NucNews October 28, 2006 -------- NUCLEAR -------- accidents and safety Don't gamble with safety Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 10/28/06 http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006610280375 The more closely people scrutinize the Oyster Creek nuclear generating plant in Lacey, the more obvious it becomes what a liability it is from a public safety and environmental standpoint. While Oyster Creek officials continue to tout the facility as a safe, clean source of energy in their bid for a 20-year license renewal, one group after another pokes holes in their arguments. Last week, reports from the National Marine Fisheries Service and the federal Environmental Protection Agency both took strong exception to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's preliminary conclusion that the plant would have a minimal adverse impact on fish and shellfish. Both recommended that Oyster Creek build cooling towers, which would reduce the water intake required to cool the plant by 70 percent and the amount of fish and shellfish species that are killed by a like amount. The EPA rightly criticized the NRC's reliance on fish mortality studies that were more than 20 years old, and questioned how the agency could conclude the plant's impact on fish habitat would be minimal when its report acknowledged that 13 of the 14 species considered could be adversely affected by Oyster Creek's existing "once-through" water cooling system. The EPA also debunked the myth perpetuated by Oyster Creek that cooling towers would pollute the atmosphere. The concerns raised by the EPA and marine fisheries service may not be enough to make the NRC change its mind about Oyster Creek's environmental impact. But it will surely provide the state Department of Environmental Protection with further justification for insisting plant operator AmerGen Energy Co. install a cooling tower as a condition of being granted a water discharge permit. The DEP, which has been considering mandating such a step for months, should waste no more time following through on it. Dead fish is hardly the only issue. At an NRC hearing earlier this month, a panel of technical experts expressed serious concern about possible buckling of the plant's drywell, a protective barrier around the reactor designed to contain highly radioactive steam, in the event of a serious accident. Gov. Corzine and the state's federal legislators — including Sen. Robert Menendez — should demand that Oyster Creek, which is now shut down for refueling and inspections related to the license renewal process, remain closed until the inspection reports have been completed, released to the public and independently analyzed to determine whether the plant is safe. The safety concerns need to be taken seriously. Until all doubts about Oyster Creek's structural integrity are removed, the plant should stay off-line. -------- depleted uranium High Radiation Level Samples Found After Israeli Bombing Scientists studying samples of soil from Israeli bombardment craters in south Lebanon have shown high radiation levels, suggesting uranium-based munitions were used, a British newspaper reported Saturday. Beirut, 28 Oct 06, 2006 Naharnet http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/newsdesk.nsf/0/934C1EDD65C3CCF0C225721500217581?OpenDocument The samples were taken from two bomb craters in Khiam and At-Tiri and have been sent for further analysis to the Harwell laboratory in Oxfordshire, southern England, for mass spectrometry used by the Ministry of Defense, The Independent said. The samples thrown up by Israeli heavy or guided bombs showed "elevated radiation signatures," Chris Busby, the British scientific secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, was quoted as saying. Britain's Ministry of Defense has confirmed the concentration of uranium isotopes in the samples, the newspaper said. In his initial report, Busby said there were two possible reasons for the contamination. "The first is that the weapon was some novel small experimental nuclear fission device or experimental weapon (ex. a thermobaric weapon) based on the high temperature of a uranium oxidation flash," it said. "The second is that the weapon was a bunker-busting conventional uranium penetrator weapon employing enriched uranium rather than depleted uranium," Busby was quoted as saying. A photograph of the explosion of the first bomb shows large clouds of black smoke that might result from burning uranium, the newspaper said. The U.N., which has been studying the ecological damage in Lebanon caused by the war, said Saturday it would soon be able to say whether uranium-based munitions were used. "If there is uranium we will find it," said Boutros al-Harb, director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) for Asia and the Middle East, based in Bahrain. Harb said he could not immediately confirm the claims of high radiation levels. "The analysis of samples taken by our munitions experts is being done in a laboratory at Spitz in Switzerland. I am not able today to confirm nor rule out the presence of uranium," Harb told Agence France Presse by telephone from Bahrain. The 34-day Israeli offensive on Lebanon left at least 1,287 people, nearly all civilians, dead and 4,054 wounded.(AFP-Naharnet) ---- PLOT THICKENS ON CAMP FALCON ATTACK COVER UP by Allen L Roland Saturday, October 28, 2006 Oped News http://www.opednews.com http://blogs.salon.com/0002255/2006/10/28.html Not only is the Pentagon covering up the full extent of American deaths and casualties in the Oct 10th Camp Falcon attack but it appears that the Pentagon never mentioned the explosion of Depleted Uranium Munitions ( DU ) which were obviously stored at the Falcon Base arsenal. It is common knowledge that atleast two dozen weapon systems use depleted uranium on their heads, such as bunker busters, because of their penetration ability. So the Pentagon must answer as to the full count of casualties at Camp Falcon and are they counting deaths, either directly or indirectly, by Mortar fire as combat deaths ~ because if they are not, as I suspect ~ the true count of combat deaths in Iraq is closer to 12,000 not the almost 3,000 now reported. And what about the radiation poisoning from the uranium munitions exploding and burning ~ Is Baghdad or even other countries currently at risk from this catastrophe? Here is the most informative research on the Camp Falcon attack, by Sarah Meyer, with an excellent analysis of the tactical nuke explosions by depleted uranium (DU) researcher Dai Williams. Allen L Roland http://blogs.salon.com/0002255/2006/10/28.html CAMP FALCON: WHAT REALLY HAPPENED? by Sarah Meyer Index Research Iraqis and Americans must read the information below. They must watch the two videos. And then they, and people over the world, must ask the U.S. government for a full and open explanation of what happened at Camp Falcon, Baghdad, on the 10th of October 2006. Index has had the following report from an Iraqi concerning the explosions at As Saqr / Camp Falcon: "The resistance attacked Camp Falcon south of Baghdad. This camp is considered as the most important munition camp. The explosions in the camp continued for three hours and was transmitted in direct on Al Jazeera. The resistance filmed the explosions and diffused them on the internet. Iraq for ever of Fadhil Badrani translated the information on US Pentagon site which says that there were 5000 soldiers in this camp. But the Pentagon the same night declared that there were only 100 soldiers. This was evident is to hide the losses. Iraqi Resistance rockets blast into biggest American arsenal in Iraq 10.10.06. Iraqi Resistance Report. "The source admitted that dozens of Americans had been killed or wounded in the blasts that were still ripping the American arsenal apart. The source said that the US forces were unable to do anything to stop the massive inferno of flame and explosions that was lighting up the Baghdad sky like fireworks. Reuters reported the puppet regime's "Iraqiyah" television network as showing pictures of a huge fire lighting up the night sky." Iraqi Resistance rockets blast into biggest American arsenal in Iraq setting off unprecedented explosions, illuminating Baghdad sky just before midnight Tuesday 11.10.06. Iraqi Resistance Report. Nine huge American transport planes unload casualties from devastating Resistance strike on US Falcon Base in Baghdad just before midnight Tuesday, indicating heavy American losses 11.10.06. Iraqi Resistance Report. "In a bulletin posted at 2am Makkah time before dawn Wednesday morning, Mafkarat al-Islam reported its correspondent in al-Habbaniyah as saying that the US military hospital at the massive American-occupied air base there had begun to receive dead and wounded personnel from the devastating Resistance rocket assault on the US Falcon arsenal in the southern Baghdad suburb of ad-Durah. Just before midnight Tuesday, the Iraqi Resistance fired barrages of Katyusha and Grad rockets into the arsenal, the largest such facility in occupied Iraq, causing the ordnance to begin to explode." US ammo dump ablaze in Iraq 11.10.06. Al Jazeera.net Insurgents Hit U.S. Base in Baghdad 11.10.06. AP / Guardian. Video. 11.10.06. BBC Munitions dump blown in Baghdad. Nobody talking. 11.10.06. Daily Kos. Resistance mortars pound US troops working to clear out ruined Falcon Forward Base on Thursday night 12.10.06. Iraqi Resistance Report. Also on 12.10: "Nine huge transport planes ferry American casualties to al-Habbaniyah airbase from devastating Tuesday night Resistance strike on US Falcon arsenal, indicating heavy American losses. US claims "no casualties," but Iraqi regime evacuates 90 injured puppet troops to ar-Ramadi hospital." Devastating Attack Destroys US Falcon Base 12.10.06. M. Abu Nasr, jihadunspun. Ammo Dump Explosions Investigation 15.10.06. Roads to Iraq. "The Iraqi source, who refused to reveal his identity, said that dozens of American soldiers were killed in those explosions. The source pointed out that six Iraqi translators were killed in those explosions. American forces refused to hand over the bodies of the dead Iraqis to their families without giving reasons." Falcon Ammo Dump Destruction Photos 17.10.06. Rense com. Devastating Attack Destroys US Falcon Base Striking A Severe Blow To US Forces 20.10.06. Free Arab Voice / Indymedia. "A source in the Iraqi puppet regime told Mafkarat al-Islam that the Resistance blasted the American arsenal, known as Camp Falcon, with Grad and Katyusha rockets. The source admitted that dozens of Americans had been killed or wounded in the blasts that were still ripping the American arsenal apart. Major General Bilal Ahmad al-Ithawi, an adviser to the Iraqi Defense Minister for transport and supply, visited ad-Durah on Wednesday morning and told Mafkarat al-Islam that the attack had inflicted enormous losses on the US military that could total more than US$1 billion." No reported casualties at Camp Falcon, eh? 22.10.06. abutamam. Video. Tactical nuke explodes in Iraq? "On October 11, 2006, a Tactical Nuclear Device appears to have exploded when fire broke out in an ammunition dump at Camp Falcon inside Iraq. Video from live nightly newscast in Baghdad caught the detonation - miles away - with it's characteristic ENORMOUS blinding white flash, a rising core of fire then a small mushroom cloud!" 5.21 min. *THIS FILM HAS BEEN REMOVED BY GOOGLE (28.10.06). Another (black and white) film can be seen here. A further film (strong language), undated and unlabeled thus not confirmed "Camp Falcon" can be seen here. All the above information, as well as a detailed description of Camp Falcon / al Sarq (originally published 7 June '06) has been published at US/UK BASES IN IRAQ, Part II. The South : Falcon-Al-Sarq, Tallil, Shaibah NB: There was a further news story, citing names of the dead. This has not been included because of information concerning the publisher and the author. The BRussells Tribunal received the following communication from depleted uranium (DU) researcher Dai Williams with regard to the recent (now deleted) 'google' video, as seen in Camp Falcon: What Really Happened. "The good news is that the brilliant explosions in what appears to be an Al-Jazeera TV report are unlikely to be mini-nukes. They are very similar to the thermobaric bunker buster explosions seen on TV in Baghdad in March 2003 and in Beirut in August 2006. The bad news is that in my reports these are suspected undepleted uranium warheads. They are not fission weapons. But they burn with an intense flash and fireball sometimes leaving a shower of burning shrapnel as white stars. These have been confused with white phosphorus. They are not. Phosphorus has too low density for the shrapnel trajectories seen in TV and camera shots. Also burning phosphorus leaves a massive trail of white smoke. Uranium burns with black smoke, almost invisible in night pictures. Another clip on the same website is the most graphic image of a fairly small - perhaps 1000 lb - penetrator or thermobaric warhead that I have yet seen. It illustrates exactly the features listed above. Then look at the first 20 seconds of the BBC TV news report from Lebanon on 4th August. I used stills from this in my report of 30 August. I would expect any nuclear device to create far wider blast effects than shown in the still photographs of the camp. ... The Falcon fire is a relevant connection which reminds us that some of these unconventional weapons are being used in several conflict zones now - Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan and in Gaza and the occupied territories." Dai Williams, http://www.eoslifework.co.uk 25.10.06. Sarah Meyer is a researcher living in the U.K. The url for Camp Falcon: What Really Happened is: http://indexresearch.blogspot.com/2006/10/camp-falcon-what-really-happened.html Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people: WAGE PEACE NOT WAR Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers www.allenroland.com Allen L Roland is a practicing psychotherapist, author and lecturer who also shares a daily political and social commentary on his weblog and website allenroland.com He also guest hosts a monthly national radio show TRUTHTALK on Conscious talk radio www.conscioustalk.net -------- israel Mystery of Israel's secret uranium bomb Saturday, 28 October, 2006 UK Independent By: Robert Fisk http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2006/10/mystery_of_isra.php http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article1935945.ece Beirut- Did Israel use a secret new uranium-based weapon in southern Lebanon this summer in the 34-day assault that cost more than 1,300 Lebanese lives, most of them civilians? We know that the Israelis used American "bunker-buster" bombs on Hezbollah's Beirut headquarters. We know that they drenched southern Lebanon with cluster bombs in the last 72 hours of the war, leaving tens of thousands of bomblets which are still killing Lebanese civilians every week. And we now know - after it first categorically denied using such munitions - that the Israeli army also used phosphorous bombs, weapons which are supposed to be restricted under the third protocol of the Geneva Conventions, which neither Israel nor the United States have signed. But scientific evidence gathered from at least two bomb craters in Khiam and At-Tiri, the scene of fierce fighting between Hezbollah guerrillas and Israeli troops last July and August, suggests that uranium-based munitions may now also be included in Israel's weapons inventory - and were used against targets in Lebanon. According to Dr Chris Busby, the British Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, two soil samples thrown up by Israeli heavy or guided bombs showed "elevated radiation signatures". Both have been forwarded for further examination to the Harwell laboratory in Oxfordshire for mass spectrometry - used by the Ministry of Defense - which has confirmed the concentration of uranium isotopes in the samples. Dr Busby's initial report states that there are two possible reasons for the contamination. "The first is that the weapon was some novel small experimental nuclear fission device or other experimental weapon (eg, a thermobaric weapon) based on the high temperature of a uranium oxidation flash ... The second is that the weapon was a bunker-busting conventional uranium penetrator weapon employing enriched uranium rather than depleted uranium." A photograph of the explosion of the first bomb shows large clouds of black smoke that might result from burning uranium. Enriched uranium is produced from natural uranium ore and is used as fuel for nuclear reactors. A waste product of the enrichment process is depleted uranium, it is an extremely hard metal used in anti-tank missiles for penetrating armour. Depleted uranium is less radioactive than natural uranium, which is less radioactive than enriched uranium. Israel has a poor reputation for telling the truth about its use of weapons in Lebanon. In 1982, it denied using phosphorous munitions on civilian areas - until journalists discovered dying and dead civilians whose wounds caught fire when exposed to air. I saw two dead babies who, when taken from a mortuary drawer in West Beirut during the Israeli siege of the city, suddenly burst back into flames. Israel officially denied using phosphorous again in Lebanon during the summer - except for "marking" targets - even after civilians were photographed in Lebanese hospitals with burn wounds consistent with phosphorous munitions. Then on Sunday, Israel suddenly admitted that it had not been telling the truth. Jacob Edery, the Israeli minister in charge of government-parliament relations, confirmed that phosphorous shells were used in direct attacks against Hezbollah, adding that "according to international law, the use of phosphorous munitions is authorized and the (Israeli) army keeps to the rules of international norms". Asked by The Independent if the Israeli army had been using uranium-based munitions in Lebanon this summer, Mark Regev, the Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, said: "Israel does not use any weaponry which is not authorized by international law or international conventions." This, however, begs more questions than it answers. Much international law does not cover modern uranium weapons because they were not invented when humanitarian rules such as the Geneva Conventions were drawn up and because Western governments still refuse to believe that their use can cause long-term damage to the health of thousands of civilians living in the area of the explosions. American and British forces used hundreds of tons of depleted uranium (DU) shells in Iraq in 1991 - their hardened penetrator warheads manufactured from the waste products of the nuclear industry - and five years later, a plague of cancers emerged across the south of Iraq. Initial US military assessments warned of grave consequences for public health if such weapons were used against armored vehicles. But the US administration and the British government later went out of their way to belittle these claims. Yet the cancers continued to spread amid reports that civilians in Bosnia - where DU was also used by Nato aircraft - were suffering new forms of cancer. DU shells were again used in the 2003 Anglo-American invasion of Iraq but it is too early to register any health effects. "When a uranium penetrator hits a hard target, the particles of the explosion are very long-lived in the environment," Dr Busby said yesterday. "They spread over long distances. They can be inhaled into the lungs. The military really seem to believe that this stuff is not as dangerous as it is." Yet why would Israel use such a weapon when its targets - in the case of Khiam, for example - were only two miles from the Israeli border? The dust ignited by DU munitions can be blown across international borders, just as the chlorine gas used in attacks by both sides in the First World War often blew back on its perpetrators. Chris Bellamy, the professor of military science and doctrine at Cranfield University, who has reviewed the Busby report, said: "At worst it's some sort of experimental weapon with an enriched uranium component the purpose of which we don't yet know. At best - if you can say that - it shows a remarkably cavalier attitude to the use of nuclear waste products." The soil sample from Khiam - site of a notorious torture prison when Israel occupied southern Lebanon between 1978 and 2000, and a frontline Hezbollah stronghold in the summer war - was a piece of impacted red earth from an explosion; the isotope ratio was 108, indicative of the presence of enriched uranium. "The health effects on local civilian populations following the use of large uranium penetrators and the large amounts of respirable uranium oxide particles in the atmosphere," the Busby report says, "are likely to be significant ... we recommend that the area is examined for further traces of these weapons with a view to clean up." This summer's Lebanon war began after Hezbollah guerrillas crossed the Lebanese frontier into Israel, captured two Israeli soldiers and killed three others, prompting Israel to unleash a massive bombardment of Lebanon's villages, cities, bridges and civilian infrastructure. Human rights groups have said that Israel committed war crimes when it attacked civilians, but that Hezbollah was also guilty of such crimes because it fired missiles into Israel which were also filled with ball-bearings, turning their rockets into primitive one-time-only cluster bombs. Many Lebanese, however, long ago concluded that the latest Lebanon war was a weapons testing ground for the Americans and Iranians, who respectively supply Israel and Hezbollah with munitions. Just as Israel used hitherto-unproven US missiles in its attacks, so the Iranians were able to test-fire a rocket which hit an Israeli corvette off the Lebanese coast, killing four Israeli sailors and almost sinking the vessel after it suffered a 15-hour on-board fire. What the weapons manufacturers make of the latest scientific findings of potential uranium weapons use in southern Lebanon is not yet known. Nor is their effect on civilians. Picture: Israeli bombing in southern Lebanon shows large clouds of black smoke that might result from burning uranium. ---- An enigma that only the Israelis can fully explain Published: 28 October 2006 Chris Bellamy: UK Independent http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1935931.ece The initial tests on samples taken from the site of the Israeli strike on Khiam present an enigma which will only be solved when the people who produced and deployed the weapon explain themselves. Speculation that the device was some form of "dirty bomb" or micro-yield nuclear weapon can probably be dismissed. The radiation levels and the amount of Uranium-235 in the sample clearly indicate that it was not a nuclear fission weapon. Uranium has been widely used in conventional weapons - and on the battlefield - for the past 30 years, for three reasons. Firstly, uranium is very dense - 70 per cent denser than lead. Therefore, a smaller projectile delivers more kinetic energy, making it ideal for armour-piercing shot. Secondly, it is pyrophoric, which means that when slammed into a target at high speed it liquefies and ignites spontaneously. Thirdly, the type of uranium most widely used in weapons, depleted uranium (DU), is plentiful. It is a by-product of uranium enrichment, which produces the fuel for nuclear power stations and nuclear weapons. Because there is so much of it about, it makes sense for those who have it to turn DU into armour-piercing munitions. The only logical military reason for the presence of traces of uranium, of any kind, would be the use of that element to make a hard, dense penetrator for an armour-piercing or "bunker-busting" device. Natural uranium consists of three isotopes - Uranium-238 (99.27 per cent), U-235 - the crucial component of fissionable material (0.72 per cent) and U-234 (0.0054 per cent). To make the fuel for a nuclear reactor this needs to be enriched to three or four per cent U-235, and the resulting waste product, with only 0.25 per cent U-235 and 99.8 per cent U-238, is DU. To make a bomb you would need up to 90 per cent U-235 - hence the concern about Iran's uranium enrichment programme. The Khiam sample, with 108 parts U-238 to one of U-235 - just under one per cent - is clearly enriched - but not much. So, in the absence of any palpable military advantage, in terms of its mass and its ability to generate heat and fire compared with DU or natural uranium, why was this enigmatic material used? There are several possibilities. The first is that there was a simple mistake - that uranium with an elevated U-235 content was used instead of DU or natural uranium. The Khiam sample was very small - 25 grams. Contamination with soil could easily obscure a higher degree of enrichment. Spent nuclear fuel - after the power has been generated - typically contains 2.5 per cent U-235, but it can be as low as 1.5 per cent - close to the Khiam sample level. So the uranium in the Khiam projectile could just have been spent nuclear fuel. One way to dispose of enriched uranium safely is to blend it with natural uranium, in such a way that the U-235 is extremely difficult to re-extract. That might well produce a substance with just under one per cent U-235, which was a component of the Israeli Khiam bomb. It is also uncertain whether the munition was made in the US or by the Israelis themselves. If the Israelis or the Americans want to avoid accusations, at the very least, of a cavalier attitude to the use of nuclear waste products, they need to explain what was in that bomb and why it was there. Chris Bellamy is professor of military science and doctrine at Cranfield University -------- japan Japan lawmaker continues calls for nuclear debate Sat Oct 28, 2006 (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061028/wl_asia_afp/nkoreanuclearweaponsjapanusmilitary_061028064529 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Japan_Lawmaker_Continues_Calls_For_Nuclear_Debate_999.html TOKYO - The policy chief of the Japanese ruling party has renewed his calls for a debate over whether Japan should acquire nuclear weapons capability, in the face of nuclear threat from North Korea. "The main goal is to stop North Korea's outrageous acts," Shoichi Nakagawa, policy chief of the Liberal Democratic Party, told a press conference in Washington, where he was visiting. "As a form of deterrence, one can argue nuclear an option. We must discuss all options to ensure that Japan would not come under nuclear attacks," he said. Nakagawa, a close ally of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, has argued that Japan should not shy away from discussing the nuclear option, long regarded as taboo in Japan, the world's only nation to come under nuclear attack at the end of the World War II. Abe, known for his passionate support of a larger military role for Japan, has ruled out developing nuclear weapons and promised not to carry out such discussion in the government and in his ruling party. But Nakagawa's remarks, originally made shortly after North Korea's nuclear test this month, have triggered a debate on the issue, with Foreign Minister Taro Aso echoing the sentiment. US officials, including US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, have said there is no need for Japan to arm itself with nuclear weapons, with the long-standing US commitment to provide security for Japan. ---- Repairs late at nuclear agency 10/28/2006 THE ASAHI SHIMBUN http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200610280142.html A broken emergency fax transmission system at a nuclear safety agency was left unrepaired for nearly two years, which could have hampered information-sharing and responses for a nuclear power plant accident, officials said. The problem at the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA), part of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, was found in a Board of Audit inspection in March. The system was repaired in June. The system contains exclusive lines that connect the NISA head office in Tokyo with about 50 offices, including 17 nuclear plants and the local governments that host them. It sends out faxes simultaneously to all offices in emergencies. The malfunction would have prevented the faxes from being transmitted. The problem was detected in June 2004, when an alarm signaled a malfunction in the system. The NISA section in charge reported the trouble to Hitachi Ltd., which leased the system. But the section did not ask for repairs, and the official in charge was later transferred. The problem was not repaired because "no one noticed" it, according to a NISA official. The system was rarely used over the two years. Hitachi conducted several examinations of the devices leased to the NISA head office during that period, but it did not check the emergency fax system, officials said. The Board of Audit also found that most of the fax machines and other leased devices at the branch offices of the 17 plants had not undergone checks or maintenance work for more than five years. Back-up batteries for a power failure had not been replaced even though they were dead. The Board of Audit also noted that about 6 million yen was wasted for the failed maintenance work. NISA pays 17 million yen annually to Hitachi under a lease and maintenance contract. NISA said it plans to ask Hitachi to return part of the maintenance fees. While blaming Hitachi for the lack of repair work, a NISA official admitted the agency was also at fault. "We will make sure basic procedures such as cross-checking the documents will be thoroughly followed."(IHT/Asahi: October 28,2006) -------- korea Activities Underway At North Korea Nuclear Test Site by Staff Writers Seoul (AFP) Oct 28, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Activities_Underway_At_North_Korea_Nuclear_Test_Site_999.html Suspicious activities have been continuing in a rugged area of North Korea where the communist state carried out its first nuclear test this month, news reports said Saturday. A new structure for an unknown purpose also sprang up in Punggyeri in the northeastern county of Kilju, the Joongang daily and Yonhap news agency said, quoting military sources. "There have been continuous activities in Punggyeri since the nuclear test on October 9," a military source was quoted as saying by Yonhap. "However, it remains unclear whether these activities are related with a second nuclear test or North Koreans are just faking it," the source said. A defence ministry spokesman declined to comment on the reports. The Science and Technology Ministry said Punggyeri, some 350 kilometers (219 miles) northeast of Pyongyang, was believed to be the place where the nuclear test was carried out. Earlier reports said the test appeared to have been conducted at Hwadaeri, some 30 kilometers southwest of Punggyeri. Punggyeri is where vehicle movements and the unloading of large reels of cable were spotted by satellite images last month, prompting speculation that a nuclear test was being prepared. Chung Hyung-Keun, an opposition Grand National Party lawmaker who serves on parliament's intelligence committee, has said that the first nuclear test was carried out in one of two horizontal tunnels dug into hills in Punggyeri. "A shelter was built outside the other tunnel and some 30 to 40 people have been working there," Chung said on a radio talk show on Thursday last week. The October 9 test caused a global uproar with the UN Security Council issuing a resolution imposing economic sanctions aimed at reining in Pyongyang's weapons programme. -------- mideast Egypt to operate first nuclear power station in 10 years: FM Xinhua October 28, 2006 http://english.people.com.cn/200610/28/eng20061028_315895.html Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul- Gheit said Friday that his country would operate its first nuclear power station within 10 years, Egypt's official MENA news agency reported. Abul-Gheit made the remarks before his departure for Alicante, a port city in Spain, to take part in the Middle East forum to discuss the peace process in the region and issues related to Euro- Mediterranean cooperation. Asked about the country's peaceful nuclear program, the foreign minister said Egypt need to find alternative energy sources, like the nuclear one along with the solar and wind sources, to generate electricity due to rising prices of oil and natural gas. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak announced on Sept. 21 that Egypt would continue its scientific research to develop peaceful nuclear technology regardless of its high cost. Egypt started very limited nuclear technological research in 1957, but its nuclear program was frozen in 1986 in the aftermath of the accident at former Soviet Union's Chernobyl nuclear plant in the same year. In 1968, Egypt signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and officially supports the elimination of nuclear weapons in the region. ---- Mubarak to ask China for help with nuclear program Egyptian president to visit China, Russia and Kazakhstan, expected to appeal to China for help on nuclear energy program. Egyptian official: We could also benefit from Russia's nuclear knowledge Roee Nahmias Published: 10.28.06 YNet http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3320487,00.html Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak set out this week for a series of meetings in China, Russia and Kazakhstan. Mubarak will meet leaders of the three nations and speak with them on financial issues including trading areas, joint investments and even collaboration on a nuclear energy program. Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit told the Ahbar al Yom Egyptian paper that during Mubarak's visit, he would discuss the country's program for "nuclear energy for peaceful purposes." Mubarak is also expected to sign agreements with China regarding technological information sharing. While in Beijing, the president will take part in a ceremony honoring half a century of diplomatic relations between the two countries. The Egyptian ambassador to Moscow Ezzat Saad said in an interview to government-affiliated newspaper al-Ahram that Egypt could benefit a great deal from Russian knowledge of peace-oriented nuclear energy, in preparation for building power stations to produce electricity. Over a month ago, Mubarak surprised the world by declaring that his state wished to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The announcement came days after his son Jamal's statement that he wished to utilize the existing knowledge in the country to advance technological development. In a speech that concluded the fourth meeting this year of the National Democratic Party – the nation's ruling party – Mubarak emphasized that nuclear energy was intended to compensate for Egypt's lack of oil and natural gas reserves. Several days later, the a-Sharq al-Awsat paper reported that Egypt had formally declared its intention to build three nuclear reactors for the purpose of providing electricity. The Egyptian Energy Ministry decided that the reactors would be built in the northwest part of the country, along the Mediterranean. The reactors would theoretically be able to provide 1800 megawatts of electricity jointly (600 megawatts each). The reactors would be built according to western models, which are considered very safe. -------- russia Nuclear Reactor Shut Down in Russia The Associated Press October 28, 2006 http://www.topix.net/content/ap/0169755726202998155917652580213074898093 An automatic safety system shut down a reactor at a nuclear power plant near St. Petersburg Saturday after a short circuit, the state-run company overseeing Russia's nuclear power plants said. Rosenergoatom said there was no radiation leak from the unplanned shutdown at the Leningrad nuclear power plant's No. 2 unit _ the second shutdown to hit the plant in a week. The company did not say what caused the short circuit. Severe weather in the St. Petersburg area has caused some flooding in the city, and there have been reported power outages throughout the region. The emergency system stopped two turbine generators due to sludge coming into the condenser's pipes, before shutting down the reactor altogether, the company said. Radiation levels around the plant were normal, it said. Last Friday, the automatic safety system shut down the same reactor for unknown reasons. The Leningrad plant on the Gulf of Finland has four 1,000-megawatt graphite RBMK reactors _ the same as the Chernobyl nuclear plant, whose explosion 20 years ago sent radioactive fallout across northern Europe in the world's worst civilian nuclear accident. Russia has 10 nuclear power plants with a total of 31 nuclear reactors. ---- Short circuit causes nuclear power plant unit shutdown MOSCOW. Oct 28, 2006 (Interfax) http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/0/28.html?id_issue=11612292 The automatic emergency shutdown system stopped power unit 2 at the Leningrad nuclear power plant because of a short circuit on Saturday morning, the Rosenergoatom concern press service told Interfax. The shutdown system first stopped turbine generator No. 4 at power unit 2. Later it also stopped turbine generator No. 3 because of the large amount of sludge coming into the condenser's pipes, after which the system shut down the reactor, the press service said. Power unit 2 is currently operating in a test mode following modernization, which was completed in mid-October this year. The incident, however, has no relation to the work and was caused by a storm, Rosenergoatom said. Power units 1 and 3 are currently operating normally. Radiation levels in the area surrounding the plant are normal, it said. va la -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- california 3 teams vie to manage nuclear research at Lawrence Livermore SCOTT LINDLAW Associated Press Sat, Oct. 28, 2006 http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/15867972.htm SAN FRANCISCO - Three teams have submitted bids for the right to manage Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, including one consisting of nuclear watchdogs, academics and a "green" energy firm, the groups said Friday. Livermore Lab GREEN, as the team calls itself, would halt the nuclear weapons research that has been the lab's primary mission since its inception in 1952. For the first time in its history, the federal government opened up the process for securing the management contract for Lawrence Livermore to competitive bidding. Lawrence Livermore, one of the nation's nuclear-weapons research sites, is currently overseen by the University of California, but its contract ends in September 2007. UC and Bechtel National Inc. submitted one of the three bids ahead of this week's deadline. Their proposed team also includes BWX Technologies Inc.; Texas A&M University; Washington Group International; and Battelle. A UC-Bechtel partnership last year won the government contract to continue managing the Los Alamos National Laboratory that built the atomic bomb. That management team also includes Washington Group and BWX. Another team that bid for Lawrence Livermore this week is led by Northrop Grumman Corp. Northrop earlier this year beat out incumbent Bechtel for the contract to manage the Nevada Test site, the area where nuclear weapons were once tested - now used for testing conventional weapons, emergency response training and other purposes. The Northrop Grumman team also includes Nuclear Fuel Services; CH2M Hill; AECOM; and Wackenhut. The three teams submitted their bids to the National Nuclear Security Administration, a semi-autonomous branch of the Department of Energy. A panel of government experts will make their decision by March 31, 2007. The consortiums led by UC-Bechtel and Northrop Grumman declined to discuss specifics of their proposals, citing the ongoing competition. But Livermore Lab GREEN provided a detailed overview of its bid, and pledged to place the full text on its Web site by Saturday. Its management team would consist of Tri-Valley CARES and Nuclear Watch of New Mexico, two watchdog groups that have been critical of practices at Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos respectively. The team also would include New College of California and WindMiller Energy. "Our management proposal is both innovative and complete," said Marylia Kelley, executive director of Tri-Valley CAREs. "I expect that NNSA will be reluctant to consider genuine change. However, in our view, that is exactly what is required. The country deserves more than it is presently getting from its national labs." An array of highly classified research is currently conducted at Lawrence Livermore, including work for the Department of Homeland Security, which is attempting to open a biodefense campus where lethal agents would be tested. The Livermore Lab GREEN bid would transform Lawrence Livermore into an unclassified "World Class Center for Civilian Science" within five years. Plutonium and highly enriched uranium would be removed in four years. ON THE NET NNSA's overview of the Lawrence Livermore competition: http://www.doeal.gov/llnlCompetition/ Tri-Valley CARES: http://www.trivalleycares.org/ Bechtel: http://www.bechtel.com/ Northrop Grumman: http://www.northropgrumman.com/ -------- north carolina North Carolina electric customers shouldn't have to bear the risks of companies that want to build new nuclear plants Oct 28, 2006 Raleigh News & Observer http://www.newsobserver.com/579/story/503622.html Duke Energy Co. wants to sell its North Carolina rate payers a car, but it's not built yet. It may never be built, and indeed, the company may never get permission to build the car at all. Even if the car is delivered, North Carolinians will have to share it with their neighbors to the south. Don't like that arrangement? Duke is prepared to ask the Better Business Bureau to force you to make the payments. That's just an analogy, but it suggests the troubling true story. Duke, the Charlotte-based electric utility that serves Durham, Chapel Hill and large portions of Piedmont and western North Carolina, wants to build two new nuclear power plants to serve its North and South Carolina customers. It has asked the N.C. Utilities Commission to approve a rate increase -- in short, asked to charge its North Carolina customers more -- to recoup $125 million in development and licensing costs for the new plants through 2007. There's no assurance that the new reactors will be licensed, of course. That's what the licensing process is meant to determine. Duke wants the costs covered even if the plants are denied licenses, a nice deal if you can get it. What company wouldn't want its financial risks covered? North Carolina law permits utilities to tap customers for development and construction costs if a plant is actually built. That's reasonable, for the companies as well as for consumers who benefit when power actually is generated. But Duke says it will ask the General Assembly to change the law to permit rate increases before plants are granted their necessary permits. It should be a no-brainer for lawmakers to side with consumers if a bill reaches Jones Street. Duke would co-own the plants with Georgia-based Southern Co. Yet it's not clear whether Southern would be asked to share the development costs, says the Utilities Commission's Public Staff, which advocates for rate payers in North Carolina. And actually, Duke's plants wouldn't be built here. They are planned to be located across the border in South Carolina. That would spare Duke from having to explain at a public hearing here why there's even a need for additional nuclear power capacity. The Public Staff, state Attorney General Roy Cooper and a host of concerned environmental groups oppose this questionable deal and by extension an identical request that Progress Energy will make. Progress, which serves the eastern half of North Carolina and a few areas out west, hopes to expand its Shearon Harris plant in southwestern Wake County. Like Duke, it is also in the forefront of a national drive to build new-generation nuclear plants. The Public Staff correctly points out that Duke was allowed to recover nearly $225 million of about $600 million in costs for plants (in South Carolina) that it abandoned in the 1980s. There may be room to negotiate a partial cost recovery for nuclear plants that aren't built, depending on the circumstances, but that should take place after the fact. There should be no up-front subsidies from the rate payers. Duke and Progress are publicly traded companies. Stockholders traditionally and properly bear the cost of development risks. North Carolina customers, on the other hand, should simply pay for the power that arrives at their meters, which is also traditional and proper. ---- Power play North Carolina electric customers shouldn't have to bear the risks of companies that want to build new nuclear plants Oct 28, 2006 Raleigh News Observer http://www.newsobserver.com/579/story/503622.html Duke Energy Co. wants to sell its North Carolina rate payers a car, but it's not built yet. It may never be built, and indeed, the company may never get permission to build the car at all. Even if the car is delivered, North Carolinians will have to share it with their neighbors to the south. Don't like that arrangement? Duke is prepared to ask the Better Business Bureau to force you to make the payments. That's just an analogy, but it suggests the troubling true story. Duke, the Charlotte-based electric utility that serves Durham, Chapel Hill and large portions of Piedmont and western North Carolina, wants to build two new nuclear power plants to serve its North and South Carolina customers. It has asked the N.C. Utilities Commission to approve a rate increase -- in short, asked to charge its North Carolina customers more -- to recoup $125 million in development and licensing costs for the new plants through 2007. There's no assurance that the new reactors will be licensed, of course. That's what the licensing process is meant to determine. Duke wants the costs covered even if the plants are denied licenses, a nice deal if you can get it. What company wouldn't want its financial risks covered? North Carolina law permits utilities to tap customers for development and construction costs if a plant is actually built. That's reasonable, for the companies as well as for consumers who benefit when power actually is generated. But Duke says it will ask the General Assembly to change the law to permit rate increases before plants are granted their necessary permits. It should be a no-brainer for lawmakers to side with consumers if a bill reaches Jones Street. Duke would co-own the plants with Georgia-based Southern Co. Yet it's not clear whether Southern would be asked to share the development costs, says the Utilities Commission's Public Staff, which advocates for rate payers in North Carolina. And actually, Duke's plants wouldn't be built here. They are planned to be located across the border in South Carolina. That would spare Duke from having to explain at a public hearing here why there's even a need for additional nuclear power capacity. The Public Staff, state Attorney General Roy Cooper and a host of concerned environmental groups oppose this questionable deal and by extension an identical request that Progress Energy will make. Progress, which serves the eastern half of North Carolina and a few areas out west, hopes to expand its Shearon Harris plant in southwestern Wake County. Like Duke, it is also in the forefront of a national drive to build new-generation nuclear plants. The Public Staff correctly points out that Duke was allowed to recover nearly $225 million of about $600 million in costs for plants (in South Carolina) that it abandoned in the 1980s. There may be room to negotiate a partial cost recovery for nuclear plants that aren't built, depending on the circumstances, but that should take place after the fact. There should be no up-front subsidies from the rate payers. Duke and Progress are publicly traded companies. Stockholders traditionally and properly bear the cost of development risks. North Carolina customers, on the other hand, should simply pay for the power that arrives at their meters, which is also traditional and proper. -------- texas Repair schedule extended Fort Worth Star-Telegram October 28, 2006 http://www.topix.net/content/kri/4234280217315408303023465049271497532549 The plant had been down for 19 days for maintenance, and we were beginning to bring it back up -- a process that takes several days -- when the incident happened A malfunction in the system that provides water to one of the steam generators at TXU Corp.'s nuclear generating plant at Glen Rose caused TXU to extend the plant's scheduled maintenance outage until next week. The 2,300-megawatt Comanche Peak plant will stay at half capacity until the restart can be completed next week, TXU spokeswoman Kimberly Morgan said. 'The plant had been down for 19 days for maintenance, and we were beginning to bring it back up -- a process that takes several days -- when the incident happened,' she said. A report by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission which described the incident as a 'nonemergency,' said: 'Oscillations were observed on the plant steam dump system. These oscillations caused a high steam generator water level that caused both main feed pumps to trip.' Morgan said that when the problem occurred early Friday, the generator was shut down again. 'The maintenance was done to fix the problem, and we are doing low-power testing,' she said. She said the water system involved helps to power the steam generators, not to cool the nuclear rods. Comanche Peak, in Glen Rose southwest of Fort Worth, provides 2,300 megawatts of the 18,300 megawatts of TXU's peak power load. 'We didn't regard this as any kind of power-supply emergency,' said spokeswoman Dottie Roark of the Electrical Reliability Council of Texas, which operates the state's electrical transmission grid. -------- virginia Letter sparks debate over expansion at nuclear plant By SCOTT HARPER, The Virginian-Pilot October 28, 2006 http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=113420&ran=79230 A seven-page letter from a state environmental manager earlier this month looks innocent enough - some facts, background, several questions. But it has sparked a fresh debate - including conspiracy charges from an environmental group - over a pending decision on whether Dominion Virginia Power should move forward with plans to perhaps build two new reactors at its North Anna nuclear power plant outside Richmond. The group Friends of Lake Anna has asked Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, Attorney General Bob McDonnell and the inspector general of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to look into how the letter was received, scrapped and now apparently revived. "We are deeply troubled with the state's handling of this review," said Harry Ruth, leader of Friends of Lake Anna, which organized last year in response to Dominion's proposal for the nuclear plant in central Virginia. Spokesmen for the state Department of Environmental Quality and the U.S. EPA downplayed the accusations and said the group is leaping to false conclusions and misinterpreting what really happened inside the agencies. "I understand how people can read these things in different ways," said Department of Environmental Quality spokesman Bill Hayden, "but this is really off base." The letter was written Oct. 2 by Ellie Irons, the department 's program manager in the office of environmental impact review. Her office is assessing whether the proposed nuclear reactors would adversely affect the environment in and around Lake Anna and whether they would comply with coastal zone management rules. If the state certifies that the plans are environmentally acceptable, Dominion would jump a key hurdle toward obtaining its early-site permit from the federal government for the multibillion-dollar project. If the states says no, Dominion would be forced to stop and make changes to soften its environmental blow. A decision is expected next month. Irons' memo to the EPA's office of water asked six questions that Ruth and other environmentalists had posed this summer at a public hearing. The questions center on whether the Clean Water Act should apply to sections of the lake where Dominion cools wastewater from its existing North Anna plant. The lagoons can get as hot as 100 degrees in the summer - higher than what the Clean Water Act would allow. So environmentalists want to know whether the lagoons are a "waste heat treatment facility" or "waters of the United States" deserving equal regulation as the rest of Lake Anna. Dominion has operated North Anna for years with the lagoons classified as waste ponds, a status approved by state regulators. However, according to Ruth, an unnamed senior state environmental official found out about Irons' letter, contacted the EPA and told the federal agency to ignore it. Ruth alleges that the official said the letter had been written by a "renegade employee" and had not been vetted through proper channels. Hayden, the Department of Environmental Quality spokesman, acknowledged that a state official did contact the EPA and requested that the questions not be answered - but only because the issues were not germane to the certification review and should be addressed later, in a different forum on Dominion's state wastewater permit. Hayden also said the senior official did not use the phrase "renegade employee" - a denial that an EPA spokeswoman in Philadelphia also made. Instead, the EPA said Ruth came up with the phrase during a conversation with a federal official - a charge that Ruth laughed at on Friday. "I can assure you that I did not invent something like that," he said. "They know what was said. They know what happened." Irons declined to comment when contacted by phone this week, referring calls about the North Anna review to Michael Murphy, state director of the division of Environmental Enhan cement. Murphy referred calls to Hayden. On Friday, Hayden said the Department of Environmental Quality 's director, Dave Paylor, has agreed to extend the review period an extra two weeks, to Nov. 16. The EPA on Thursday said it would answer the questions in Irons' letter after all but that it would take several weeks to do so. Hayden said the answers, if they arrive in time, will not be considered in the certification review. Paylor also has asked Attorney General McDonnell for a formal opinion on whether the Clean Water Act should regulate the cooling lagoons of Lake Anna. # Reach Scott Harper at (757) 446-2340 or scott.harper@pilotonline.com. -------- MILITARY -------- arms The secret Whitehall telegram that reveals truth behind controversial Saudi arms deal · Document shows Riyadh paid £600m extra for jets · Evidence points to corrupt payments in 1985 contract David Leigh and Rob Evans Saturday October 28, 2006 The Guardian http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foi/story/0,,1933764,00.html The government was yesterday scrambling to recover secret documents containing evidence suggesting corrupt payments were made in Britain's biggest arms deal. The documents, published in full today by the Guardian, detail for the first time how the price of Tornado warplanes was inflated by £600m in the 1985 Al Yamamah deal with Saudi Arabia. A telegram with the details from the head of the Ministry of Defence's sales unit had been placed in the National Archives. Yesterday it was hastily withdrawn by officials who claimed its release had been "a mistake". Sir Colin Chandler's telegram was sent from Riyadh, where he was arranging the sale of 72 Tornados and 30 Hawk warplanes on behalf of the British arms firm BAE. It revealed that their cost had been inflated by nearly a third in a deal with Saudi defence minister Prince Sultan. Sultan, who is crown prince, "has a corrupt interest in all contracts", according to a dispatch from the then British ambassador Willie Morris published in a recent Commons committee report. An accompanying Ministry of Defence briefing paper prepared for the then prime minister Margaret Thatcher describes Prince Sultan as "not highly intelligent ... He has prejudices, is inflexible and imperious, and drives a hard bargain". The Al Yamamah deal, worth £43bn in total, has long been the subject of allegations of secret commissions to Lady Thatcher's son Mark, and to several members of the Saudi royal family. All those involved have always denied the allegations. The telegram from Sir Colin, now the head of budget airline easyJet, was unearthed by Nicholas Gilby, an anti-arms trade campaigner. After the Guardian showed it to the Ministry of Defence, officials were dispatched to the archives in Kew, where they loaded the files into a van and returned them to Whitehall's vaults. Campaigners had already copied all the papers and are planning to publish them on the internet. Britain's politically sensitive Al Yamamah programme is under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office, which is probing corruption allegations against BAE. The MoD documents reveal that the price of each Tornado was inflated by 32%, from £16.3m to £21.5m. It is common in arms deals for the prices of weapons to be raised so that commissions can be skimmed off the top. The £600m involved is the same amount that it was alleged at the time in Arab publications was exacted in secret commissions paid to Saudi royals and their circle of intermediaries in London and Riyadh, as the price of the deal. Those allegations were treated with such concern in Whitehall in 1985, documents reveal, that a copy of the Arab magazine in question was immediately sent in confidence by the Foreign Office to Mrs Thatcher's chief aide at No 10, Charles Powell, with advice that officials "should simply refuse all comment". Yesterday, 20 years on, the MoD at first sought to take the same line. It insisted the Chandler telegram must have been leaked and said "we never comment on leaks". In fact, a copy was released to the National Archives on May 8 by the Department of Trade and Industry. Mr Gilby, the researcher from the Campaign Against the Arms Trade who discovered it, said yesterday: "I was astonished when I saw the Chandler telegram. This information has been withheld by every single British government department, including the National Audit Office, for more than two decades." Last night, the DTI said : "The files were placed in the National Archive by mistake. Successive governments have regarded the Al Yamamah agreement to be confidential. The files have now been removed." The MoD said : "We regret the fact that this material has been made public. We attach great importance to the confidentiality of the government to government Al Yamamah agreement with Saudi Arabia, and in order to protect that confidentiality we are not commenting on these papers." Included is a copy of the original UK-Saudi memorandum of understanding, signed at Lancaster House in September 1985 by Michael Heseltine, then defence secretary, and Prince Sultan. It is marked "Royal Saudi Air Force. Secret". The National Audit Office, recently rejecting freedom of information requests for this document, claimed release would harm international relations. The NAO also refused to release a copy of a 1992 report on the deals, even to the police. This official memo of understanding between the two parties records the total UK-Saudi deal as being worth "£3.5bn to £4bn". It was a misleading figure. Commissions on arms deals were theoretically illegal under Saudi law. It was within weeks of its signature that Sir Colin was in Riyadh alongside BAE executives agreeing a package in private negotiations with Prince Sultan which, he explained to London, would actually total £5bn. Once weapons, spares and training were added in to the basic price, each single Tornado would end up costing the Saudi air force more than £60m. Nick Harvey, the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, said yesterday: "The government must now throw light on the veracity of these allegations. There is no doubt that this will only add to the growing calls for the NAO report to be published as it should have been 14 years ago." BAE refused to comment, saying: "Al Yamamah is a contract between the governments of the UK and Saudi Arabia." Sir Colin also declined to comment. Ian Gilmour, a Conservative minister at the time, recently confirmed bribes were common on Saudi arms deals. Lord Gilmour told BBC2's Newsnight: "You either got the business and bribed, or you didn't bribe and didn't get the business ... If you are paying bribes to high-up people in the government, the fact that it's illegal in Saudi law doesn't mean much." FAQ: Wheeling and dealing What is Al-Yamamah ? It is Britain's biggest arms deal, signed in 1985. Britain agreed to sell 72 Tornado and 30 Hawk warplanes to Saudi Arabia. The deal was renewed in 1993 when Saudis agreed to buy another batch of 48 Tornado warplanes. In a third stage to the Al-Yamamah agreement, signed last year, Britain is selling up to 72 more planes - called Typhoons - to the Saudis. The agreement, known as "the Dove" in Arabic, has kept BAE afloat for the last 20 years. Why is it so controversial ? Within weeks of the deal being signed in 1985, allegations of corruption surfaced. Those allegations have never gone away and are now being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office. Critics say that Britain should not be selling warplanes and military equipment to a regime which is barbaric and undemocratic. They say that the British government refrains from criticising the Saudis' appalling human rights abuses, in order not to upset the arms sales. What has Mark Thatcher to do with it? It has been alleged that Lady Thatcher's son received secret commissions from the deal. Read the documents (pdf) 1) Initial "Al-Yamamah" agreement signed by Britain and Saudi Arabia in September 1985 (known formally as a memorandum of understanding). 2) Telegram from Sir Colin Chandler, the then head of MOD's arms sales unit, in January 1986. 3) Briefing prepared by the Ministry of Defence for Margaret Thatcher for the Al-Yamamah deal, September 1985, containing descriptions of key Saudis. 4) Minutes of meeting between then defence secretary Michael Heseltine and Prince Sultan, in September 1985 -------- iraq Military leaders more frank in assessment of Iraq Updated 10/28/2006 By Sean D. Naylor, Military Times http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-28-generals-iraq_x.htm WASHINGTON — The sober tone adopted recently by some top generals talking Iraq has raised eyebrows in Washington. Army Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, the spokesman for the Multi-National Force-Iraq, made headlines in mid-October when he remarked that the increased violence in Baghdad over the previous several weeks was "disheartening." Military and congressional sources say the frank tone reflects frustration among military leaders at the unexpectedly violent sectarian fighting in Iraq and ultimately concern about who will be held responsible in the public eye if the campaign there fails. Caldwell noted that despite efforts by U.S. and Iraqi forces to reduce the sectarian warfare raging in Baghdad — an operation dubbed "Together Forward" — there had been a 22% increase in attacks in recent weeks. The shift in tone was first evident Aug. 3, sources said, when Army Gen. John Abizaid, head of U.S. Central Command, which oversees the Middle East, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the level of violence in Iraq made significant U.S. troop reductions unlikely this year. "I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it, in Baghdad in particular, and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war," Abizaid said. Central Command spokesman Marine Maj. Matt McLaughlin disagreed that Abizaid had changed his tone in recent months. "In my time here, he has been exceedingly realistic and understanding that we will continue to see spikes in violence and that should be our normal expectation," said McLaughlin. "One of the things we have wanted to do is temper the upside expectation that the American public has that this thing is going to be solved by a few simple answers." Army Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, has acknowledged the fighting has gotten tougher in Baghdad, but said the ongoing operation there has had "a decisive effect." Retired Army Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg said the change in tone was the result of the Bush administration trying to shift responsibility for the war onto the shoulders of the generals. "The administration has pushed it to them," said the former commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, who served in Iraq. Until recently, Army leaders had played "the good soldiers," he said. "Now they're saying, 'Hey, if my name is going to be associated with this, and the good name of the United States Army's going to be associated with this ... then by God, I'm going to have a say in it.'" The generals were attempting to insulate themselves from future criticism that they tried to sugarcoat events in Iraq, he said. All the generals were familiar with Dereliction of Duty, the book by now-Col. H.R. McMaster that criticizes the senior military leaders of the Vietnam era for not speaking out as the country slipped into war in Southeast Asia. They are trying to avoid being written about in the same way, Kellogg said. -------- ACTIVISTS Veterans Group Deplores Interrogation And Detention Of Iraqi Children Posted by: VODI on Oct 28, 2006 http://www.mediasyndicate.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=5288 Legal - Law 10.27.06 (Toronto) Today, the Chairman of Veteran Organ Donors International Bruce A. Gorcyca, also a U.S. military veteran, announced that their volunteer group received information from two independent sources in Baghdad that Iraqi children as young as 5 and 6 years old were being pulled from their classrooms and privately interrogated by U.S. soldiers in uniforms about their fathers. The children were asked if they wanted to be “mujahadin” when they grow up and those that responded with a “yes” were then asked if their fathers were “Mujahadin”. If they again answered “yes” the children were taken away and held hostage until their fathers surrendered themselves for interrogation that could last for weeks, as they have in the past. Historically, less than half of those interrogated are ever released. We received this information from the same source that told us of Iraqi mothers and wives being taken from their homes in 2005 in much the same manner by U.S. troops who then offered to release the women only if their husbands and sons would surrender and submit interrogation under the influence of drugs . ABC News later confirmed that story to be true a few weeks after we received the information. “I consider these tactics to be barbaric, un-American, and shameful” said Gorcyca. “Some members of the Arab League have suggested this may be yet another potential war crime, and we want the United Nations to establish a war crime commission to look into this immediately” he added. Just last week VODI published an open letter to the United Nations, U.S. Congress, and Parliament demanding that the death of over 5,000 Iraqi children from American bombs, missiles, and bullets be investigated. The group is now trying to attend to the some 3,000 Iraqi children in need of organ transplants due to injuries received from the last two invasions over the last decade. Extensive use of radioactive depleted uranium weapons by coalition forces has almost doubled the leukemia rate of Iraqi children who are now in desperate need of bone marrow transplants. “Iraqi parents take no comfort in the fact their children were not killed or maimed deliberately” remarked Gorcyca who further explained “It is not hard to understand the growing insurgency in Iraq which may be nothing more than enraged citizens seeking revenge for the death of their children or parents”. The Toronto-based human rights group is staffed by volunteer veterans of the U.S. and Canadian military. ---- CANADA-WIDE ACTION DAY - SAT. OCTOBER 28, 2006 Canadians in Action… Where do you Stand? http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20061015000816350 Canadian Action Party joins Canadians all across the nation in a ‘Troops Out of Afghanistan’ Stand for Peace Action Day Stand for Peace, against oppression, pre-emptive strikes, use of depleted uranium and for civil liberties at home and internationally. Be Prepared: Support the Troops t-shirts available on our website (“Support the Troops…Draft Politicians…Bring Our Kids Home”) T-shirts are also available in French. Easily printable brochures http://www.canadianactionparty.ca/temp/North_American_Union/index.asp A particularly appropriate article is the “Canada’s Real Investment in War” –Mother of a Canadian Soldier Speaks. (pdf) Please feel free to distribute widely at these events. The National Action Day on October 28 is organized by The Canadian Peace Alliance (CPA) cpa@web.ca and is co-sponsored by CIC, CAP, and Canadian Labour Unions and many other Canadian pro-peace NGOs. (Details: who, what, where and when available at http://www.acp-cpa.ca/en/Oct28Events.htm) On October 28th, stand up and be counted. “Canadian Troops Out of Afghanistan Now!” Please join us….as the whispers of thousands of Canadians blend together to become a deafening roar…called ‘freedom and peace!’ http://www.canadianactionparty.ca/temp/What_is_CAP_doing.asp