there whatsoever.” -------- canada Bruce Power seeks OK for new nuclear site By Lynne Olver Thu Aug 17, 2006 (Reuters) http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060817/wl_canada_nm/canada_utilities_canada_nuclear_col_2 TORONTO - Bruce Power, which runs six Ontario nuclear power units and is refurbishing two more at a complex on the shores of Lake Huron, said on Thursday it is seeking regulatory approval to prepare a site at the facility for the potential construction of new reactors. Any decision on building new reactors is years away, but the price tag could be C$8 billion ($7.1 billion) to C$10 billion in the case of four new 1,000-megawatt units, Bruce Power President and Chief Executive Duncan Hawthorne said at a Toronto briefing. Any application to build new reactors is subject to a federal environmental assessment, a process that could cost about C$10 million and take up to three years, Hawthorne said. Bruce Power wants to get the green light from regulators for site preparation so it can weigh various options for refurbishing existing reactors or building new ones in differing combinations. "It makes sense for us to at least develop those options," Hawthorne said. "It's not to say that anyone's committed to doing that." Canada's nuclear regulator has not licensed a new nuclear power plant in more than 25 years, according to its Web site. Bruce Power is a private nuclear-generating company owned by Cameco Corp., TransCanada Corp., the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System, Power Workers' Union and Society of Energy Professionals. Since 2001, it has run two generating stations at a 2,300-acre site near Tiverton, Ontario, on Lake Huron, known as the Bruce A and Bruce B stations. Each station contains four generating units. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission said on Thursday that an environmental assessment "with meaningful opportunities for public participation" is a key prerequisite for the licensing of a new reactor. It did not say when that process would begin. Hawthorne conceded that non-government organizations opposed to new nuclear development could jump into the environmental assessment process. "I expect that some people will, because it's probably fair to say that people see any new nuclear plant in North America as the beginning of a whole set of new nuclear plants," he said. But local support for past refurbishment work at the Bruce Power site has been very strong, he noted. All four Bruce B units and one at the Bruce A station will need to be refurbished or replaced between 2015 and 2020, Bruce Power said. Those units currently generate nearly 4,000 megawatts of electricity. Bruce Power said the environmental assessment and its business analysis will examine whether it makes economic sense to refurbish the units when required, replace them with new reactors, or augment their output by building a third generating station at the site. The Bruce site was originally configured to support at least three multi-reactor stations, the company said. It plans to hold several meetings with local communities starting next week. As it goes about doing studies for the "new build" option, Bruce Power said it would consider various reactor designs. All of Canada's existing reactors are the home-grown Candu type, made by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. Hawthorne said Bruce Power wanted to keep its technology options open. General Electric, Areva, Westinghouse and Atomic Energy of Canada have all developed new reactors. "Those are the ones we're interested in,' he said, noting they are at various stages of design or deployment. Ontario is trying to secure new energy supplies to replace aging generation facilities. The province has said it wants to maintain nuclear generating capacity at about 14,000 megawatts. The province's other two nuclear stations, Pickering and Darlington, are operated by Ontario Power Generation. -------- india As India debates N-deal, China & Pak move to close rival pact C Raja Mohan Indian Express, Thursday, August 17, 2006 http://www.indianexpress.com/story/10773.html NEW DELHI, August 16:As India’s nuclear debate enters the Rajya Sabha tomorrow, Beijing and Islamabad are moving towards deeper bilateral atomic energy cooperation. Desperate languageBeing prime ministerialBetween PM’s lines is message to the USLinking n-deal to growing India’s energy hunger, PM says trust me, won’t bendHe answered us, says Left; no, says Right Recent reports from Islamabad say a deal on buying six 300 MW nuclear reactors from China might be finalised when President Hu Jintao visits Pakistan at the end of this year. As the Opposition quibbles over real and imagined problems of the non-proliferation conditions that New Delhi accepted in the deal with the United States, China is preparing to rapidly expand its own nuclear power programme. Beijing accepted far more stringent conditions in its attempt to secure access to Australian uranium resources. If China is interested in long-term political outcomes in its nuclear diplomacy, India appears hobbled by a debate that is more focused on words rather on practical moves. For, in theory, as a declared nuclear weapon state, China was under no obligation to accept the unprecedented international safeguards that Australia sought in return for supplying natural uranium ore. At a time when major nuclear power producers are scrambling to gain control over uranium resources around the world, China had no hesitation in accepting the tough Australian conditions. Meanwhile China and Pakistan have found a way of leveraging the Indo-U.S. deal to expand their own long-standing military and civilian nuclear cooperation. China has not openly opposed the Indo-U.S. nuclear pact but expressed strong reservations on the principles that went into making the deal when it came up for discussion in the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group. While it might not be able to stop the Indo-US nuclear deal from being implemented, China seems determined to ensure that Pakistan will not be left behind India in the civilian nuclear field. When India and the US surprised the world with a nuclear pact on July 18, 2005, Pakistan and China had little problem seeing its central political significance. By agreeing to change the US domestic law only in favour of India, the Bush Administration was signaling that it no longer treats India and Pakistan on the same nuclear terms. Two, by agreeing to accept India’s nuclear weapons programme, the U.S. was also highlighting a new political equivalence between New Delhi and Beijing. In response, Pakistan had demanded a similar deal on nuclear cooperation but was rebuffed by the Bush Administration. China, on its part, put across a simple argument. If the US was willing to modify the nuclear rules in favour of India, others (read Beijing) should be free to help their own friends (read Islamabad). From being mere talk in 2005, the idea of China selling nuclear reactors to Pakistan has gained ground since President Pervez Musharraf visited China in June this year. Pakistan’s weapons programmes have already benefited from Chinese nuclear and missile cooperation since the 1970s. China has also supplied a civilian nuclear reactor to Pakistan and is building a second one. China is currently prohibited from sell]ing additional reactors to Pakistan. But it might hope that the very international debate on making a nuclear exception for India, has opened up the political space for re-establishing nuclear parity between New Delhi and Islamabad. raja.mohan@expressindia.com ---- India warns US against changes in nuclear pact By Y.P. Rajesh Thu Aug 17, 2006 (Reuters) http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060817/wl_nm/nuclear_india_usa_dc_6 NEW DELHI - India warned the United States Congress on Thursday not to tinker with a controversial civilian nuclear cooperation deal and said it would not accept any significant changes to the agreement. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who sat through most of a seven-hour angry parliamentary debate, took to the floor to defend the landmark agreement, which has become a symbol of the new friendship between India and the United States. He rejected charges of a sell-out, said India's sovereignty would not be compromised and warned the U.S. Congress not to attach conditions to the deal aimed at imposing restrictions on India's nuclear program by the back door. "We will not agree to any dilution that will prevent us from securing full civilian nuclear benefits," he said. "The proposed U.S. legislation will not be allowed to become an instrument to compromise India's sovereignty," he said, in an emotional speech that lasted more than an hour. The civilian nuclear cooperation pact is meant to help India meet its soaring energy needs. It gives nuclear-armed India access to U.S. atomic fuel and equipment like reactors, despite not having signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In return, New Delhi has agreed to international inspections of its civilian nuclear reactors, and the segregation of its civilian and military programs to ensure that supplies to its civilian program would not be used to make atomic bombs. The deal has already been passed overwhelmingly by the U.S. House of Representatives and is now due to go before the Senate. But Indian legislators warned that Congress was attaching conditions to the agreement which were not in India's interests. Singh warned that if the final terms of the deal did not conform to the parameters originally agreed by the two countries, India would draw "necessary conclusions." He did not elaborate. The Nuclear Suppliers Group of nations that regulates global atomic trade must also give its approval to the deal. "NO COMPROMISE" Some changes proposed by U.S. politicians include a clause that would make it mandatory for the U.S. administration to certify every year that India is sticking to the deal's terms. Other amendments proposed by members of Congress include the end of nuclear cooperation if India conducts a nuclear test as well as caps on using spent nuclear fuel. Singh said he had already conveyed India's concerns about the proposed changes to President George W. Bush. "The nuclear agreement will not be allowed to be used as a backdoor method of introducing NPT-type restrictions on India," he said, as supporters cheered by thumping their desks. "We have made it clear to the United States our opposition to these provisions," he said. "There is no question of India being bound by a law passed by a foreign legislature." Singh's response culminated weeks of constant sniping over the deal by opposition politicians as well as communist allies who shore up his coalition. Earlier on Thursday, one senior communist member of parliament said his party did not want Washington to use the deal as part of a carrot and stick policy to further its geopolitical goals. "They want you to enter into this deal so that we buy their reactors. Are we actually helping the American economy to survive or is it in the vital interest of India?" asked Sitaram Yechury of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). (Additional reporting by Kamil Zaheer and Palash Kumar) ---- Nuke scientists welcome PM's assurances Press Trust of India August 17, 2006 http://www.topix.net/r/05KQAC65=2B9p3CnEOW2BSxTTW=2F0zz0AjAXGOqq2OFdnNKOiSxNufBovMr0LypvTHSX5K3LmU9VMZlrpW4BqEaSSNEs8tNHMhs0ceJtu8FhhOeEfSWlPaB=2FfSvTo0CgTvYg Mumbai - Top nuclear scientists on Thursday welcomed Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's detailed assurances on concerns raised by them about the Indo-US nuclear deal. They also welcomed his invitation to scientists for further discussion on the issue on August 26 in New Delhi. MR Srinivasan, former Atomic Energy Commission chairman and a current member of the body, said from Ooty, "We are looking forward to the meeting to discuss the issues in detail and mechanisms to protect India's interests." Unless India makes the US explicitly accept the position that the Prime Minister adopted on Thursday and unless the bilateral agreement is clearly reflected in black and white, there will be no guarantee that what is deemed non-binding on India in today's legislation will not be converted in future to binding clauses by future administrations in the US, Srinivasan said. On the perpetuity clause, he said, "We will discuss with the Prime Minister in detail to make sure that research and development and fast breeder technologies are not placed under safeguards, and also on the future choice on voluntary safeguards." Former AEC chairman PK Iyengar said, "The Prime Minister has made so many commitments to answer the scientists as well as opposition's concerns and at the same time he has not left out his commitment related to the American decision." On the separation plan for nuclear facilities after Thursday's assurances, Iyengar said, "There should be a re-discussion on the separation plan more logically, and so that it could be easily negotiated with the International Atomic Energy Agency." Iyengar said, "The re-discussion on the separation plan will help India as well as the IAEA when we go for negotiations on India-specific safeguards." "We can advise him on these issues and we can also explain that we can do the separation without affecting our freedom in research and development," he said. Iyengar said India has to wait and watch how the US administration take the "sense of the House" that was observed on Thursday. Placid Rodruigues, former director of the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR), said from Delhi, "I welcome the Prime Minister's categorical statement and assurances but we have to seriously discuss the separation plans in detail again." India should be in a better position to re-negotiate the deal as "we are far ahead of the US and Japan in fast breeder reactor and reprocessing technology." In fact, the US may need India's help in human resource development on nuclear technology. "Our bargaining power has to be fully understood by the Prime Minsiter and we will explain in detail to him in the August 26 meeting," Rodruigues said. He also said the Prime minister is yet to satisfy the House on how he intended to convert the unsafeguarded experimental breeder programme to have some form of safeguards on all commercial fast breeder reactors after 2014. The scientists said since the Prime Minister has assured that India will be treated at par with nuclear weapon nations as a de facto nuclear weapon state, it would follow that the nature of safeguards to be negotiated for Indian reactors would be voluntary rather than any that may be applicable to a non-nuclear weapon country. Based on Thursday's assurances, the safeguards will not be applicable to a non-nuclear weapon country since they apply only on fuel, nuclear material and derivatives, and "imported reactors could be the only ones subjected to perpetuity safeguards", they said. The scientists said they were eagerly waiting to make their contributions on August 26 and any further meetings to safeguard the country's interests. ---- Wheeling dealing LEFT HAND DRIVE | Sitaram Yechury August 17, 2006 Hindustan Times http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1770191,00120001.htm The informed debate currently taking place in the country on the Indo-US nuclear deal reflects the growing maturity of Indian democracy. The issues are by now very pervasive in the media and need little repetition. We have consistently articulated our apprehensions. It is indeed gratifying now to see the eight high priests of the Indian nuclear establishment who have built India’s nuclear capabilities, defying and overcoming US-led sanctions in the past, reinforce the essence of our fears. If reconfirmation were ever necessary, this nails the lie that our questioning the deal arises not from our ‘congenital anti-imperialist rhetoric’. Our apprehensions arise from our non-negotiable responsibility to safeguard India’s sovereignty. It is well-known that the Left has all along opposed India’s nuclear weapons programme. We had opposed Pokhran II and continue to oppose nuclear weapon stockpiling. But then, we are firm defenders of the right that any decision in this regard will have to be a domestic Indian decision, not influenced by any power across the seas. Having said this, there are other issues that need to be a part of the current debate. The first of these refers to civilian nuclear cooperation. In other words, this means that India, aiming at a high-growth trajectory, requires to bolster its energy resources. There is no contesting the fact that an 8 per cent plus GDP growth rate requires a significant augmentation of energy resources. The current Indo-US deal is being trumpeted for such an augmentation. What, however, are the facts? The installed capacity in 2005 shows that nuclear electricity generation is a mere 2.5 per cent of India’s total. If this deal comes through, from the 3,310 MW current generation, it would increase to 10,000 MW by 2015 (not more than 5 per cent of India’s projected total). Given this, can India enter into a deal that severely restricts its sovereignty? Currently, India’s fuel production mix shows that 55 per cent is produced from coal. At the present rate of consumption, coal is expected to last for another 250 years or so. The cost-effectiveness of coal to nuclear production of electricity is at a conservative level, 2:3. With gas, the ratio is 1:2 and with hydro-electricity the ratio is 3:5. By all estimates, nuclear electricity generation is the most expensive. Should India therefore have a preference for this option? That too, at the expense of abandoning the cheapest source of electricity production through the Iran gas pipeline? According to the National Hydro-Power Corporation, the untapped potential in India is nearly 50,000 MW. Combine this with the estimates for Nepal at 83,000 MW. Any reasonable mind would suggest that this should be explored, not merely for power generation, but also to tame these rivers from continuously causing immense damage through floods that we are currently seeing in various parts of our country. In the face of these facts, the overt anxiety to develop nuclear power generation capacities naturally raises apprehensions. This is bolstered by the fact that no new nuclear power capacity has been installed in the US for the past three decades, mainly due to problems of disposing nuclear waste and the high costs! Through this deal, is India now being bulldozed to buy reactors from the US? This will not only finance its economy but will also keep India perpetually indebted to its supplies of nuclear fuel and the accompanying blackmail and blandishments. It is against the backdrop of these apprehensions that we have asked the government to affirm, through a debate in Parliament, that it shall not retract from the assurances the PM has given the House on at least nine counts. These are given below. 1) India will not compromise its strategic interests. The question of India’s nuclear weapon capability is something that we Indians shall decide. It is not at the behest of the US. 2) India must insist on full-cooperation on civilian nuclear technology that includes the complete fuel cycle. The US Senate version of the Bill seeks to restrict reprocessing of the spent fuel. The rejection of this is crucial for India’s future. Through such reprocessing, India is seeking to arrive at using thorium as a nuclear fuel instead of imported uranium in use today. 3) The PM asserted in Parliament on July 29, 2005, that India’s separation of its civilian and strategic programmes was “conditional upon and reciprocal to the US fulfilling its side of the understanding”. The US Senate and Congress resolutions speak of an annual certification by the US President that India is ‘adhering’. Literally, a good conduct certificate. This is the path through which the US would seek to browbeat India into supporting its foreign policy positions. In fact, in favouring this deal Senator Luger in his opening remarks to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approvingly noted “We have already seen strategic benefits from our improving relations with India. India’s votes at the IAEA on the Iran issue last September and this past February demonstrate that New Delhi is able and willing to adjust to traditional foreign policies and play a constructive role on international issues.” This, precisely, is our apprehension — India’s foreign policy will now have to dovetail into US interests. 4) The US seems to have reneged on its assurance that it would change its laws and align the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group to fulfil the terms of the Indo-US deal. 5) Similar is the situation of the India-specific protocol with the IAEA. It appears that the separate protocol assurance has been dropped. 6) The placing of India’s facilities in perpetuity for inspections was a reciprocal gesture to a US guarantee of the US supplying fuel in perpetuity. This is now in doubt. 7) In the original agreement, India had agreed to work with the US for a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT). This bilateral and multilateral arrangement is now being converted to restrict India’s fissile material stockpile. 8) In the original agreement, only IAEA safeguards were considered. It is now proposed that physical verification will be conducted by US inspectors as well. 9) Finally, in the original agreement, India’s military programme had no monitoring requirement from the IAEA or the US. The US is now seeking that its President report to the Congress any changes in India’s production of fissile material or nuclear weapons. Given this, a discussion in Parliament is imperative. In the Indian parliamentary system, the executive is accountable to the legislature, unlike in the US. In the US, therefore, the Congress and the Senate need to ratify international agreements. In India, this is not required because of the accountability of the executive to the legislature. There is, however, a flaw. If the legislature disagrees with the executive, it can vote out the government. But it cannot vote out the international agreement. This flaw needs to be corrected. It is, therefore, necessary that the Indian Parliament should also endorse international treaties prior to the executive acceding to them. This is a constitutional issue that must be urgently addressed. The country cannot be held to ransom for a government having signed the Dunkel Draft in 1994, or for minority governments signing international treaties that cannot be rescinded. Our seeking parliamentary approval on the Indo-US nuclear deal is, therefore, in the true democratic tradition of holding the executive responsible to the legislature, and therefore the people. The maturity of the Indian democracy that we talked about at the beginning must reach these levels. The writer is a Rajya Sabha MP and CPI(M) Politburo member. -------- iran US To Press For Quick UN Sanctions If Iran Refuses Halt To Uranium Enrichment by Staff Writers Washington (AFP) Aug 17, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_To_Press_For_Quick_UN_Sanctions_If_Iran_Refuses_Halt_To_Uranium_Enrichment_999.html The United States will move quickly for UN Security Council action on sanctions against Iran if Tehran refuses to halt uranium enrichment by the end of the month, a senior State Deparment official said Thursday. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's rejection this week of a UN resolution demanding that Iran suspend all uranium enrichment activity by August 31 was "not surprising." He said the UN Security Council will take up sanctions under resolution 1696 if the deadline is not met. "We would want to move very quickly," he told reporters. "In the event Iran does not give an answer to the Security Council and does not comply with the conditions clearly enunciated by the Security Council, I think we'll want to move very quickly in the first part of September towards a debate in Security Council about sanctions, and they will be well deserved, because this has gone on a long time," he said. Under the resolution, International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohammed al-Baradei would first report on the status of the Iranian uranium enrichment program. The United States and other western countries believe Iran is enriching uranium to use as fuel for nuclear weapons. But Iran insists the program is to make fuel for civilian reactors. Iran has said it will reply by August 22 to a package of incentives offered by the five permament members of the UN Security Council plus Germany to halt its uranium enrichment program. Burns said the United States has an agreement with other permanent members of the Security Council to seek sanctions if Iran fails to comply and "we're heading for that kind of a decision," he said. Russia and China, however, were expected to argue in favor of further negotiations. An earlier UN Security Council deadline passed without action on April 28. "I don't think it's a question of what the United States will have to do to pressure countries. We have an agreement with Russia and China and with the other members of the Council that we will go to Chapter 7 sanctions," Burns said. ---- Iran envoy says call for enrichment halt 'not acceptable' Thu Aug 17, 2006 (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060817/wl_mideast_afp/irannuclearpoliticsenvoy PARIS - Iran's ambassador to Paris has reaffirmed that international calls for his country to halt uranium enrichment were "not acceptable", after Tehran said it would be prepared to discuss a freeze. "The suspension demand is one that has absolutely no legal basis. It is a political demand that is not acceptable by our public opinion or by parliament," Iran envoy Ali Ahani told French radio RMC on Thursday. "We do not believe in nuclear weapons at all because we do not think they can guarantee our security, but we insist on the use of these technologies for peaceful ends," he said. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Wednesday that Tehran was ready to "discuss" a uranium enrichment freeze, barely two weeks before a UN Security Council deadline to halt the sensitive nuclear work or risk sanctions. A day earlier however, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad outright rejected a UN Security Council resolution demanding Iran suspend all activities related to uranium enrichment by August 31 or risk possible sanctions. The West, led by the United States, suspects Iran could be trying to build nuclear weapons, charges denied by Tehran which says its atomic program is for peaceful purposes. Tehran has said it will respond on August 22 to an offer by the five UN Security Council members, plus Germany, for a package of incentives including cooperation and multilateral talks in return for suspending enrichment. ---- Iran plans new war games 17/08/2006 20:43 - (SA) http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1984553,00.html Tehran - Iran will launch a series of large-scale military manoeuvres across the country and has not made plans for an end to the ongoing war games, the army said on Thursday. "The manoeuvres are aimed at introducing Iran's new defensive doctrine," military spokesperson Mohammad Reza Ashtiani was quoted as saying by state-run television. He said the exercises would begin on Saturday in the south east of the country. "It will continue in the whole of Iran, stage by stage for an unspecified period," Ashtiani said. The announcement came as Iran faces heightened international scrutiny because of its contentious nuclear program and for supporting Hezbollah. Iran denies Israeli accusations it is arming and training Hezbollah fighters. Ashtiani praised Hezbollah for its month-long fight against Israel. "Human forces can decide fate of a war. "We saw it in Lebanon," the general said, echoing Hezbollah claims it won the war by resisting a massive bombing and ground offensive for more than a month before a UN-brokered cease-fire came into place earlier this week. The military spokesperson said Iran's manoeuvres reflected the current level of tension in the Middle East. "We have to be prepared against any threat and we should be a role model for other countries," local newspapers quoted Ashtiani as saying. "Our army is ready to defuse all plots against Islamic Republic of Iran." The military exercise, involving 12 infantry regiments, is called "The Blow of Zolfaghar," in reference to a sword that belonged to Imam Ali, one of the most revered figures of Islam for Shi'ite Muslims. A majority of Iran's 70 million populations are Shi'ite. Border patrols On Wednesday, the interior ministry said that Iran also planned to boost security patrols on its borders. Ministry spokesperson Mostafa Pourmohammadi said the move targeted smugglers. Drug traffickers killed 8 police officers during a fire fight in southeastern Iran last week. Iran has routinely held war games over the past two decades to improve its combat readiness and test locally made equipment such as missiles, tanks and armoured personnel carriers. In April, Tehran launched its biggest military manoeuvres so far, during which it said it tested several advanced weaponry including missiles. The Islamic Republic, which views the United States as an arch foe, is concerned about the US military presence in neighbouring Iraq and Afghanistan. Tehran also concerned about Israel's threats to destroy its nuclear facilities. -------- korea N. Korea might be preparing nuclear test: media By Jon Herskovitz Thu Aug 17, 2006 (Reuters) http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060818/ts_nm/nuclear_korea_north_dc_5 SEOUL - Reclusive North Korea, which last month defied the international community by test-firing missiles, could now be preparing its first test of a nuclear bomb, U.S. media cited U.S. officials as saying. Analysts said on Friday North Korea could be trying an even more extreme form of sabre-rattling to force the international community, and Washington in particular, into making concessions to the poor and isolated state. But a diplomatic official in Seoul familiar with the communist state's nuclear program was skeptical of the reports and U.S. officials told Reuters they had no new evidence of such a plan. ABC News on Thursday quoted a senior military official as saying a U.S. intelligence agency had observed suspicious vehicle movement at a suspected North Korean test site. A senior State Department official, who was also not identified, told the network: "It is the view of the intelligence community that a test is a real possibility." July's missile tests were widely seen as less a display of military muscle than an often-used tactic by the North Korean government to grab international attention but whose key aim -- to win direct talks with the United States -- failed. "Many of the experts ... have been concerned about the possible options on the part of North Korea, including nuclear tests or other forms of military provocation," said Kim Sung-han, head of North America studies at South Korea's Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security. Pyongyang accuses Washington of trying to topple its government through a crackdown on North Korean international finances and which it wants ended before it returns to international talks to end its nuclear weapons program. The United States refuses to end the crackdown, which analysts say is causing Pyongyang's leadership real difficulties, or to hold direct talks with North Korea outside the six-country negotiations. The talks among the two Koreas, China, Japan, Russia and the United States have been stalled since November. TESTING TIMES AHEAD? Earlier this month, the influential International Crisis Group warned that Pyongyang might escalate the confrontation by firing more missiles or even conducting a nuclear test. North Korea has been working on nuclear weapons for years. It probably has the technology to build a bomb and enough fissile material for at least six to eight nuclear weapons, proliferation experts have said. But they say no one knows for sure whether it has actually built a nuclear weapon. North Korea declared itself a nuclear weapons power in February 2005, without testing. Asked about the media reports, a senior U.S. official told Reuters, "We have no new evidence to support that." South Korean government officials said they were looking into the report. "I was not aware of the area mentioned in the report as being a possible site for a North Korean nuclear test," the diplomatic source in Seoul said. ABC said the suspected test site was an underground facility called Pungyee-yok in northeast North Korea. The intelligence was brought to the attention of the White House last week, the ABC report said. Although it aspires to be a nuclear weapons power, North Korea has trouble feeding its own people and experts said flooding last month could push it into famine. Last year, activity at suspected North Korean test sites led some analysts to believe the secretive state was preparing to test a nuclear device, but nothing happened. (With additional reporting by Paul Eckert and Sue Pleming in Washington and Jack Kim in Seoul) North Korea May Be Preparing Nuclear Test See also: http://www.spacewar.com/reports/North_Korea_May_Be_Preparing_Nuclear_Test_999.html -------- pakistan US To Double Missile-Defense Ships in Pacific Thursday, August 17th, 2006 Headlines Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/17/1335202 In military news, the US has announced it will double the number of missile-defense ships in the Pacific Ocean. The military says the ships are needed to protect the US from potential missile strikes from North Korea or Iran. -------- russia 'Unstable recruits' guard Russia nuclear facility Thu 17 Aug 2006 Reuters By Christian Lowe http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=L17882674 http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=20312 MOSCOW, Aug 18 (Reuters) - On Aug. 3, Russian conscript Ivan Shinkaryov flipped the safety catch on his rifle and shot himself dead. It was sad but unremarkable: in Russia at least 1,000 conscripts die each year in non-combat incidents. What made the suicide stand out was the fact that Shinkaryov was part of a unit guarding a facility that produces weapons-grade plutonium and stores tonnes of radioactive waste. In the past eight years, 17 of the recruits in Shinkaryov's Interior Ministry Troops unit no. 3377 have died. Most committed suicide, the rest were killed by fellow conscripts or died in firearms accidents and from beatings. Accounts of life inside unit no. 3377 tell of bullying by older recruits -- a ritual known as "dedovshchina" -- sordid living conditions, psychologically disturbed conscripts and officers powerless to help. Officials say there is no security risk. But anti-nuclear campaigners worry that a unit this troubled is not up to the job of defending a facility which, security analysts say, could be a terrorist target. "This complex is, in effect, not protected," said Vladimir Tchouprov, head of the energy unit at Greenpeace Russia. "The conscripts ... who are supposed to be guarding it are busy with 'dedovshchina' and suicides." SECRET CITY The nuclear facility is in Zheleznogorsk deep in the Siberian taiga. Founded in 1950, the town was one of Russia's "closed cities", known for years only by its postcode, Krasnoyarsk-26, because authorities wanted to keep it a secret. It is ringed by fences and the 100,000 residents are only supposed to go in and out through checkpoints. Buried inside a mountain that looms over the town, the plutonium-producing nuclear reactor is almost impossible for outsiders to reach. The radioactive waste is stored in buildings on the surface, said Tchouprov. Vasily Panchenkov, head of the press service for the Interior Ministry Troops, said the facility is secure. "Our troops are on the outer ring," he said. "The atomic facility itself is guarded by other people." Greenpeace disputes that. In 2002, its activists walked into Zheleznogorsk and, unchallenged, climbed onto a roof in the complex that stores spent nuclear fuel, said Tchouprov. "Since then they built a concrete fence ... (but) it is stupid to think that is going to stop someone who wants to blow up the millions of curies of radioactivity stored there," he said. TROUBLED ARMED FORCES Most Russian conscripts carry out more mundane tasks than guarding a nuclear installation. But the problems of unit no. 3377 are common to the whole of Russia's armed forces. Lavatories for many of the unit's 900 servicemen are holes in the ground. "The toilet bowls have been stolen," said Alla Safonova, local head of campaign group the Soldiers' Mothers Committee, who has been visiting the unit for 15 years. Prosecutors have charged several servicemen with assaulting and degrading fellow recruits. Eight of the deaths since 1998 have been linked to "dedovshchina" or "the rule of the grandfathers." This brutal practice made headlines this year after doctors had to amputate a conscript's legs and genitals after an assault by fellow recruits at a Ural mountains tank academy. The case shocked many Russians, who saw it as proof that military commanders cared little about the welfare of young soliders under their care. Five days after Shinkaryov's death, 19-year-old Dmitry Krupkin threw himself out of an upstairs window, suffering spinal injuries. He told Safonova a fellow conscript had been demanding he pay him 3,000 roubles ($112). The Interior Ministry has tried to tackle the problems. The unit's commander was sacked 18 months ago. Generals have visited from Moscow. Psychologists have been drafted in and an Orthodox priest even blessed the barracks. "But unfortunately we have not been able to turn this situation around," said Panchenkov. Campaigners say the root of the problem lies in the way youngsters are drafted into Russia's armed forces. Most families pay a bribe -- it can run into several thousand dollars -- to get their sons out of compulsory two-year military service. Some borrow from relatives or sell their belongings to scrape together the cash. The men who end up being drafted are usually from the bottom of the social pile: they are unhealthy, poorly educated, and likely to have grown up in families with drug or alcohol problems. Draft boards do not turn them away because they are under pressure to fill the ranks. Out of the 246 conscripts who reported for service at the unit in May, 12 were sent home because they had psychological disorders, said Safonova. The answer to the unit's problems is a simple one, said Natalya Degraf, who runs the Soldiers' Mothers Committee in nearby Krasnoyarsk. "Lads who are psychologically unstable should not be sent to serve in a strategically important installation." -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- tennessee Lapse allows guns into Tenn. nuke plant By BEN LANDO AND DONNA BORAK UPI Energy Correspondents 8/17/2006 http://www.upi.com/Energy/view.php?StoryID=20060817-025156-8282r WASHINGTON, Aug. 17 (UPI) -- Poor safeguards at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Sequoyah Nuclear Plant allowed M-4 assault rifles to enter the facility unchecked and be improperly stored in a secure zone, United Press International has learned. The Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, located 18-miles north of Chattanooga, produces 26 percent of Tennessee's electricity and accounts for 65 percent of the state's total nuclear generation. Officials acknowledged the security lapse at the facility, saying personnel "inadvertently" transported the factory-sealed shipment of weapons to an incorrect warehouse. "They delivered the right cargo to the right people; it was inadvertently taken to the wrong warehouse," TVA spokesman John Moulton told UPI in a telephone interview Wednesday. Moulton said TVA was expecting the shipment of weapons without any ammunition for use by the private security personnel contracted by Pinkerton Government Services, Inc. The weapons were, however, inadvertently transported to the wrong warehouse, rather than the armory section of the nuclear facility. According to the Washington-based Project on Government Oversight, an independent government watchdog, the cargo contained 30 M-4 assault rifles. TVA declined to comment on the weapons details citing security reasons. A Pinkerton security employee with first-hand knowledge of the incident told UPI on condition of anonymity Wednesday that the brown cardboard box of weapons had been mislabeled and slipped past numerous checkpoints at the nuclear site. Personnel at Pinkerton were strongly discouraged to speak to the media, the employee said. "It should only take one, no less than two checkpoints to identify it (the box of weapons)," the employee said. "(There were) four chances for those weapons to be discovered on that day and they weren't." Numerous calls to Pinkerton and its parent company, Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security were unreturned. There has been varying accounts of when the incident happened. TVA says the unchecked shipment arrived in late June, while POGO says it arrived last week. The employee says the shipment arrived on a Saturday in late July. The employee said little has been done at the facility despite repeated warnings of potential vulnerabilities made to Pinkerton, TVA and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Complaints of possible threats to security, the employee said, were "scoffed at." "I told them that this very thing could happen," the employee said. "I'm not the only one who has been singing this song. "TVA and Pinkerton royally screwed up." Moulton, of the TVA, said Pinkerton was not involved in the incident. Both Pinkerton and TVA have a hand in security operations at the nuclear site. The security company is responsible for inspecting shipments to the plant and TVA regulates security operations at the site. Although security personnel mishandled the cargo after delivery, Moulton said that at no time were the weapons outside of TVA control. It took 24 hours before TVA personnel discovered the weapons, which were all accounted for. Under TVA regulations, staff receiving shipments of weapons is required to notify nuclear security. But in this case, nuclear security was made aware of the package only after personnel discovered the misplaced cargo the next morning, Moulton said. The facility is now undergoing a review of security procedures to determine if changes need to be made to the delivery system. "We self-identified this matter for further evaluation to determine whether there are changes that need to be made in the receiving process," Moulton said. "We are evaluating that now." The Pinkerton security employee said that before the incident, policy did not require security officials to inspect all packages with factory seals. Inspections were left to the discretion of security officials, the employee said. Since the security lapse, however, the inspection policy at TVA has been revamped to include more mandatory searches on items delivered to the site, the official said. But, the employee said, even with the upgraded security policy on cargos, exceptions of some cargo inspections still pose a risk. Moulton said the NRC was reviewing the matter. The NRC declined comment. "Unfortunately, we don't comment on security at nuclear power plants because we don't want to release any information that might aid an adversary," Ken Clark, a spokesman for the NRC in Atlanta, told UPI in a telephone interview Wednesday. Clark said any security concerns at the nuclear site had been addressed and there was "no imminent danger to the plant or public safety." Additional calls to the NRC to confirm its involvement in the review of the incident at Sequoyah Nuclear Plant were not returned. This incident highlights the vulnerabilities of the nation's nuclear power plants, said Peter Stockton, a spokesman for POGO. "There are really terrible procedures allowing this to happen," he said in a telephone interview Wednesday. Stockton said if disgruntled insiders knew about this vulnerability and were able to bring weapons and explosives into the nuclear facility, there may be irreparable damage. "We're talking a whole lot worse than Three Mile Island," he said. "If an insider knows where the target sets are, in other words, the way to damage the reactor or to blow a hole in the spent fuel pool, it would be a hell of lot worse than anything we've ever seen in this country before." (Comments to energy@upi.com) -------- texas $14B Nuclear Project Targets TX, LA By Amy Wolff Sorter August 17, 2006 http://www.globest.com/news/678_678/other/148299-1.html AMARILLO, TX-GE Nuclear Energy Inc. of Wilmington, NC has targeted Texas and Louisiana as sites for two new nuclear technologies and the facilities necessary to run them. The Advanced Boiling Water Reactor and the Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor will be built at various nuclear generating stations and sites in Texas and Louisiana at an estimated cost of $14 billion. Pending approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the units are scheduled to come online between 2014-2018. According to information released by marketing information service company Industrial Info Resources in Sugar Land, TX, the five proposed units will be constructed in Amarillo at two as yet undetermined sites; in Wadsworth, TX near the South Texas Nuclear Generating Station; with a fifth unit scheduled for placement in St. Francisville, LA. In a statement discussing the proposed developments, Industrial Info Resources indicates that a total of 6,500 megawatts of nuclear generation will take place once all units are on line, increasing nuclear capacity in the region by 72%. A spokesperson for Industrial Info Resources tells GlobeSt.com that Texas and Louisiana have been targeted as sites because of the area's need for electricity. He adds that the projects, as of now, are being spearheaded by reactor owners, which include the South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Co. a conglomeration of energy companies from central Texas, and Entergy Corp. of New Orleans. As construction for the projects becomes closer, general contractors and architects will be selected. A definite date for construction launch was not available. -------- MILITARY -------- arms Top Chinese diplomat tells US to 'shut up' on arms spending AFP Thursday August 17, 2006 http://sg.news.yahoo.com/060817/1/42uur.html China's ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, throwing diplomatic language to the wind, has told the United States in no uncertain terms to "shut up and keep quiet" on the subject of Beijing's growing military spending. Interviewed for a BBC radio programme on the topic Thursday, Sha Zukang also said China would "do the business" and sacrifice its own people's lives if any nation supported a declaration of independence by Taiwan. Responding to jitters within the Bush administration about Beijing's spiraling military budget, Sha said the United States itself accounts for half of the entire world's military spending. "The China population is six times or five times that of the United States," he said. "Why blame China?... It's better for the US to shut up and keep quiet. It's much, much better." His voice rising, Sha continued: "It's the US's sovereign right to do whatever they deem good for them -- but don't tell us what is good for China. Thank you very much!" Sha was equally explicit on Taiwan declaring independence with US backing -- a prospect that the BBC programme, by former Beijing correspondent Carrie Gracie, called the motivating factor behind Chinese military spending. "The moment Taiwan declares independence, supported by whoever, China will have no choice," he said. "We will do the business through whatever means available to my government. Nobody should have any illusions on that. We will do the business at any cost." He added: "It's not a matter of how big Taiwan is, but for China, one inch of the territory is more valuable than the life of our people. We will never concede on that." China's rising military spending, which has grown by double digits for much of the last 15 years, has caused concern in the United States and amongst China's neighbors in Asia. In March the National People's Congress (parliament), largely a rubber-stamp for decisions taken at the top level of the Chinese Communist Party, approved a 14.7-percent increase in military spending to 35 billion dollars (27 billion euros) this year. Although this is paltry compared to the 419 billion dollar (325 billion euro) US defense budget in 2006, the Pentagon last year estimated that China's defense spending was two to three times the publicly announced figure. In a speech in Beijing in July, Defence Minister Cao Gangchuan said modernization of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) remained a priority, the China News Service reported. "The entire military must eye the historic destiny of China's military in the new century and new era and push forward the main line of a Chinese-style revolution in military affairs," he was quoted as saying. He added: "We must unswervingly fulfill our sacred duty to defend state sovereignty, territorial integrity and security and never tolerate Taiwan independence and never permit Taiwan independence forces under any name or under any circumstances or form to split Taiwan from the motherland." -------- mideast Timeline: Lebanon conflict The war has left many homeless in Lebanon Thursday 17 August 2006, 8:30 Makka Time, 5:30 GMT http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/35772526-C1A8-4599-868C-E513C4F29C9B.htm Timeline of events in Lebanon: August 16 The Lebanese government, which includes two Hezbollah ministers, orders the army to move south in line with the UN resolution. France says it is willing to lead a UN force providing that it is given a clear mandate and that enough other countries are willing to contribute troops. Turkey, Indonesia and Malaysia have also agreed to contribute troops. The UK says that its troops are unlikely to join the planned 15,000 strong force. Lebanese civilians begin returning to their homes. Hezbollah says it will help rebuild devastated areas of southern Lebanon and Beirut. * Lebanese troops head south * Hezbollah helps Lebanese rebuild * Annan sends envoys to Middle East August 15 The Syrian president says resistance against Israel is necessary because the world will not consider Arab interests "unless we are strong". He praises Lebanon's Hezbollah for fighting off Israel for nearly five weeks and says their actions would make Israel think twice before pursuing "terrorist policies" in the region. Israel warns Lebanese not to return to their homes in the south until Lebanon's army and an international peacekeeping force arrive in the area. Despite the warning, Thousands of vehicles jam the bombed-out coastal highway linking Beirut to the south as thousands of displaced people head home. Israeli forces pull back from the town of Marjayoun in southern Lebanon and nearby areas. Israeli military officials say they hope to complete their withdrawal of forces by next week. Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, faces growing criticism at home over his handling of the Lebanon crisis. Opposition politicians say the conflict was mismanaged. * Syria: Resistance shows Arab strength * Israel warns Lebanese not to return * Olmert faces Lebanon backlash August 14 Some of the fiercest fighting of the month-long conflict takes place in the final hours running up to the UN ceasefire coming into effect. At 0500 GMT guns fall silent, although with isolated incidents reported across southern Lebanon. Refugees begin to return home - some not knowing if they have homes to return to. Unexploded Israeli ordnance remains a major hazard. Israel says it will retain its blockade of Lebanon until "until a mechanism is put in place to control smuggling of arms [to Hezbollah]." * Lebanon truce takes hold * Both sides claim victory August 13 The prime ministers of Israel and Lebanon agree to a cessation of hostilities beginning at 0500 GMT on Monday. The Israeli cabinet approves a UN resolution calling for a halt to the month-old war in Lebanon. Israeli warplanes launched a series of strikes on Beirut's southern suburbs, destroying 11 residential buildings and killing at least two people, witnesses and security sources said. In total, 17 civilians and four soldiers are killed in Lebanon on Sunday, police said, as Israel continued its bombardment of the country. Meanwhile, Israel has asked the US government to speed up delivery of short-range anti-personnel rockets armed with cluster munitions, which it could use to strike Hezbollah missile sites in Lebanon. * Israel approves UN ceasefire deal * Palestinians see Nasrallah as new hero * Red Cross: Civilian deaths unacceptable * Hezbollah downs Israeli helicopter August 12 Hezbollah says it will abide by a UN-backed ceasefire and Israel says it plans to halt offensive operations on August 14, but both sides issued caveats to their acceptance of a UN resolution to end the fighting. Israeli forces make their deepest push into Lebanon since July 12, with some troops reaching the Litani River, about 20km north of the border between Israel and Lebanon. Hezbollah continues to fire rockets into northern Israel on Saturday and clash with Israeli troops, killing at least seven and wounding 70. Politicians in the Middle East express confidence that a UN Security Council resolution can bring an end to the Lebanon conflict. * Israel, Hezbollah issue caveats on deal * Middle East leaders support resolution * UN urges immediate ceasefire August 11 Israel rejects a 72-hour truce proposed by Russia and bombs parts of southern Beirut and southern Lebanon. A UN contingent is dispatched to provide a convoy to remove approximately 350 Lebanese soldiers held in their barracks by Israeli soldiers in Marjayoun. At least 26 people are killed by Israeli attacks, including 11 people on a bridge in the north of the country and seven killed when a drone fired rockets on a convoy of cars leaving the south. Hezbollah resumed its volley of rockets, hitting Haifa and wounding at least two. Israel drops anti-Hezbollah leaflets on the southern suburbs of Beirut. * UN agrees on Lebanon draft * Israeli ground offensive in Lebanon * 'Civil resistance' convoy for Lebanon * Israel asks US for new missiles August 10 Israeli warplanes targeted an historic lighthouse in western Beirut - the first strike on Beirut proper since Hezbollah warned that rockets would be fired at Tel Aviv if the capital was hit. Vehicles and roads in the Bekaa valley were also targeted killing at least one person. Israel dropped leaflets in the north threatening to attack trucks on the coastal road which leads to Syria. Two people, including a toddler, were killed when a Hezbollah rocket hit a house in the Israeli-Arab village of Deir al-Assad. In the south, Israeli troops faced heavy resistance as they took control of the strategically important Christian town of Marjayoun. The UN humanitarian relief coordinator has criticised both sides for not stopping fighting for long enough to allow aid to reach 120,000 civilians who need help in southern Lebanon. * UN criticises Lebanon aid 'disgrace' * The last road from Beirut * Lebanon: A month into war August 9 Fighting continues in southern Lebanon, with the Israeli army confirming that 15 soldiers were killed in clashes with Hezbollah. Israeli fighter jets continue to strike targets in the north, east and centre of Lebanon, leaving at least one person dead. Israel announced that it was expanding its ground offensive in Lebanon, pushing troops up to 20km over the border. Sayyed Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, said his group rejected a proposed UN resolution to end the conflict but backed a Lebanese government proposal to send troops to the south of the country. * Israel to expand ground offensive * Nasrallah vows to continue fight August 8 The Arab League accuses the UN of doing nothing to solve the crisis, saying that the conflict will sow "the seeds of hatred and extremism across the Middle East". At least 19 people are killed during Israeli air strikes with 13 killed in two raids on the town of Ghaziyeh, near Sidon. Four Israeli soldiers are killed during clashes with Hezbollah and the group continues to fire rockets at civilian areas of northern Israel. Israeli military officials announce that the Israeli army is now holding land up to 8km inside Lebanon. * Arabs warn of Lebanon 'civil war' * Lebanon fighting continues as UN meets August 7 The Lebanese government says it will send 15,000 troops to the south when Israeli troops begin to withdraw from the area. Israeli attacks against villages in southern and eastern Lebanon claim about 60 lives in 24 hours. A UN Security Council vote on resolution to end conflict is delayed. Israeli army says three of its soldiers killed in battles in south Lebanon and Hezbollah fires more rockets into northern Israel, wounding one person. Fouad Siniora, the Lebanese prime minister, demands "quick and decisive ceasefire" and calls for immediate withdrawal of Israeli troops from south Lebanon. Lebanon's health minister says the Israeli offensive has killed 925 people, mostly civilians, and left 75 missing and presumed dead, not including Monday's casualties. Ninety-seven Israelis have been killed. * Lebanon to send 15,000 troops south * Israeli strikes kill scores in Lebanon * Siniora in emotional plea for truce * Agency forced to deliver aid by hand * Israeli reservists caught 'unprepared' August 6 Israel continues its ground and air offensive in Lebanon, launching a series of attacks that kills 13 people. Fouad Siniora calls for a 'quick and decisive ceasefire' At least 15 people are killed by Hezbollah's deadliest wave of rocket attacks on Israel since fighting began on July 12. Israel says it will keep attacking Hezbollah until an international force arrives to take over in southern Lebanon. Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, says that there will be violence in the Middle East "for some time to come" even after the adoption of a UN resolution aimed at ending the conflict. And Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, in an interview with a German newspaper, tells European leaders to stop preaching to him about civilian war casualties. * Hezbollah in deadly rocket attack * Rice: Lebanon violence to continue * Olmert to Europe: Stop 'preaching' August 5 Lebanon rejects a draft UN resolution proposed by the US and France that calls for "full cessation of hostilities" between Israel and Hezbollah, saying it did not adequately address Lebanese concerns. An Israeli minister says time is running out for Israel's military campaign in Lebanon, following the completion of the draft UN resolution. Hezbollah rockets kill three people in northern Israel and wound five, police and medics say. Israel warns residents of Sidon to evacuate south Lebanon's biggest city. Helicopter-borne Israeli naval commandos attack Hezbollah fighters near the southern Lebanese city of Tyre overnight. Thousands of people demonstrate in Britain and France to demand a Middle East ceasefire. * Beirut dismisses UN draft resolution * Israel kills Hezbollah leaders in Tyre * Protest marches in London, Paris August 4 Israeli air raid hits farm close to Syrian border in Bekaa Valley, killing 33 farm workers and wounding 20. Hezbollah fires more than 100 rockets into northern Israel, killing three people and wounding several. At least two rockets land in or near Israeli city of Hadera, about 80km inside Israel, the deepest rocket attack so far. US and France inch closer to a deal on a UN resolution calling for an end to fighting. Bombardment of a house in frontline Taibeh village in south Lebanon kills seven civilians and wounds 10. Israeli aircraft destroy four bridges linking Beirut to the north, disrupting aid efforts. Hezbollah fighters kill three Israeli soldiers near Markaba. * Dozens killed in Israeli air raids * New Israeli air strikes on Lebanon * Lebanese vow to rebuild August 3 Israel's government reportedly prepares to occupy southern Lebanon up to the Litani river. Hezbollah's leader Hasan Nasrallah warns that his fighters will launch rockets at Tel Aviv if Beirut is bombed again. Four Israeli soldiers are killed in heavy fighting in south Lebanon At least eight Israeli civilians are killed in Hezbollah rocket attacks against Israeli cities. * OIC anger at UN over Lebanon * Hezbollah warns of Tel Aviv strike * Baalbek after the bombs August 2 Hezbollah fires more than 230 rockets into Israel in one day - the highest number so far. Some land as much as 70km inside Israel. Hundreds have been killed in the fighting Israeli commandos in helicopters raid an Iranian-funded hospital in Baalbek. Israel claims to capture five mid-level Hezbollah members in the attack; Hezbollah claims that only civilians are killed. Ehud Olmert says fighting will continue until an international force arrives in south Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah. Several thousand Israeli troops are now believed to be in south Lebanon. * Israeli raid captures Hezbollah fighters * Israel to fight on in Lebanon * Arab women lead Lebanon coverage * Israeli hackers target Hezbollah TV August 1 Israeli forces moved into Lebanon in an expansion of their offensive, meeting fierce resistance from Hezbollah. Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, signals that a ceasefire may be on the horizon. Israeli strategy shifts from air strikes to ground invasion The Israeli army says three Israeli soldiers have been killed in the fighting. Hezbollah launches multiple rockets at Matzuva in northern Israel, and the Israeli military says five of its soldiers have been wounded in cross-border fire. EU foreign ministers call for an immediate end to hostilities, watering down demands for an immediate ceasefire at the insistence of Britain and other close US allies. Israel's justice minister says about 300 of an estimated 2,000 Hezbollah fighters have been killed so far, while the tourism minister puts the number at 400. Hezbollah denies the claims. * Lack of security delays Lebanon aid * Israel to resume air onslaught * Senior Iran cleric say arm Hezbollah July 31 Israel suspends its air attacks on southern Lebanon for 48 hours after meetings between Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, and Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister. Rice says she believes that a ceasefire could be forged within the week. But Israel's security cabinet gives the army the green light to widen a ground offensive against Hezbollah fighters. Thousands of Lebanese reach across the sectarian and religious divide to help hundreds of thousands of mostly Shia refugees fleeing Israel’s bombardment in the south of the country. * Israel halts air strikes for 48 hours * Rice: Lebanon truce 'this week' * Israel okays wider ground offensive * Lebanon sees rare unity July 30 Protesters attacked the UN office in Beirut after the Qana air raids An Israeli air raid on a south Lebanon village, Qana, kills more than 60 Lebanese civilians, most of them children who were sleeping. Thousands of protesters storm the UN building in Beirut after the attack and the United Nations, along with Western and Arab leaders, condemn the bombing raid. Lebanon cancels the visit by Condoleezza Rice. * UN stormed amid fury over Qana bombing * Annan dismay at UN inertia * Israeli attack draws outrage * Lebanon tells Rice to stay away * Syria-Lebanon border crossing hit * Lebanon wants return of Shebaa Farms July 29 Israeli soldiers move deeper into Lebanon Fouad Siniora, the Lebanese prime minister, says that if Israel wants secure borders it must withdraw from the disputed Shebaa Farms area that it has occupied since 1967. Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah's leader, vows to hit Israel with more rockets and says that Condoleezza Rice's visit to the region is aimed to "impose conditions that serve Israel". * Lebanon to Israel: Return Shebaa Farms * Nasrallah vows more strikes July 28 Bush and Blair agree to send a UN force to Lebanon George Bush, the US president, and Tony Blair, the British prime minister, agree to send a UN multinational force to support the Lebanese government. The Israeli government says it is ready to call up 30,000 reservists to support its offensive in Lebanon but says it will not expand its campaign for now. Nabih Berri, speaker of Lebanon's parliament and a leading Shia politician, says his Shia Amal movement and Hezbollah would join forces against Israel's offensive in Lebanon. * Bush, Blair back UN force for Lebanon * Israel ready to call up reservists * Speaker of Lebanon's parliament backs Hezbollah July 27 Israeli warplanes have continued to strike targets across Lebanon Israel says it has been implicitly "authorised" to continue its attacks in Lebanon by the failure of Wednesday's international summit in Rome to call for a ceasefire. An Israeli security cabinet meeting agreed to continue air strikes whilst maintaining a limited ground offensive, political sources said. Israeli warplanes hit Hezbollah targets in southern Lebanon, killing at least seven people, reports said. At least 40 Hezbollah rockets also hit several towns in northern Israel, including Kiryat Shimona. * Israel 'authorised' to continue attacks * Fighting rages in Lebanon July 26 Hezbollah fighters parade in Beirut before the present conflict Israel is accused of ignoring repeated warnings that it was shelling close to United Nations observers in southern Lebanon before an Israeli bomb killed four of them. A 15-nation summit in Rome failed to reach agreement on calling for an immediate ceasefire in Lebanon. Israeli and Hezbollah forces continue battling for control of the town of Bint Jbeil in southern Lebanon. * Israel 'ignored UN bomb warnings' * Lebanon summit fails to agree truce call * Battle rages for Lebanese town July 25 Four soldiers from the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon in south Lebanon are killed by an Israeli strike in south Lebanon. Israel says it plans to enforce a "security zone" in southern Lebanon until an international force can be sent to take over. Israeli troops enter the border town of Bint Jbeil, a Hezbollah military stronghold, for the first time. Mahmoud Komati, the deputy chief of the Hezbollah politburo, says he does not expect Israel to react so strongly to the group's capture of two Israeli soldiers. Human Rights Watch accuses Israel of using artillery-fired cluster grenades against a Lebanese village. * Israel used cluster grenades on civilians * Israel 'to control Lebanon security zone' * Israeli strike kills four UN soldiers * Israel enters Hezbollah stronghold * Hezbollah: Israeli response unexpected July 24 Condoleezza Rice makes a visit to Beirut on the way to Israel, blames Hezbollah for the war and says a ceasefire would be possible only if two captured Israeli soldiers are freed. Jan Egeland, the UN humanitarian chief, accuses Hezbollah of "cowardly blending" among Lebanese civilians. Israeli troops battle their way to a key Hezbollah stronghold in south Lebanon and capture two fighters. * Israel pushes deeper into Lebanon * Rice sets tough terms for truce * Hezbollah blamed for civilian deaths July 23 Israeli air strikes kill at least 12 civilians, including a Lebanese press photographer near the southern city of Tyre. The Israeli army said that it had taken control of the Lebanese border village of Maroun Al-Ras and had captured two Hezbollah members there. Hezbollah missiles land on Haifa killing two civilians and wounding several others. More than 2,200 rockets have hit Israel so far, says Amir Peretz, Israel's defence minister. Jan Egeland describes Israeli bombing of build-up areas as "a violation of humanitarian law" as he toured bombed areas of south Beirut. Condoleezza Rice travels to the Middle East. * Israel captures two Hezbollah men * Israeli troops praise Hezbollah tactics * Israel would accept EU force in Lebanon July 22 Israel confirms heavy fighting inside Lebanon Israeli ground troops move into the village of Maroun al-Ras in south Lebanon and take control. The Israeli army insists that incursions will be limited in scope despite the recall of thousands of reserve troops. Israel continues its offensive by hitting communications targets in Lebanon, including a relay station used by several Lebanese television stations. Hezbollah fires at least 50 rockets hitting several cities and villages in northern Israel. Washington rushes a delivery of precision-guided bombs to Israel, according to The New York Times. Condoleezza Rice describes the plight of Lebanon as part of the "birth pangs of a new Middle East" and says that Israel should ignore calls for a ceasefire. * Rice sees bombs as birth pangs * Bush rushes bombs to Israel * Israeli troops seize Lebanese village July 21 Hezbollah are proving stronger than Israel anticipated Israel calls up several reserve army battalions and drops leaflets over southern Lebanese villages warning civilians to leave the area. More than 100,000 civilians have already left their homes in south Lebanon. Brigadier-General Alon Friedman, who is in charge of Israeli army operations in the north, said: "It's possible that in the coming days our ground operations will increase." Hezbollah launch fewer rockets than on any day since the conflict began. Only 40 rockets reach Israel. The Israeli air force continues to hit targets around Lebanon. More than 300 Lebanese civilians have now been killed in the raids. * Israel calls up army reservists * South Beirut suburb devastated * Israelis in the mood for war July 20 Lebanon's civilians have borne the brunt of Israeli air strikes Israeli army units enter southern Lebanon to attack Hezbollah positions near the border. Four Israeli soldiers are killed. An Israeli airman dies when two Apache attack helicopters collide near the northern border. Israeli air attacks on southern Lebanese towns and Baalbek kill 45 Lebanese civilians. Hezbollah fires more than 120 rockets at Israel. Two Arab children are killed in the Israeli-Arab town of Nazareth. * Israeli-Arab children killed in attack * Israel: Dissenting voices for peace * Lebanon 'torn to shreds' * Feature: Watching American TV in Beirut July 19 Hezbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah Israel drops 23 tonnes of bombs on a single target in southern Beirut in an attempt to kill Hassan Nasrallah. More than 70 Lebanese civilians are killed as Israel continues its bombing campaign against Lebanese infrastructure and Hezbollah positions. Israeli commando units enter Lebanon at several points along the border. They discover several underground Hezbollah bunker complexes and engage in firefights with Hezbollah members. Two Israeli soldiers are killed. Hezbollah fire more than 100 missiles into Israel. One Israeli is killed in the town of Nahariya. An Israeli F-16 fighter aircraft crashes while taking off from its base in southern Israel. The pilot escapes unharmed. * Israel may send troops into Lebanon * Israel bombs Hezbollah 'bunker' July 18 Emile Lahoud, the Lebanese president, inspects a bomb site Israel continues its air strikes across Lebanon. The attacks kill 11 Lebanese soldiers in their army barracks east of Beirut. Hezbollah rockets again strike Haifa, wounding several Israelis. Saudi Arabia says it will support the deployment of an international military force to stabilise Lebanon. More than 200 Lebanese have now been killed in the Israeli offensive. * UN seeks international force for Lebanon * Thousands of foreigners flee Lebanon * US Muslims criticise Bush over Middle East July 17 A Lebanese man frees a pigeon from a ruined house in Beirut Israeli strikes on Lebanon continue, killing more than 45 civilians. Hezbollah fires more rockets into Israel, injuring at least 10 civilians in Haifa and Safed. Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general, calls for an international military force to separate the warring sides. Israeli forces briefly enter parts of Lebanon to attack and destroy Hezbollah posts along the border. Foreign governments begin evacuating their citizens from Lebanon. * Israel bombs Lebanese factories * Olmert: Israel facing moment of truth * Syria watches and waits July 16 Smoke rises after Hezbollah rockets hit a train station in Haifa Hezbollah rockets hit Haifa, Israel's second city, killing eight civilians and wounding more than 20. Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, says the Haifa attack will have "far-reaching consequences". Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, says the battle against Israel is "just at the beginning". That evening more rockets land in other northern Israeli towns, wounding several more civilians. Continuing Israeli air attacks kill at least 23 people around Lebanon. Iran warns Israel that any attack on Syria will incur "unimaginable losses". * Air strikes test Lebanese unity * Lebanon blames US for UB silence * Lebanon exodus gathers pace July 15 Lebanese civilians flee air attacks in south Lebanon, 15 July. Israeli aircraft destroy Hezbollah's headquarters in southern Beirut in an attempt to kill Hasan Nasrallah, the group's leader. Israel bombs Lebanon's ports and other sites across Lebanon. The attacks kill at least 35 people. Eighteen Lebanese civilians die when an Israeli rockets hit their van near the southern city of Saida. Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, promises "open war" against Israel. Hezbollah rockets hit Tiberias, an Israeli city in Galilee. The attacks are the deepest so far. Foreign government make plans to evacuate their citizens from Lebanon. * Hezbollah 'declares war' on Israel * Iran denies supplying missile that hit ship * Arabs rally against Israeli attacks * Britain send warships to the Middle East July 14 Israel was shocked when a Hezbollah missile hit a navy ship Israel bombs targets across Lebanon including bridges, roads and power stations. Israeli aircraft also hits Hezbollah's headquarters in Beirut. Israel also attacks broadcasting facilities belonging to Hezbollah's Al-Manar television channel. Hezbollah fires an Iranian-made anti-shipping rocket at an Israeli naval vessel off Beirut. The attack kills four Israeli sailors. Israeli accuses the Lebanese army of assisting Hezbollah. Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, say Israel's operations will end only when rocket attacks on Israeli cities stop, when Israel's two abducted soldiers are released and when Lebanon implements United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559, which calls for Hezbollah to be disarmed. * Attacks provoke mixed international reaction * On the ground in Israel * Saudi sideswipe at Hezbollah * Chirac questions Israeli intentions July 13 Firefighters tackle a blaze at Beirut on July 13 Israeli jets bomb the runway of Lebanon's only international airport, the Rafiq Hariri Airport in Beirut, at dawn. The airport is closed and flights are diverted. Israel announces an air and sea blockade of Lebanon, and says that Hezbollah will not be allowed to return to its former position along the border. Israeli aircraft attack what it says are Hezbollah targets across southern Lebanon. The raids kill 35 Lebanese civilians. Hezbollah fires rockets that hit towns in northern Israel, including Nahariya and Safed. Two civilians are killed. * Scores killed as Israel strikes Lebanon * Israeli strikes kill 40 in Lebanon * Anxiety weighs down Beirut July 12 The funeral of Sgt Nimrod Cohen, killed in Lebanon on 12 July Hezbollah fighters seize two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid. Three Israeli soldiers are also killed in the attack. It says it will release them if Israel frees Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails. "Fulfilling its pledge to liberate the prisoners and detainees, the Islamic Resistance ... captured two Israeli soldiers at the border with occupied Palestine," a Hezbollah statement said. Ehud Olmert, Israel's prime minister, said the attack was an "act of war" by Lebanon and said he would make the country pay a "heavy price". Later that day, Israel launches a small cross-border raid in the area where the two soldiers were abducted. Hezbollah destroyed one Israeli tank, killing its four-man crew. Another Israeli was killed in an operation to recover the tank. "If the soldiers are not returned, we will turn Lebanon's clock back 20 years" Lt-Gen Dan Halutz "This affair is between Israel and the state of Lebanon," Major-General Udi Adam, head of Israel's Northern Command says. "Where to attack? Once it is inside Lebanon, everything is legitimate - not just southern Lebanon, not just the line of Hezbollah posts." Lieutenant-General Dan Halutz, Israel's chief of staff, says: "If the soldiers are not returned, we will turn Lebanon's clock back 20 years." On June 27 Hamas, an armed Palestinian group, had kidnapped an Israeli soldier in a cross-border raid from Gaza. Hamas demanded that Israel release Palestinian prisoners. * Hezbollah captures Israeli soldiers * Israeli troops enter Lebanon * Lebanon 'not aware' of Hezbollah plan Aljazeera + Agencies -------- us Study Revisits Vietnam Stress Disorder Thursday, August 17, 2006 (AP) http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2006/08/17/national/w110642D43.DTL (08-17) 11:07 PDT WASHINGTON -- A widely quoted estimate that almost one in three Vietnam veterans developed post-traumatic stress disorder was too high, says a re-analysis that puts the toll closer to one in five. Post-traumatic stress disorder now is understood to be triggered by a variety of traumatic experiences, not just combat, but medical authorities first accepted it as a psychiatric condition in 1980 at the urging of Vietnam veterans. Then came the controversy over its prevalence. In the late 1980s, two government-funded studies issued vastly different estimates. A study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggested that 14.7 percent of veterans developed the disorder after serving in Vietnam and that 2.2 percent still had it at that time. A second, the National Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Study, estimated that 30.9 percent of the veterans had developed the disorder and 15.2 percent of them were suffering it over a decade after the war. Columbia University scientists took another look at that second study, using more precise symptom definitions, among other things. Their work, reported in Friday's edition of the journal Science, showed that 18.7 percent of Vietnam veterans had developed the disorder and 9.1 percent were suffering it by the end of the 1980s. Whatever the actual numbers, the researchers said it is clear that the more combat exposure for a veteran, the greater the likelihood of the disorder. Today, veterans from the Iraq war are supposed to be screened for the disorder and other mental health problems. Studies published this year suggest that between 11 percent and 17 percent of those soldiers have had symptoms of post-traumatic stress upon their return. ---- Troops Express Worries About Iraq By PAULINE JELINEK, Associated Press Writer Thursday, August 17, 2006 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2006/08/17/national/w130558D83.DTL&type=printable (08-17) 13:05 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) -- President Bush is not frustrated over the slow progress in Iraq, the White House insists. But a lot of other Americans are — apparently including U.S. troops. The Pentagon's top general says troops suggested to him during a recent trip to Iraq that they are among those who are worried. White House spokesman Tony Snow took pains to deny a report Wednesday that Bush had privately expressed frustration with the Iraqis for not appreciating American sacrifices made there and with the Iraqi people and their leaders for not supporting the U.S. mission. "We don't expect ... an overnight success," Snow said when asked Bush's opinion on the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Just when success might come — and whether it is even possible — are key questions for war-weary Americans. And the latest setbacks in Iraq come as congressional elections approach. Troops are also disgruntled over Iraqi efforts, according to questions put to Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, when he visited the country over the weekend. One asked how much more time the Iraqi government should be given to achieve the political unity needed to stabilize the country. Another wanted to know whether U.S. forces will stay if Iraqis descend into all-out civil war. And a third ended a question about continued U.S. troop deployments to Iraq by asking, "Is the war coming to an end?" Pace said his talks with troops reassured him that they are proud of what they're doing and satisfied with what they've accomplished. But he also said he detected among them "some frustration at the Iraqis for not yet grasping the opportunity that's in front of them." Rival Shiite and Sunni sects have failed to reconcile their differences and establish an effective government capable of taking over security responsibilities for the country. Pace said the troops feel, "`We're doing our part. When is the (Iraqi) governance part going to kick in?' And that's a fair question." Pushing Iraqis along for three years through formation of an interim government, the writing of their constitution and election of the current government — only to have the fighting worsen — has grown old for many in civilian and military quarters. Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, sounded one of his recurring themes at a recent committee hearing: Iraqi politicians must get the message that U.S. troops can't stay indefinitely, and should make political compromises to stop insurgents and avoid all-out civil war. "There's a certain irony if military and political leaders seem to be losing patience with the Iraqis," said Charles Pena, a fellow at the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy and George Washington University's homeland security institute. "We're the ones who created this situation." "It's perfectly logical for Americans and the president to be frustrated" by lack of political progress in Iraq, said CATO Institute's Christopher Preble. He blamed Bush's "grave error" in assuming that Iraqis would unite after Saddam Hussein's fall. Eric Davis, a Rutgers University political science professor and former head of the university's Center for Middle Eastern Studies, said he's disturbed that the Iraq debate is "increasingly being turned into a referendum on George Bush." Suggestions that Iraqis own some of the blame infuriate him as well. "This whole 'blaming Iraqis' thing is a simple way of trying to weasel out ... to say, 'They're not really trying to make political change, so we should leave,'" said Davis, one of several outside experts invited to a Monday meeting of Bush's war cabinet. Snow worked hard to knock down a New York Times report Wednesday that Bush seemed frustrated with Iraqis during Monday's meeting. "I've spoken with the note-taker in the meeting. I was in the meeting. I've talked to others in the meeting," he told White House reporters. All attending took exception to the use of the word "frustrated" to describe the president's thinking, Snow said. Sectarian tensions have been rising following the Feb. 22 bombing at a Shiite shrine, which triggered a wave of reprisals against Sunni mosques and clerics and sent tens of thousand of Iraqis fleeing from their homes. U.S. generals say Iraq could slide into a full-blown civil war if the killing isn't tamped down. Though they'd hoped U.S. troop levels could be reduced this year, officials have extended some tours of duty, sending 5,000 additional Americans to Baghdad to help with security. The total there now is some 133,000. On the Net: Defense Department: http://www.defenselink.mil White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov -------- POLITICS -------- propaganda wars Prescott denies calling Bush crap Mr Prescott made "an honest and good point", Mr Cohen said Thursday, 17 August 2006 (BBC) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4800827.stm Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott has denied saying the Bush administration had been "crap" on the Middle East road map - the plan for peace in the region. Labour MP Harry Cohen said the remark came during a private, "robust" meeting on Tuesday with fellow Labour MPs. Mr Prescott said it was an inaccurate report of a private conversation. The White House said President George W Bush had been called worse, stressing Tony Blair was UK Prime Minister, and he and Mr Bush worked closely together. President Bush's press secretary Tony Snow, asked about the reported comments, insisted negative remarks were part of the burden of leadership. They were said to have been made at talks with Muslim MPs and other Labour MPs with constituencies representing large Muslim communities. In charge Asked about Mr Prescott's denial, Mr Cohen told the BBC he did not think it was a "gaffe" by the deputy PM and that Mr Prescott should not be embarrassed. Mr Cohen said he believed Mr Prescott's comment had been "an honest and good point, well made". Asked why Mr Prescott might deny it, Mr Cohen - whose constituency includes areas of east London where some terror raids took place last week - claimed it might be politically expedient "not to upset the Americans". He said he thought many of his fellow MPs and the wider population would agree that more should have been done by the US in pushing forward the Middle East road map in recent years. Mr Cohen said Mr Prescott's "crap" comment had been specific to the US efforts on the road map. It was not a view of President Bush generally, the Bush administration as a whole, or the Bush administration's general Middle East policy, he added. "That's my distinct memory, that he did use that word, quite properly in the context of the road map," he told BBC News 24. "We had a robust discussion about foreign affairs. Right at the end of the meeting he said: 'Well, you're going to speak to the press - take from it what you want.' "I did, and I think that's quite legitimate." He said Mr Prescott claimed he had only supported the Iraq war "because they were promised the road map". Mr Cohen said Mr Prescott's other reported comment - calling Mr Bush a "cowboy" - was a joke related to his own recent difficulties over a cowboy outfit gift he was given last year. 'Cheering him on' Colin Brown, who is the deputy prime minister's biographer, said that this was "the type of language" used by Mr Prescott. "It's a shorthand, it's very pithy, it's not diplomatic, and I hope that he doesn't get into any diplomatic hot water about it," he told BBC News 24. "But the fact is, a lot of people are cheering him on." Former ministers were "right behind him on this", Mr Brown added, and the deputy prime minister had "never been more popular than he is now" as a result. For the Lib Dems, Norman Lamb, said: "John Prescott does not always use the most appropriate language, but if these reports are to be believed then his instincts on the Middle East are certainly preferable to Tony Blair's." Mr Prescott has been Tony Blair's deputy since he came to power in 1997. Mr Blair is on holiday at the moment, leaving Mr Prescott in charge of the government. -------- OTHER -------- environment Key Facts About Oil Spills REUTERS INTERNATIONAL: August 17, 2006 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/37692/newsDate/17-Aug-2006/story.htm Aug 16 - Rescue workers battled on Wednesday to stop an oil spill from further polluting the central Philippine coastline as Lebanon began mopping up thousands of tonnes of oil that spilled into the Mediterranean Sea when Israel bombed a power plant over a month ago. Here are some key facts about oil spills: OVERVIEW Pipelines and fixed facilities are responsible for more than two-thirds of oil spilt onto water or land. Accidental spills from ships account for about 15 percent of the oil entering the ocean every year. Tankers and barges have spilt nearly six million tonnes of oil into the marine environment since 1970, with large spills (greater than 700 tonnes) responsible for most of the oil spilt into water bodies. In 2005, spillage from tankers and barges was about 17,000 tonnes. Oil spills happen most frequently in the Gulf of Mexico, northeastern United States and the Mediterranean Sea. CAUSES AND EFFECTS Oil spills can be caused by accidents, breakdown of equipment, natural disasters such as hurricanes or acts of terrorism and war. Large oil spills at sea can kill thousands of marine animals and destroy habitats, as well as affect the fishing and the tourist industries. Exposure to hydrocarbons can also harm people's health. CLEAN UP AND COSTS The cost of clean up depends on the type of oil -- the more viscous and sticky it is, the higher the cost -- and the size and area of the spill. Refined products such as diesel evaporate and dissipate quickly. Oil spills can be contained through use of equipment such as booms and skimmers. The clean up could involve dispersants, gelling agents and raking and bulldozing on shorelines. The 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska was the costliest ever. The clean up alone cost around US$2.5 billion while the total cost, including fines and claims settlement, is estimated at US$9.5 billion. RECENT OIL SPILLS AND THE LARGEST ONES - Israel's bombing of a Lebanese power plant in July caused 10,000-15,000 tonnes of oil to spill into the Mediterranean Sea and cover the coast with sludge. Lebanon estimates that it would cost at least US$100 million to clean up. - British oil major BP was forced to suspend half the output at its Prudhoe Bay oilfield in Alaska after two pipelines spills in March and August. - The largest oil spill ever was during the 1991 Gulf war, when about 800,000 tonnes of crude oil was deliberately released by Iraq into the Persian Gulf. - The biggest oil spill due to an accident at sea occurred in 1979 when the "Atlantic Empress" collided with another vessel and spilt 287,000 tonnes off Tobago. Sources: Reuters; United Nations Environment Programme (www.unep.org); International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (www.itopf.com); US Environmental Protection Agency (www.epa.gov) -------- genetics Crucial human brains gene discovered Human brains are triple the size of chimp brains Thursday 17 August 2006, AP http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/68972810-DFA3-4E01-8210-4E82E3435EC0.htm Scientists believe that they have found a key gene that helped the human brain evolve from our chimp-like ancestors. In just a few million years, one area of the human genome seems to have evolved about 70 times faster than the rest of our genetic code. It appears to have had a role in a rapid tripling of the size of the brain's crucial cerebral cortex, according to an article published on Thursday in the journal Nature. David Haussler, the study's co-author and director of the Centre for Biomolecular Science and Engineering at the University of California, Santa Cruz, said his team found strong but still circumstantial evidence that a certain gene, called HAR1F, may provide the answer to the question: "What makes humans brainier than other primates?" Human brains are triple the size of chimp brains. Looking at 49 areas that have changed the most between the human and chimpanzee genomes, Haussler zeroed in on an area with "a very dramatic change in a relatively short period of time." That one gene didn't exist until 300 million years ago and is present only in mammals and birds, not fish or animals without backbones. But then it didn't change much at all. There are only two differences in that one gene between a chimp and a chicken, Haussler said. But there are 18 differences in that one gene between human and chimp and they all seemed to occur in the development of man, he said. Gene change "It looks like in fact it is important in the development of brain" Andrew Clark, a Cornell University professor of molecular biology, who was not part of Haussler's team, said that if true, the change in genes would be fastest and most dramatic in humans and would be "terrifically exciting." However, the gene changed so fast that Clark said that he had a hard time believing it unless something unusual happened in a mutation. It's not part of normal evolution, he said. Haussler attributed the dramatic change to the stress of man getting out of trees and walking on two feet. And it's not just that this gene changed a lot. There is also its involvement with the cerebral cortex, which is responsible for some of the more complex brain functions, including language and information processing. "It looks like in fact it is important in the development of brain," said co-author Sofie Salama, a research biologist at Santa Cruz who led the efforts to identify where the gene is active in the body. The scientists still don't know specifically what the gene does. But they know that this same gene turns on in human foetuses at seven weeks after conception and then shuts down at 19 weeks, Haussler said.