NucNews October 29, 2006 -------- NUCLEAR -------- depleted uranium Mystery of Israel's secret uranium bomb: Alarm over radioactive legacy left by attack on Lebanon Was the latest Lebanon war a weapons testing ground? by Robert Fisk October 29, 2006 The Independent http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=FIS20061029&articleId=3627 http://www.counterpunch.org/fisk10302006.html Was the latest Lebanon war a weapons testing ground? 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 Hizbollah'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 Hizbollah 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 Defence - 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 productof 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 Hizbollah, adding that "according to international law, the use of phosphorous munitions is authorised 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 authorised 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 armoured 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 Hizbollah 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 Hizbollah 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 Hizbollah 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 Hizbollah 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. 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? ---- Israel denies using uranium-enriched weapons in Lebanon Sunday, October 29, 2006, by Staff Writer Israel Today http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=10018 The Foreign Ministry and the Israel Defense Forces denied reports by the British newspaper, The Independent, which claimed Israel used uranium-based munitions, including uranium-tipped bunker-buster bombs against Hizballah in Lebanon this past summer. The report said scientists found two soil samples thrown up by Israeli heavy or guided bombs, which showed “elevated radiation signatures.” “Scientific evidence gathered from at least two bomb craters in Khiam and At-Tiri, the scene of fierce fighting between Hizballah terrorists.” "The weapon was [either] some novel small experimental nuclear fission device or other experimental weapon based on the high temperature of a uranium oxidation flash ...[or it] was a bunker-busting conventional uranium penetrator weapon employing enriched uranium rather than depleted uranium," Dr. Chris Busby, the British scientific secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, told the British newspaper The Independent. Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said, “Israel does not use any weaponry which is not authorized by international law or international conventions.” -------- iran Defiant Iran Scents World Split On Nuclear Issue Iranian newly appointed foreign ministry spokesman, Mohammad Ali Hosseini during a press conference in Tehran. Photo courtesy of Behrouz Mehri and AFP. by Staff Writers Tehran (AFP) Oct 29, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Defiant_Iran_Scents_World_Split_On_Nuclear_Issue_999.html Iran Sunday remained defiant over its nuclear programme despite the threat of sanctions, saying it was detecting splits between world powers on whether to punish Tehran for intensifying atomic work. With world powers locked in talks in New York over a draft resolution that would impose sanctions over Iran's failure to halt uranium enrichment, Tehran has defiantly expanded work on the process at a key nuclear plant. But Iran's foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini did not appear concerned that sanctions were imminent, saying there was a split between the stances of China and Russia on one hand and Europe and the US on the other. "Splits between the parties are very visible, that is to say between the United States and the Europeans on one side and Russia and China on the other," foreign ministry spokesman told reporters. "These two countries have completely different positions to the Europeans. Russia does not want sanctions and does not want to close the path of negotiations, and the Chinese have a similar position," he added. The United Nations Security Council's five veto-wielding members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the US -- as well as Germany have been discussing a draft resolution on sanctions put forward by European countries. But in a sign of the difficulty in reaching an agreement, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov rejected the proposed sanctions, arguing that they did not advance objectives agreed on by the six world powers. The Chinese stance has yet to become clear, although Beijing -- like Moscow -- is an economic ally of Iran and traditionally reluctant to use sanctions as diplomatic leverage. Hosseini meanwhile played down Iran's move to start enriching uranium from a second cascade of 164 centrifuges at its nuclear plant at Natanz in the centre of the country, a decision greeted with suspicion by the West. "The second cascade is part of the research activities of the country which are in line with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty," he said. "There is nothing new. It is the continuation of legal activities under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and there is no deviation," Hosseini added. Iran vehemently rejects US allegations that its nuclear programme is aimed at making nuclear weapons, saying the drive is solely aimed at providing energy for civilians. Enriched uranium lies at the centre of the dispute over Iran's nuclear programme, as it can be used both to make nuclear fuel and, in highly refined form, the core of a nuclear bomb. Iran would need thousands more such centrifuges to enrich uranium on an industrial scale and its current uranium enrichment work is on a research level only. Officials have said that uranium was successfully enriched from the second cascade of centrifuges to a level of 3-5 percent and has now been put into storage. To make a nuclear bomb, the uranium needs to be enriched to around 90 percent, far above the level needed for nuclear fuel. The text drafted by Britain, France and Germany in consultations with Washington calls on UN member states to slap ballistic missile-related and nuclear sanctions on Iran. It provides for a freeze of assets related to Iran's nuclear and missile programmes and travel bans on scientists involved. ---- Iran unruffled by US-led Gulf naval manoeuvres Tehran (AFP) Oct 29, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Defiant_Iran_Scents_World_Split_On_Nuclear_Issue_999.html Iran on Sunday said it was unconcerned about naval manoeuvres to be led by the United States off its coast this week, saying it had the situation under control and was watching the vessels closely. "US warships move regularly in the Persian Gulf and in the Sea of Oman, and we have them under surveillance," said the navy's commander Sajad Kouchaki, quoted by the Iranian press. "The presence of two US warships shows the aggressive and dominating character of the Americans," he added. "If they want to threaten the Islamic republic of Iran we are capable of keeping them under control. The Iranian navy does not believe in such a threat and has the enemy completely under control," he said. Iran's foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told reporters that "Iran does not believe that these manoeuvres constitute a threat". From Monday the US will lead international naval manoeuvres in the Gulf off Iran's west coast aimed at fighting weapons proliferation, according to US State Department officials. Warships from Australia, Bahrain, Britain, France, Italy and the US will take part in the operation to simulate inspection of ships carrying illicit weapons-related materials, the first time such an exercise has been carried out in the Gulf. Hosseini also urged Iran's Arab neighbours to "reinforce their security cooperation instead of having foreign countries seeking to reinforce their presence". "We have asked many times Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members to cooperate as part of the 6+2 group (GCC states along with Iran and Iraq) to arrive at a common security accord," he added. The manoeuvres come amid mounting tension over Iran's contested nuclear programme as Tehran refuses to give up uranium enrichment despite moves by the US and European powers to impose sanctions on the country. However, a US official insisted that the joint manoeuvres were planned months ago and were not timed to coincide with the new pressure on Iran over its nuclear programme. ---- Iran lauds Russia, China for 'opening nuclear splits' Tehran (AFP) Oct 29, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Defiant_Iran_Scents_World_Split_On_Nuclear_Issue_999.html Iran on Sunday applauded China and Russia for their stance on its nuclear programme, saying they had created a gaping split with Europe and the US over the imposition of UN sanctions against Tehran. "Splits between the parties are very visible, that is to say between the United States and the Europeans on one side and Russia and China on the other," foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told reporters. "These two countries have completely different positions to the Europeans. Russia does not want sanctions and does not want to close the path of negotiations, and the Chinese have a similar position," he added. The United Nations Security Council's five veto-wielding members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the US -- as well as Germany have been discussing a draft resolution on sanctions put forward by European countries. But in a sign of the difficulty in reaching an agreement, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov rejected the proposed sanctions, arguing that they did not advance objectives agreed on by the six world powers. The Chinese stance has yet to become clear, although Beijing -- like Moscow -- is an economic ally of Iran and traditionally reluctant to use sanctions as diplomatic leverage. Hosseini meanwhile played down Iran's decision to start enriching uranium from a second cascade of 164 centrifuges at its nuclear plant at Natanz in the centre of the country, a move greeted with suspicion by the West. "The second cascade is part of the research activities of the country which are in line with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty," he said. "There is nothing new. It is the continuation of legal activities under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and there is no deviation," Hosseini added. Iran vehemently rejects US allegations that its nuclear programme is aimed at making nuclear weapons, saying the drive is solely aimed at providing energy for civilians. Major powers set for hard bargaining on Iran sanctions Six major powers were set next week to resume what is expected to be tough and drawn-out bargaining on proposed sanctions against Iran which pressed ahead with uranium enrichment work in defiance of UN resolutions. Envoys from the UN Security Council's five veto-wielding members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the US -- and Germany held a first private meeting Thursday on a draft resolution urging nuclear and missile-related sanctions against Tehran over its refusal to halt sensitive nuclear fuel work. US Ambassador John Bolton said the six would resume deliberations, probably Monday, for "a chance to talk about specifics." The text drafted by Britain, France and Germany in consultations with Washington calls on UN member states to slap nuclear and ballistic missile-related sanctions on Iran. It provides for a freeze of assets related to Iran's nuclear and missile programs and travel bans on scientists involved in those programs. According to some diplomats, the US had pressed for a tougher draft resolution, including a call for an end to Moscow's help building Iran's Bushehr nuclear power station. But the draft put forward by the European trio specifically exempts Russian aid to Bushehr from the proposed sanctions. While one Western diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said he was optimistic that the major powers would eventually be able to find common ground, others said agreement on an acceptable text was likely to take weeks. China and Russia, which have significant economic interests in Iran, are reluctant to slap tough measures on Tehran. In a sign that tough negotiations lie ahead, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov rejected the proposed sanctions, arguing that they do not advance objectives agreed earlier by the six powers. In Tehran, Iran confirmed Saturday it had successfully enriched uranium from a new cascade at a nuclear plant, hailing the move as a step towards industrial-scale enrichment. Enrichment, carried out in lines of centrifuges called cascades, is used to make fuel for civilian nuclear reactors. In highly refined form, however, the product can also serve as the raw material for atomic weapons. The Iranian announcement triggered strong reactions from the United States and France. US President George W. Bush said Friday that the world community needed to work harder to stop Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and French President Jacques Chirac said the time may have come for sanctions. Bush said the idea of a nuclear-armed Iran was "unacceptable" while Chirac, on an official visit to China, said Friday that Iran should face sanctions if a solution cannot be found through dialogue. However Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said he was unfazed by reports that Iran has taken a new step in uranium enrichment, saying it was still a long way from building a military capability. "I do not share these fears. Iran has started a second cascade of centrifuges under total control of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) for scientific purposes," he told journalists. "It is premature to speak of weapons-grade uranium," he said, underlining the need for Iran's nuclear work to take place under IAEA supervision. Western countries suspect that Iran's enrichment program is designed to supply material for a nuclear weapon, while Tehran insists its fuel processing is for peaceful purposes. Meanwhile the State department said Friday that Australia, Bahrain, Britain, France, Italy and the United States would Monday take part in naval maneuvers in the Gulf off Iran's west coast to simulate inspection of ships carrying illicit weapons-related materials. However, a US official insisted that the joint maneuvers were planned months ago and not timed with the new pressure on Iran over its nuclear program. -------- japan US will not impede nuclear arms debate in Japan: ambassador (AFP) Oct 29, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Japan_Lawmaker_Continues_Calls_For_Nuclear_Debate_999.html Tokyo (AFP) Oct 27 - The United States sees no need for Japan to develop nuclear weapons but will not try to stop an emerging debate in the country on the long-taboo issue, the US ambassador said Friday. Senior officials have called for Japan to discuss the nuclear option in the face of the threat from communist neighbor North Korea, which said on October 9 it had tested its first atomic bomb. Japan, the only nation to be attacked with atomic bombs, has a four-decade policy against the possession, production and presence of nuclear weapons on its soil. "The United States also understands very well the three nuclear principles here in Japan and they are not inconsistent with American foreign policy goals here," US Ambassador to Japan Thomas Schieffer told reporters. "From our standpoint, we have been able to work under those guidelines for a long time and we see no necessity for changing that today," he said. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, known for his passionate support of a larger military role for Japan, has ruled out developing nuclear weapons. But one of his top policy aides, Shoichi Nakagawa, and Foreign Minister Taro Aso have said Japan needed at least to debate the nuclear option, in light of North Korea. Schieffer said Washington had no objections to the debate in Japan, one of its closest allies. "What the Japanese talk about with themselves or with their government is up to the Japanese. It is not up to the United States to decide what is appropriate or not appropriate for the Japanese to say," Schieffer said. Abe said Friday that individual lawmakers were free to express their opinions, even though the government and his ruling Liberal Democratic Party would not take up the issue. "It is clear that it will not be discussed by the government or a formal party organ," Abe told a meeting of newspaper editors. But he added: "Other than that, discussions cannot be suppressed because Japan is a free country." Former prime minister Eisaku Sato proposed developing nuclear weapons in the 1960s, as China built the bomb, but dropped the plan in the face of objections from the US. Sato later declared the three non-nuclear principles and won the Nobel Peace Prize. The United States destroyed the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II, in the world's only atomic attacks. More than 210,000 people died instantly or from horrific burns. The US forced Japan to renounce the right to wage war after its defeat, and has since provided it with a security umbrella. Abe wants to revise the US-imposed constitution's Article Nine, under which Japan renounced the right to maintain a military or even threaten to use force. Such changes are viewed with unease in China and the two Koreas, which remain resentful of Japan's past aggression. Schieffer said the US did not have concerns about constitutional revision, a process expected to take several years. "I don't know that there is an overriding concern that we have about Article Nine," Schieffer said. "I don't think revision of Article Nine would stand in the way of us being able to do things together for our mutual benefit," he said. Despite its official pacifism, Japan has about 240,000 troops on active duty and an annual military budget of more than 41 billion dollars, the fourth-highest in the world. ---- US mulls deploying Patriot missiles in Tokyo area: report (AFP) Oct 29, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Japan_Lawmaker_Continues_Calls_For_Nuclear_Debate_999.html Tokyo - The US military is considering deploying Patriot interceptor missiles in and around Tokyo in addition to Japan's missile defense plan amid the North Korea nuclear crisis, a report said Sunday. Japan's defense military plans to set up missile defense systems at four of its bases by 2010, including Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) systems at its base, northwest of Tokyo, by the end of March 2007. But the United States sees the need for another PAC-3 base in the greater Tokyo area because of the mounting tension over North Korea's nuclear programs, the Nihon Keizai Shimbun said. The United States unofficially informed the Japanese government that it was considering deploying the PAC-3 surface-to-air missiles at its bases, such as Yokota Air Base in western Tokyo and Yokosuka Naval Base in Kanagawa prefecture, south of Tokyo, the newspaper said citing unnamed government sources. Defense agency officials could not be immediately reached for comment. Washington protects Japan by treaty as the country was stripped of its right to maintain an armed forces after defeat in World War II. Japan and the United States started working in earnest on a missile shield after North Korea in 1998 fired a missile over Japan's main island. The United States stationed its first Patriot missiles in Japan after North Korea in July test-fired seven missiles in Japan's direction. It is believed that Pyongyang's test of the long-range Taepodong-2 ballistic missile in July was a failure. But both the Japanese and US governments believe North Korea's intermediate-range Nodong ballistic missile poses a credible threat to Japan. -------- korea North Korea holds more nuke rallies From correspondents in Seoul October 29, 2006 10:25pm Agence France-Presse http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20667178-5005961,00.html NORTH Korea today held more mass rallies nationwide to celebrate its first nuclear test and boost anti-US sentiment amid news reports it was stepping up counter-intelligence efforts. Soldiers and other citizens gathered “to hail the successful historic nuclear test” at the separate rallies held in 12 different cities and counties across the country, the official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said. The rallies marked a third consecutive week of public celebrations of the October 9 blast, which immediately sparked US-led United Nations Security Council sanctions. “They branded the US imperialists as a vicious foe of peace,” the agency reported in a dispatch monitored here, referring to speakers at the rallies. It added the North Korean “servicepersons and people felt proud and confident of the emergence of a great, prosperous, powerful socialist nation.” -------- security Nuke secrets stolen 29/10/06 UK Daily Express EXCLUSIVE By Gordon Thomas http://express.lineone.net/news_detail.html?sku=630 THE secrets of Britain’s Trident nuclear deterrent are feared stolen, the Sunday Express can reveal. It is claimed they disappeared from a high-security base in the US. CIA and FBI agents launched an inquiry after top-secret material was found under a mattress in a caravan near the base during a drugs raid. Security services fear the material includes details of Britain’s Trident submarine-launched missiles, as well as other nuclear weapons. Under a pact negotiated during the Cold War, British secrets are kept at the base. The caravan was used by a known dealer who sold drugs to staff at the base in New Mexico. Shocked agents uncovered computer drives under the mattress. These were traced to a rogue technician at the complex. Both the woman technician and the drug dealer have been arrested. Last night the director of the Los Alamos base, Michael Anastasio, said: “Unfortunately, my ability to discuss the details of this matter is constrained due to the nature of the situation. What I can say is that this is a serious matter, and we are taking immediate steps to address it. “First, we are fully co-operating with the FBI and we intend to do everything possible to guard against any criminal activity. “Second, in conjunction with the FBI, we began, and will continue, to pursue the facts surrounding this incident in order to fully assess necessary immediate and long-term actions. We have already taken a number of steps to address potential security risks.” A Los Alamos police spokesman said: “The stolen classified documents were found during a drug raid. The woman holds a responsible position in the facility.” Senior British intelligence sources said the nuclear data would be “priceless to a terrorist group like Al Qaeda”. MI6 and the CIA – both involved in the FBI-led investigation – want to know if the woman stole the material to feed a drug habit, or if she was working for a terror group or a foreign intelligence service. They also want to know how she smuggled the hard drives past such tight security. Nuclear weapons expert Professor Paul Rogers, of Bradford University, said: “The relationship between the US and the British has always been very close. In the days of nuclear testing our tests were done in America. It would be more than likely this information was being held at Los Alamos.” David Dastych, a veteran CIA specialist in nuclear terrorism, said: “The theft is a very serious threat to the security of both Britain and the United States. "For a long time we have known that Los Alamos has been a prime target for Osama Bin Laden or the Chinese secret intelligence service. The loss of the material could well be a major intelligence disaster.” The sprawling Los Alamos complex is the core of America’s own nuclear defences. There are scores of laboratories for developing weapons systems. One scientist there described them yesterday “as so unthinkable that few of us who work here will even contemplate the power they can unleash”. Senior intelligence officers in London and Washington fear it was a professionally organised theft. Discs stored at the base’s vaults contain, among much else, details of Britain’s nuclear weapons and their current positions. The discs are designed to fit into laptop computers carried by members of America’s Nuclear Emergency Search Team. The members are on permanent standby to fly to the scene of any nuclear incident within the US. An official of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency said: “The missing discs contain detailed technical information on how to disarm and dismantle nuclear devices so they could be easily transported. By the same token the data would also enable the weapons to be reactivated.” From his prison cell, self-confessed drug user Justin Stone, 20, who was arrested in the caravan, denied he was acting for terrorists, claiming: “I was basically at the wrong place at the wrong time. I don’t know who to sell that kind of information to.” Last night the Foreign Office declined to comment. The Ministry of Defence said: “There is no suggestion that details of the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent was recovered by the FBI.” ---- New tools for a new world order Nuclear forensics touted as method to trace bomb materials, deterrent for rogue nations Matthew B. Stannard, San Francisco Chronicle Staff Writer Sunday, October 29, 2006 http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/10/29/MNG32M27K61.DTL Amid all the frightening uncertainties of the decades-long Cold War, one thing was reassuringly clear: If a nuclear bomb ever fell on America, everybody would know where it originated, and retribution would be swift and sure. That guarantee was called "mutually assured destruction." The promise that a nuclear attack, however devastating, would trigger an equally devastating response was a critical component of Cold War deterrence. And it worked. "Deterrence ... as a matter of practice, was successful," said Allen Weiner, a professor at Stanford's Institute for International Studies and a State Department attorney from 1990 to 2001. "It was even successful more ambitiously -- not only was the development of nuclear arsenals on both sides sufficient to deter a nuclear attack by the adversary, but (it) was essentially successful in deterring conventional attacks." At a time when nuclear devices are increasingly the weapons of choice for weaker nations rather than superpowers, can deterrence still work? Can it restrain emerging nuclear powers such as North Korea and Iran, or even smugglers and thieves and rogue scientists who sell plutonium to the highest bidder? A growing number of respected nuclear scientists want more attention focused on the esoteric field of nuclear forensics as a means of keeping track of fissionable material and -- they hope -- enhance deterrence in an era of international terrorism and defiant nationalism. "We need our government to develop an effective policy around that ... technical tool," said Charles Ferguson, a science and technology fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. "I think people maybe could sleep more rested at night knowing we have a better capability to deal with this extreme act of terrorism." The science of nuclear forensics is capable of revealing a great deal about the fissile material at the heart of a nuclear device, even if scientists arrive only after the explosion, said Michael May, the former director of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which was a pioneer in the science in the 1980s. "The atoms all survive. They get transmuted, but they don't suddenly disappear," May said. "You only need micrograms, milligrams. You need very small amounts, and there's going to be kilograms of it spread around." From those tiny samples, May said, nuclear detectives can extract a wealth of data in a few days or weeks. Ratios of certain isotopes of plutonium can show how long the material was in a reactor, and how long since it was removed. Ratios of isotopes in uranium can suggest where the element was mined. Other clues, such as the presence of impurities like gadolinium, a rare-earth metal used in some reactors, can tell what kind of reactor was used to produce the fissile material or give hints of how the bomb was constructed. The science has already had successes. Early nuclear forensic analysis of airborne debris collected near China in 1949 confirmed the Soviet Union's first nuclear test, just as air samples taken over North Korea this month confirmed its entry into the nuclear club. In 1999, Bulgarian customs officials detained a man in possession of a lead container and documents suggesting the container was filled with uranium-235. Livermore scientists were able to identify the material -- sealed inside a glass tube and cushioned with wax -- as highly enriched uranium oxide originating in Eastern Europe. But even modern forensics only takes you so far, May said. "If you want to identify (material) uniquely, then you need some samples to compare it with," he said. "Otherwise, you're like someone with a DNA sample and no DNA bank." That limitation has led scientists to call for an international database of nuclear material from around the world, a resource that could help them quickly and accurately identify -- to the limits of the science -- where the fissile material in a smuggler's pouch or a terrorist nuclear device originated. "There is an important linkage between our technical capabilities and what is ultimately some sort of deterrence or, more precisely, a dissuasion policy," said Page Stoutland, radiological and nuclear countermeasures division leader for the Livermore lab's Nonproliferation, Homeland and International Security Directorate. Some contend that the Cold War model of mutually assured destruction still has validity. "If Iran is bound and determined to have nuclear weapons, let it," journalist Ted Koppel wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed. "But this should also be made clear to Tehran: If a dirty bomb explodes in Milwaukee ... the return address will be predetermined, and it will be somewhere in Iran." Scott Sagan, director of the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford, said he found Koppel's premise "very disturbing." The problem, he and other experts say, is that a future nuclear attack on America may not come in the form of easily traceable intercontinental ballistic missiles, but more likely as a jury-rigged bomb smuggled into port inside a cargo container or across the border in a backpack. "People too easily jump to the conclusion that if a terrorist organization used a dirty bomb and/or a nuclear weapon, that we would know where it came from," he said. "The question is: Would we be able to identify that material and say, 'This came from X'?" The answer to that is: Maybe. Forensic identification has its limits -- the science is much better at ruling out a possible origin than in positively identifying that point of origin with 100 percent certainty, May said. What's more, Ferguson noted, the presence of a specific country's fissile material in the hands of a terrorist group doesn't guarantee that the material was handed over intentionally -- or even knowingly. "What if," he said, "terrorists got highly enriched uranium from reactors that were supplied by the United States?" -- perhaps reactors in the United States, or reactors sold for peaceful energy production to nations that are U.S. allies, but not so good at security. "You can imagine a terrorist group conceivably could go around to several of these research reactors, getting bits and pieces of highly enriched uranium, and finally get enough to make a gun-type bomb," Ferguson said. "The bomb goes off, and who do we blame? ... Do we retaliate against ourselves?" Nevertheless, Ferguson and other experts believe that even if a nuclear forensic database can't form the backbone of a modern form of mutually assured destruction, it still helps close enough nuclear proliferation gaps to make it worthwhile. At a minimum, such a system could help in cases of nuclear smuggling, said Sagan, who served as a consultant to the office of the secretary of defense and at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Increasing the ability to trace material to its source could encourage nuclear nations to be a little more careful about security, May said. "The clearer it is that there is an attribution capability that is accepted internationally, the stronger the incentive for people in Pakistan, for instance -- which is a major place of worry -- or for some of the republics in Central Asia to make sure that nothing happens there that can be traced back to them," he said. "That's one of the principal positive effects. Compared to biological and chemical agents, these (nuclear) things exist in comparatively few places -- too many, but probably a hundred or fewer instead of hundreds of thousands. The bulk of them should be under pretty thorough security -- lock and key. I mean, we have not seen any theft of gold from Fort Knox, and it should be that kind of security." Even if the forensics can't prove that a country intentionally sold or gave fissile material to smugglers or terrorists, it still gives the United States or United Nations a powerful weapon to discourage rogue states from letting fissile material fall into the wrong hands, Weiner said. "The most important thing is to enable us to go in and say, 'We know it's you. You no longer have plausible deniability. We're not going to nuke you, but this is now a very, very serious foreign policy issue between us,' " Weiner said. "This fundamentally changes the calculation, where we can say, 'There is proof. So stop it. Now.' " Policymakers see the value of nuclear forensics. Both the U.S. Department of Defense and the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, have written plans to collect forensic evidence after a nuclear event, and the Department of Homeland Security has created a domestic nuclear detection office, whose budget in fiscal year 2007 includes $17.7 million for nuclear attribution and forensics at Livermore and other research labs. Significant obstacles remain to assembling the kind of database that experts say would be most useful. Perhaps the greatest is convincing the nuclear powers to give up information about their programs -- which most nations hold among their highest secrets. "The question is: Does the threat of global nuclear terrorism pose such a high threat to these countries that they'd be willing to open up some of their nuclear facilities in order to reduce that threat? Because if it's just a matter of reducing the threat to the United States, that might not be enough of an incentive," Sagan said. It might be preferable for the United Nations, not the United States, to take the lead in creating a response team and forensic database, experts said. One possibility would be for the Security Council to follow up on its 2004 resolution calling on member states to prevent nonstate actors from obtaining weapons of mass destruction with a new or expanded resolution. "As part of some kind of nonproliferation protocol, one could ultimately say that if you intend to possess highly enriched uranium, the international community believes that a sample should be placed in such-and-such a database to aid in forensics and attribution, should there be a loss of control of the material," Stoutland said. "Doing that kind of thing could lead to people better controlling the material; it could lead to people not having (highly enriched uranium)." The permanent five members of the U.N. Security Council, all nuclear powers, could take the lead in providing material for the database as a form of mutual self-defense, suggested Harold Smith, professor at the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley, who oversaw nuclear, chemical and biological defense programs during the Clinton administration. "This is to our mutual benefit -- to at least have samples of the P-5 material if for no other reason than to show it did not come from a Russian arsenal, a U.S. arsenal, etc. At least there's the process of elimination," Smith said. "Let's at least take the small step." Atoms of interest In the event of a nuclear explosion, radiochemists would try to obtain tiny quantities of debris from the nuclear device on the ground near the point of impact and/or in the atmosphere. They would first separate the atoms into groups of chemically similar elements and then measure the radioactivity of each group. Three types of atoms are of particular interest in a forensic analysis: -- Atoms of fissile material that did not undergo fission. Examining them allows scientists to identify the material used to make the device and, when compared to the number of fission fragments, to measure the efficiency or sophistication of the weapon. -- New atoms created by fission and by other nuclear reactions within the fissile material. When scientists compare these, they can obtain considerable insight into the nuclear processes that were involved during the explosion. -- Atoms of material near the fissioning core that were subjected to an intense bombardment of neutrons during the explosion and became radioactive as a consequence. These atoms provide insight into the components of the weapon and the energy of the neutrons that activated the components. Source: Arms Control Today, October 2006: Who Did It? Using International Forensics to Detect and Deter Nuclear Terrorism (William Dunlop and Harold Smith) E-mail Matthew B. Stannard at mstannard@sfchronicle.com. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- nevada Why Democrats want Nevada to be a player LA Times ^ | October 29, 2006 | J. Patrick Coolican Posted on 10/29/2006 8:45:26 PM PST by swheats http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1728298/posts "... Nevada will host the Democrats' second presidential caucus in 2008, right behind Iowa and ahead of the New Hampshire primary. Potential candidates have already begun arriving in the state. They're talking about their favorite casino games and showing a newfound interest in the state's parochial issues — water rights and the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository." (Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ... http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-coolican29oct29,0,5132651.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail -------- new york Indian Point ready to start cleanup of radiated groundwater By GREG CLARY THE NY JOURNAL NEWS October 29, 2006 http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006610290341 BUCHANAN -.Imagine siphoning radioactive water from deep in the bedrock under Indian Point through an oversized rubber hose. That's basically how engineers at the nuclear power plants are planning to clean up nearly 200,000 gallons of water contaminated with tritium and strontium 90 that has been collecting for more than a year underneath the site. "We have enough intelligence from the wells we've dug and the hydrology studies we've done to reasonably characterize the water flow on-site," said Donald Mayer, the Indian Point engineer in charge of the project. The initial phase of the cleanup is scheduled to start early next month, and company officials hope they can finish it by the middle of next year. But first they're testing a year's worth of underground water-flow mapping and computer modeling by turning on a pump at Recovery Well No. 1. That well is linked to many of 30 other new wells by tiny rivulets of groundwater traveling along rock fissures from the site's eastern edge down to the Hudson River. The recovery well will function like the rubber hose of a siphon, drawing the contaminated water to the surface. The recovery well has been sunk 200 feet into the granite underneath Indian Point 2's spent-fuel pool, which holds 400,000 gallons of radioactive water used to cool used-up plutonium fuel rods. The draining will take place from a section of the specially made wells at a depth of about 50 feet, where the highest concentrations of tritium have been found. The underground contamination was discovered when a leak showed up in that area in August 2005. Workers discovered a crack in the outside of the building housing the spent-fuel pool. The leak grew to more than a liter per day. Where the water had come from and how long it had been collecting is still a question. Using half-life dating methods, the company and Nuclear Regulatory Commission experts characterized it as "older" water that probably had been collecting underground since before Entergy bought the nuclear plants in September 2001. State and federal regulators say the leaks pose virtually no danger to the public or plant workers, but with half-lives of 29 years for strontium 90 and 12 years for tritium, concern among residents and elected officials lingers. Indian Point officials and the regulators looking over their shoulders still aren't sure that the No. 2 spent-fuel pool is the only source of the leaking tritium. The isotope showed up at concentrations nearly 25 times higher than acceptable levels for drinking water. The leak has since been enclosed, and the tiny amount of moisture still leaking out is being captured, plant and NRC officials say. Mayer and NRC hydrologists say high concentrations of tritium below Indian Point 2 make it the best place to start drawing out the contamination. The most recent tests for tritium show levels that have since come down to about a third of what they were at their worst, but they are still far in excess of federal guidelines. Samples of water from the wells have been analyzed by Indian Point, the NRC and the state Department of Environmental Conservation, with similar results, state and federal officials said. The plan is to pull the contaminated water up and dilute it with enough clean water to allow it to be released into the Hudson River according to Indian Point's federal release permits. As they started investigating underground water flows, Indian Point engineers discovered they had another problem - the more dangerous strontium 90 showed up in wells that were drilled around the tritium plume. Again the concentrations were higher than allowable - three times as high as they should have been for safe water - and again the exact source of the leak was difficult to determine. There seemed to be only one way to find out what was going on below the ground. Engineers couldn't don headlamps and spend a few days spelunking in caves underneath the site because there aren't any. For the most part, the plant sits on solid rock. The only way to figure out water flows was by drilling wells and cataloging the rock as it was pulled out. Using ultrasound and photo images, hydrologists mapped the rock's crevices with computer models. Before they could begin any cleanup, they had to run everything past the NRC's hydrologists. John White, the NRC's top regional radiological official, has been part of the oversight team. He said the company "has spared no expense nor looked for short-cuts" in its efforts to find and clean up the leaks. "We've been doing independent assessments of their performance, taking split samples and sending those to separate labs, and the data compares very favorably," White said. "They've done an excellent job in characterizing the site's hydrology and groundwater. We're not ready to say they've done it all, but they've made significant improvement." One strategy earning Indian Point officials high marks is removing strontium 90 from its likely leak source at the defunct Indian Point 1 fuel storage pool. Using a demineralizing method, the company is pulling more than 90 percent of the strontium in the pool's water out to cut down on what gets into the ground. All told, the company has spent about $10 million on the project. The monitoring wells themselves cost about $50,000 each. Critics like Riverkeeper's Philip Musegaas point out that the concentrations are still very high, but he acknowledged that the method seemed to be curbing the contamination levels. Eventually, Indian Point officials want to empty that pool and move the fuel rods there into dry-cask storage on-site, cutting down on the potential for leaks. For now, critics say they are glad to see a cleanup started, but don't want the public to be lulled into a sense of security that the problems are over. Riverkeeper wants nothing less than the leaks stopped completely and the site remediated, Musegaas said. "Why clean the bathroom floor when the bathtub is still overflowing," he said, reiterating that company officials acknowledged they don't know the exact sources of the contamination. David Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists agreed that the problem can't be fully solved as long as there are leaks, but he likened the timing and strategy of the cleanup to a well-known homeowner problem. "If I have a roof that leaks, I put something underneath it to catch the water until I get up there and patch the roof," Lochbaum said. He said he had found plenty that's positive about what Indian Point officials have done. "Clearly they know a lot more about the leak sources and potential sources than they did in September of 2005," Lochbaum said. In the future, the work done to contain the leaks at Indian Point should serve the plants as an early warning system underground. "After the remediation is done, we'll still be monitoring the wells," said Jay Adler, one of the Indian Point scientists working on the cleanup. The industry, in response to all this, is changing. Plants are putting in systems of monitoring wells. Mayer said new plants probably will have to put wells in during construction, based on recent recommendations from a special NRC task force. Buchanan Mayor Dan O'Neill, an Indian Point supporter, said residents continue to be concerned about the presence of strontium 90 and tritium, but find reassurance in regulators' statements that drinking water hasn't been affected. "Ideally, there wouldn't have been any leak, but you can't look at Indian Point in a vacuum," O'Neill said. "Of course nobody wants a leak, but the amounts (of contamination) have been minimal and there has been no threat to public health. Any way you make electricity is going to cause some environmental problem." Reach Greg Clary at gclary@lohud.com or 914-696-8566. Tritium, strontium raise cancer risk Tritium and strontium 90 are radioactive isotopes. Tritium is the less dangerous of the two, though exposure to any ionizing radiation can increase the odds of getting cancer. Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, with a half-life of 12 years. It is naturally produced in the upper atmosphere when cosmic rays strike air molecules and as a byproduct in nuclear reactors that produce electricity. Exposure to it and other radiation increases the risk of developing cancer. Strontium 90 is a fission byproduct of uranium and plutonium, with a half-life of 29 years. Large amounts were produced in the 1950s and 1960s during atmospheric nuclear weapons tests. Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency How Indian Point will test for contaminants http://www.thejournalnews.com/assets/swf/BH475591027.SWF -------- MILITARY -------- arms Russia, France now top arms sellers From correspondents in Washington October 29, 2006 07:53pm Agence France-Presse http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20665892-5005961,00.html THE US ceded to Russia and France last year its role of the top arms supplier to the developing world as it failed to take full advantage of emerging markets and opportunities created by booming oil prices. The annual report by the Congressional Research Service showed the US share in the total value of all arms transfer agreements concluded in 2005 dropped to 20.5 per cent from 35.4 per cent the year before. In monetary terms, the value of these deals concluded by the United States fell from $US9.4 billion ($12.3 billion) in 2004 to about $US6.2 billion in 2005. By contrast, Russia made last year $US7 billion worth of such deals in Asia, Africa and Latin America, a notable increase from $US5.4 billion in 2004, which propelled Russia to the position of the top arms supplier to the developing world, the report said. -------- us WMD intercept exercise set to begin in the Gulf By Guy Dinmore in Washington, Roula Khalaf in London and Najmeh Bozorgmehr in Tehran Published: October 29 2006 Financial Times http://www.ft.com/cms/s/8b0a05b8-678b-11db-8ea5-0000779e2340.html War games designed to intercept ships carrying weapons of mass destruction will take place for the first time today in the Gulf opposite Iran. The naval exercise – organised under the US’s 2003 Proliferation Security Initiative – will include Bahrain, one of the regional states and host to a US naval base. Although the US says the move is not specifically aimed at Iran, the PSI exercise comes amid heightened concerns over Tehran’s nuclear programme. The US and European states are pushing for a United Nations Security Council resolution that would restrict, through sanctions, Tehran’s ability to procure material for its ballistic missile and nuclear programmes. Iran has refused to heed international calls for a halt to the most sensitive parts of its nuclear programme and has stepped up uranium enrichment research in recent days. Bahrain’s participation is a first for an Arab country. Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are sending observers. Australia, France, Italy, the UK, the US and Bahrain are providing vessels and other assets. Mohammad Ali Hosseini, foreign ministry spokesman in Tehran, refused on Sunday to describe the exercise as a threat to Iran but called for security co-operation between the states of the region without the participation of foreign forces. Monday’s exercise comes as the US seeks to counter Iran’s growing influence in the region by promoting a new “strategic partnership” with the oil-rich Arab Gulf states. This partnership is aimed at bolstering the states’ air defences in the face of security threats, whether from terrorism or a possible military conflict with Iran. US officials suggest Gulf Arab states have a keen interest in closer security co-operation and that all, except Saudi Arabia, had “formally endorsed” PSI, motivated by concerns over Iran’s nuclear intentions. But analysts in the region played down Gulf states’ enthusiasm and said Saudi Arabia, in particular, was worried that US efforts would lead to further strain on relations with Tehran. In the year to April 2006, PSI participants had carried out “roughly two dozen” interceptions, according to a US official. However, of strategically significant countries, China has not signed up for the initiative and South Korea is taking part as an observer. The legal basis of the interceptions of ships also remains unclear. A senior US official told reporters that UN Security Council resolution 1718, passed this month imposing sanctions on North Korea, does not give any new legal authority to the US or other states to intercept ships in international waters. The legal component is an integral part of Monday’s “Leading Edge” exercise as PSI participants try to work out on what grounds they can board the target vessel. If, for example, the ship is flagged by Cyprus or Panama, which have signed on to the PSI commitments, then other PSI participants would have the right to intercept. In parallel, the US-led Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism on Monday holds its inaugural meeting in Rabat, Morocco. It is expected to endorse a statement of principles aimed at preventing nuclear materials from falling into the wrong hands; development of detection capabilities and co-operation on tracing the source of any nuclear material used in an attack. Those taking part comprise the G8 nations, China, Kazakhstan, Australia and Italy. -------- POLITICS -------- us politics As election closes in, e-mail a rapid-fire political weapon Updated 10/29/2006 By David Jackson, USA TODAY http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-29-bush-emails_x.htm WASHINGTON — Every weekday at 8 a.m., right after President Bush meets with senior staff, his communications team huddles in a second floor West Wing office to plan new moves in the information war. Rob Saliterman, the White House director of rapid response, fires salvos throughout the day. His weapons: e-mails. The White House digital war room blasts thousands of electronic messages each day, aimed at more than 2,000 targets. They include journalists, Republican staffers in government, radio talk show hosts, television bookers, Internet bloggers and what White House communications director Kevin Sullivan described as other "interested parties." Whether trumpeting a presidential speech or seeking to shoot down an unflattering news story, the Bush administration's "rapid response unit" is a place where politics grapples with the 24/7 news cycle — especially in an election year. "We call it rapid response, but we look at it as being on offense," Sullivan said. "We want to respond to things that are misleading before they become part of conventional wisdom." In recent months, many missives reflect what President Bush and GOP candidates discuss on the campaign trail: the record-breaking stock market, immigration and legislation authorizing a fence along the U.S.-Mexican border, and developments in Iraq. " 'Tis the season," Sullivan said. "There have been more stories to respond to as we have gotten closer." Democrats also take part. For every e-mail in which the Bush administration touts progress, the staff of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., sends a response. A recent example criticized a speech on Iraq by Vice President Cheney with this headline: "Cheney stays the course. Alone." "We don't want anything to slip by," said Rebecca Kirszner, communications director for the Senate Democratic Communications Center, which Reid created to counter the White House. Her group also keeps well-tended lists of e-mail targets. A busy day for Bush's digital warriors goes something like this: On Sept. 6, the day Bush proposed his plan for military trials of terrorism suspects, the White House sent at least seven missives. They included two "fact sheets" explaining the program, a list detailing myths and facts about the CIA's interrogations of these suspects, and another entitled "setting the record straight" addressed to critics of the plan. A month later, the White House's rapid response team cranked out four e-mails covering the national intelligence estimate on Iraq, job creation, budget deficits, and Democrats and taxes. War rooms in politics are nothing new. The term harks back to Bill Clinton's presidential campaign of 1992, when his advisers developed an aggressive strategy to fight attacks. Douglas Sosnik, a former Clinton political director, said e-mails weren't the tool of choice back then because "it was not nearly as ubiquitous in peoples' lives then as it is now." The Bush White House began expanding its e-mail strategy in March 2004, according to Sullivan, in response to criticism of its terrorism policies by former National Security Council staff member Richard Clarke. Traffic ticked up in mid-November 2005, as Bush prepared a series of speeches on the Iraq war. Robert Schmuhl, a professor of American studies at the University of Notre Dame, said the e-mail barrage reflects the fact that much of government has turned into a permanent political campaign. He called the result "spincraft, as opposed to stagecraft." Sometimes the White House's message can get lost, however. "An e-mail avalanche leads to numbness," said Lanny Davis, an attorney who handled rapid response for the Clinton administration. "The effect of it is minimal." -------- ENERGY New houses breaching energy laws By Rob Edwards Sunday Herald - 29 October 2006 http://www.sundayherald.com/58741 As many as half of all new houses built in Scotland could breach energy-saving rules, blowing a gaping hole in government attempts to combat climate chaos. An investigation by the Sunday Herald has uncovered evidence that insulation and draught-proofing in new homes is often so poor that they fail to comply with building regulations. As a result they cause more of the pollution that is warming the globe. The revelation has triggered calls for the Scottish communities minister, Malcolm Chisholm, to crack down on the “cowboy builders” blamed for breaking the rules. Energy campaigners want better checks on the insulation in new houses. Ministers in Edinburgh and London face growing criticism for failing to do enough to tackle climate change. A report due out tomorrow by the World Bank’s former chief economist, Nicholas Stern, is expected to warn that, if unchecked, it could trigger a global economic catastrophe. According to experts from local authorities and building research groups, breaches of the rules for insulation in new houses were “widespread”. Insulation in lofts, walls and around fittings was missing and improperly installed, they said. “It’s down to shoddy workman ship,” said Janice Lyon, Aberdeen City Council’s home energy co-ordinator. Surveys uncovered manifold examples of poor insulation in Kingswell, an estate built on the outskirts of Aberdeen in the late 1990s. “They were not up to the building standards of the time,” Lyon stated. But the problem was not limited to Aberdeen, she argued. “We know this happens with 40% to 50% of new build in Scotland,” she said. Thermal imaging surveys conducted by the Building Research Establishment (BRE) in East Kilbride have shown that up to 30% more heat escapes from new houses than expected. Inspections have uncovered instances where the wrong insulating materials have been installed. In a study this year, the BRE’s Sean Doran pointed out that the insulation in floors and walls of new homes was not usually examined properly by building inspectors. Inspectors were “unsure of the levels of standards that should be demanded”, he said. Further evidence comes from glass manufacturer Pilkington, which said that less than half of replacement windows in Scotland use the energy- saving glass required by regulations, compared with 90% in England and Wales. The widespread breaches of building insulation rules were a “scandal”, said Chas Booth, of the Association for the Conservation of Energy in Scotland. “Setting tighter building standards for energy efficiency is pointless unless they are enforced,” he said. “This new evidence shows that, far from the Executive’s claimed 25% reduction in carbon emissions under new building regulations, our buildings will continue to be a major cause of climate change unless action is taken.” Booth urged ministers to include compulsory insulation tests in its current review of building regulations and to increase training and resources for building inspectors. Last week, SNP MSP Maureen Watt tabled a motion in parliament suggesting that insulation regulations were being widely breached. The Scottish Executive pointed out that its revised building standards did give “guidance” on the frequency of insulation tests. “The proposed standards on energy efficiency will mean that in about five years, Scotland will have reduced carbon dioxide emissions from new buildings by 40%,” said an Executive spokeswoman. Evidence of widespread breaches of the rules was “anecdotal”, said Michael Levack, of Scottish Building, which represents 700 building contractors. “I don’t think it reflects reality,” he said. “The industry has raised standards significantly in the past 10 years.” -------- ACTIVISTS Activists want mercenaries regulated By DAVID STRINGER, Associated Press Writer Sun Oct 29, 2006 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061030/ap_on_re_eu/britain_private_security LONDON - A humanitarian group called Monday for government regulation of private security companies in combat zones, saying "mercenaries" often operate with impunity in Iraq and Afghanistan. The London-based War on Want delivered a list of recommended regulations for the private security industry to Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett, calling for increased scrutiny of allegations of human rights abuses by private security staff. The demand comes as a conference of British defense firms working in Iraq and Afghanistan was set to open Monday in London. Both the British government and private security companies agree that regulation is needed. But the companies say an independent ombudsman — rather than government regulation — would be more effective. In a report, War on Want called for details of government contracts with defense companies to be made public and proposed restrictions on lawmakers and civil servants taking jobs within the sector after leaving office. "We want the revolving door between government and the private defense industry to slam shut," War on Want spokesman Paul Collins said. Andy Bearpark, director general of the British Association of Private Security Companies, an industry-funded lobby group, said government regulation was unworkable. He said his members would instead urge Beckett to appoint an independent ombudsman to oversee their operations. "The way we work is across international boundaries, so regulation or prosecutions through national laws would be complex," Bearpark told The Associated Press in an interview. He said security companies "support 100 percent" moves to regulate the industry. Britain's Foreign Office said a review of options for regulating the industry had begun, but there was no timetable for putting proposals to parliament. "There is an agreement that there should be some form of regulation," said a Foreign Office spokesman on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media. Bearpark, former director of operations and infrastructure for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, said British security contractors earned about $1.88 billion a year. War on Want claims the total value of the industry worldwide topped $100 billion in 2004 and has estimated there are 48,000 private security contractors working in Iraq. The U.S.-led coalition and private Western groups operating in Iraq have come to rely on contractors for many security duties, including guarding facilities and some highways. At least 300 contractors are reported to have been killed in Iraq. Some Iraqis have complained that the private security workers have used excessive force. Collins said his group recognized the need for private security, but believed the industry urgently required tighter regulation. "What we want to see is the proper investigation and prosecution of human rights abuses being perpetrated by mercenaries," Collins said. The War on Want report claims civilian contractors — including men named in U.S. military reports as having carried out abuses at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison — have repeatedly escaped prosecution for crimes. Two workers employed by private defense companies CACI International Inc. and Titan Corp. were "either directly or indirectly responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib," a 2004 report by U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba stated.