NucNews October 30, 2006 -------- NUCLEAR Nuclear industry on rebound High fossil fuel prices and concerns over reliance on imported energy prompt countries to reconsider reactors as a power source. By Rebecca Bream, Financial Times October 30, 2006 http://www.latimes.com/business/la-ft-nuclear30oct30,0,5930478.story Nuclear power has staged a remarkable revival over the last few years amid growing concerns about energy insecurity and global warming. From being viewed as a technology whose time had passed, hit by high costs and safety concerns, nuclear power now is considered by many countries as something worthy of billions of dollars of investment. India and China are planning to build more than 20 reactors each by 2020, and Russia also is hoping to build more nuclear power stations. In Western Europe, new reactors are being built in Finland and France, and the U.S. wants to have its first new nuclear plant built by the middle of the next decade. Several other countries, including Britain, are in the process of reversing their previous antinuclear stances and laying the foundations for new projects. The high price of oil and gas has caused countries without large reserves of hydrocarbons to search for alternatives. The fact that many of these countries also feel uncomfortable about relying on fuel imports from parts of the world that are seen as politically risky, whether the Middle East, Russia or Venezuela, has given the search for other energy sources increased urgency. Concerns about energy security have contributed to a rise in the burning of coal to generate electricity but have also benefited the nuclear industry. Nuclear reactors need to import uranium, but the amount of fuel used is relatively small compared with gas- and coal-fired power plants, and they provide security of supply. On the environmental front, nuclear power stations produce considerably less carbon dioxide than those burning fossil fuels, so supporters are also championing atomic energy as a way to combat global warming. But opponents argue that the process of mining and enriching uranium, used as fuel for reactors, is energy-intensive, and that nuclear power saddles future generations with the problem of what to do with the radioactive waste. Several countries, including the U.S., Britain, Finland and Sweden, are proposing to bury nuclear waste in sealed bunkers deep underground, but progress on these projects is slow. In the U.S., for instance, there have been plans to bury waste at Yucca Mountain in southwestern Nevada since 1957, but controversy has dogged the project. The federal government is in favor, but local politicians are against having a nuclear waste repository in their state. The government expects to open the facility in 2017 at the earliest. Although the waste issue remains unresolved, the argument that nuclear power is key to cutting carbon emissions seems to be gaining followers. Borje Eriksson, global director for the utility industries at IFS, the technology company, said the nuclear industry was pushing the environmental case and by and large getting a good reception from politicians. "The pressure for governments to adopt greener policies and rely less on fossil fuels is accelerating nuclear expansion programs internationally. We are seeing rapid progress in Europe and Asia in particular, with Finland and Sweden leading the way." But he said that the pace of new reactor development would hinge on whether the nuclear industry can put past problems behind it and prove it can run big capital projects efficiently, delivering plants on time and on budget. The progress of the 1,600-megawatt Olkiluoto 3 reactor in Finland is being closely watched by governments and energy companies weighing whether to invest in new nuclear plants. Olkiluoto 3, owned by a not-for-profit cooperative of Finland's largest energy users, will be the first plant to be built in Western Europe since the early 1990s, and will include cutting-edge technology. Construction has started at the remote site, but so far the project is 12 months behind schedule and is expected to be in operation in the second quarter of 2010, not in 2009 as originally planned. In the U.S., where nuclear plants supply 20% of the country's electricity, an industry consortium called NuStart is spearheading the development of new reactors. Last month NuStart proposed two sites for the first new nuclear plants in the U.S. in 30 years, Grand Gulf in Mississippi and Bellefonte in Alabama. Analysts predict that NuStart could receive licenses for these plants as early as next year. Nuclear power also accounts for about 20% of the energy mix in Britain, but many of the plants are reaching the end of their lives and will close in the next decade. By 2023, all but one of Britain's reactors will have closed, making the country even more reliant on gas-fired plants. The British government concluded in July that nuclear power should continue to make up part of the energy mix. Accenture, the consulting firm, says that to provide 15% of Britain's electricity, seven new 1,000-megawatt reactors or five 1,400-megawatt reactors would need to be built at a cost of about $8 billion. Unlike the previous phase of nuclear development in Britain, the government has said that the private sector would have to foot the bill. Electricite de France and Eon of Germany both have electricity customers in Britain. They both run nuclear power stations in their home markets and have expressed an interest in building new plants. British Energy, the partly state-owned nuclear power group, wants to get involved but has insufficient financial resources to finance projects on its own. But British Energy owns many of the suitable sites for new reactors and may use this as leverage. -------- accidents and safety Saving troops from a deadly, invisible enemy Plastic instruments worn around neck warn of radiation Oct. 30, 2006. 01:00 AM BRUCE CAMPION-SMITH OTTAWA BUREAU http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1162162210086&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467 OTTAWA—In addition to their flak jackets, rifles and helmets, Canada's troops in Afghanistan are carrying another little known piece of protective equipment: radiation meters. It's a reminder that amid the threat of suicide bombers and rocket-propelled grenades, the soldiers face a more insidious, and invisible, concern on the battlefield. For their six-month tours of duty, soldiers wear the plastic dosimeters around their necks next to their dog tags to measure any "chance encounter" with gamma and X-ray radiation during patrols outside the base. "It's a protective measure to ensure the safety and the health of the troops," said Chris Knowlton, the environmental health and safety officer for the Canadian Expeditionary Force, the military branch that looks after overseas operations. Knowlton says the dosimeters are worn to protect troops against a threat that first arrived in the war-torn country a quarter-century ago. Old Soviet military gear now litters the landscape in Afghanistan, remnants of that country's invasion and occupation. And some of that equipment contains radium, a radioactive substance once used for the glow-in-the-dark dials. "The one consideration that we looked at was the fact there could be ex-Soviet dials floating around," Knowlton said. "Nothing sits around for very long so any of the damaged or destroyed vehicles get scavenged. "There have been examples out there where people have dispersed radioactive and contaminated things not knowing what they're doing." But some question whether there's a more recent radiation worry lingering on the Afghan battlefield — depleted uranium found in modern-day weapons and armour. Depleted uranium is what is left over after the more radioactive elements have been removed to make enriched uranium. This heavy, dense metal is prized by the military. `There could be ex-Soviet dials floating around' Chris Knowlton, Canadian Expeditionary Force The U.S. says it uses depleted uranium for some of its munitions, armour and armour-piercing projectiles. "DU's high density, self-sharpening qualities and the fact that it is easily combustible make its projectiles capable of readily penetrating armour," according to one U.S. Army fact sheet. While military fact sheets downplay the risks of depleted uranium because of its low radioactivity, excessive exposures can damage the kidneys. "Depleted uranium is only one of many potentially hazardous substances that soldiers may be exposed to during deployment and combat operations," the U.S. fact sheet said. Depleted uranium saw large-scale use during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, sparking some worries that it was responsible for the mysterious illnesses suffered by some U.S. veterans. It was used again during NATO's bombing of the Balkans in the mid-1990s. That's when Canadians — who served an extended tour there — were first equipped with dosimeters. "For the Balkans and as well Afghanistan, it's more the chance encounter ... like a rogue source or a device that contains radiation," Knowlton said, adding dosimeters are now a "routine force protection measure." NATO was put on the offensive in 2001 after media reports linked the use of depleted uranium ammunition in Kosovo and Bosnia with the possibility of a higher incidence of leukemia and other cancers among some allied troops and local residents. "To date, the scientific and medical research continues to disprove any link between depleted uranium and the reported negative health effects," according to a NATO statement. The Americans and British have denied using depleted uranium weapons in Afghanistan. Canada says it eliminated depleted uranium munitions from its stockpile in 1998, in part because of the logistical challenges of storing the material, since it required special precautions. Knowlton said he doesn't see a significant radiation risk for the 2,500 Canadian troops now serving in southern Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, the dosimeters have all come back with no excessive exposure measured — except for two, he said. "We followed up and it was because it was accidentally passed through a baggage X-ray." ---- The cancer effect One former Rocketdyne employee recalls dumping waste after the incident By Teresa Rochester, trochester@VenturaCountyStar.com October 30, 2006 Ventura County, CA, Star http://venturacountystar.com/vcs/county_news/article/0,1375,VCS_226_5104390,00.html The work took place at night, not long after the sun had set. Under the glare of a floodlight, five men from Rocketdyne chatted and chided each other as they moved valves and 55-gallon drums of contaminated liquid sodium, discards from a sodium-cooled nuclear reactor operated by Atomics International at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory on a hilltop south of Simi Valley. It was late summer 1959. In mid-July, a third of that reactor's core had melted down, releasing radioactivity. Nobody told the men. But as they went about their work, they learned of the accident. Still, they kept working. Wearing yellow rubber boots, rust-colored aprons, yellow plastic gloves and plastic face shields, they hauled drums lashed to pallets to an enclosed area marked with signs warning of radiation. Nobody thought anything of it. "We wouldn't have been foolish enough to go in there" if they had known of the risk, said the crew's leader, James Palmer. "In fact, the work we were asked to do wasn't considered dangerous. We did that type of work at Rocketdyne in the place where they handled exotic fuel." If the workers knew little about the country's first nuclear meltdown, the public knew even less. Atomics International issued a statement to the media in August 1959 that read: "No release of radioactive materials to the plant or its environs occurred and operating personnel were not exposed to conditions." The news had little impact. Decades passed before the meltdown's scope emerged and the study of its impacts began. Report finds high rate of cancer Early this month, a group of scientists and members of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory Advisory Panel released a five-year study that concluded that the meltdown and subsequent contamination of nearby water wells had caused about 260 cancers in a 60-mile radius. But the number of cancers could be as high as 1,800 cases, according to the report. The study relied heavily on modeling — or estimates, not hard data. The Field Laboratory's current owner, Boeing Co., called the study baseless and without merit. Phil Rutherford, manager of health, safety and radiation services for Boeing, which took over the site in 1996, said that the study was based on faulty assumptions and bad information, and that the conclusions are not supported by original data. In a recent presentation, company officials said only a small amount of contamination was found inside the building after the 1959 incident and none outside. A separate 2005 study funded by Boeing and the United Aerospace Workers found no credible evidence that employment at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory "adversely affected worker health." The researchers tracked cancer deaths and health records of nearly 47,000 former Rocketdyne employees, including those who worked at the field lab for at least six months or at nearby facilities. Also, a 1999 report by the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry did not identify an apparent public health hazard to surrounding communities. Palmer said he is the last living member of his crew at the field lab. At 93, he is a widower and the father of two daughters, a stepdaughter and a stepson. He lives in the house that he and his second wife, Peggy, bought in 1970 in the San Bernardino County community of Hesperia. The tidy house is decorated with airplanes that he carved from wood or formed from metal. Palmer is tall and lanky, and his gray hair is still studded with patches of its original brown. On Tuesdays, he drives to the local Elks Lodge where, he said, he doesn't hesitate to ask "a gal" to dance. How Palmer fared Palmer is receiving treatment for skin cancer. "Isn't that funny," he said. "As a result of radiation, they cure you with another kind of radiation." It was bladder cancer, however, that led to his retirement from Rocketdyne in 1968. For 14 years, he battled Rocketdyne over compensation for the cancer. The two sides settled in 1982 and he was awarded $80,000. One of his doctors had been troubled for years by Palmer's bladder problems. The more the doctor saw his patient, the more convinced he became of the cause. "I think the likelihood is that this is industrial," Dr. Reuben Merliss wrote in a 1975 letter to Palmer's attorney. Boeing spokeswoman Blythe Jameson said employees who worked the cleanup of the sodium reactor were consistently monitored and personnel never exceeded the annual exposure limits for radiation workers. Jameson said monitoring programs of the soil and vegetation detected no increase in the ambient levels of radioactivity beyond those that are naturally occurring. But in Palmer's recollection of his experiences, the Geiger counter ticked incessantly, warning of radiation. "It was pegging, clear off the end of the scale," Palmer said. The men ignored it as they used forklifts, cranes and their hands to move the liquid sodium drums and the valves for three nights after the meltdown. The Field Laboratory was divided into areas operated by different entities, including the federal government. The sodium reactor, which delivered electricity to the community of Moorpark, was in an area run by Atomics International, a division of North American Aviation. North American also owned Rocketdyne, a division of the company that focused on rocket engine propulsion. Although Rocketdyne employees were assigned to a particular area, the crew was sent all over the 2,800-acre facility to work. That's how they ended up working next to the reactor. The crew worked a swing shift, clocking in at 4 p.m. and clocking out at midnight. The nights were clear and warm. There was a breeze. It was always breezy on "the hill," the laboratory's nickname. Among the boulders and rugged hillsides, towering stands were built to test rocket engines. Their roar was audible and their smoke plumes visible to those in the valleys below. Depending on its direction, the breeze would blow the smoky fumes released from test stands' vents toward the San Fernando Valley or Simi Valley. Some neighbors complained, Palmer said. A dangerous job "We'd build things, we'd fire 'em up and blow 'em up," Palmer said. "We were just going through a lot of trial and error stuff. Finally, after a couple years, we got organized and things began to gel." Palmer was hired March 27, 1956, to work on small engine tests and spacecraft. His crew mixed propellents to create the power and thrust for engines designed for outer space. They set up the fuels at test stands and cleaned up afterward. The work was dangerous. Tanks exploded. Fires ignited. People were hurt and killed. Three men died in a tank explosion and, after a separate blast, a man was found wandering the hills, shellshocked, Palmer said. On Palmer's dining room table are stacks of documents, photos and lists — multiple lists. He pulled a handwritten list from the loose sheets. It was filled with names of Rocketdyne co-workers, the details of their deaths or on-the-job injuries and the chemicals they worked with. One man "was involved in anhydrous-ammonia exposure, almost died in hospital and had other problems, left hill and job," reads one entry. Another "died, previous to death we had a chamber blow up and was exposed to a heavy concentration of hydrazine and Nitrogen Tetroxide. It was dark on swing shift and he did not know the (chemical) cloud was there," another entry reads. If workers tested positive for blood in their urine, they were removed from the hill and treated, he said. Jameson, the Boeing spokeswoman, confirmed that policy. Of the 27 men on Palmer's crew, 22 died of cancers, he said. There were nights when Palmer would return to his home in Chatsworth and kiss his Peggy hello, only to burn her lips with the chemicals he had breathed at work. When Palmer first arrived on the hill, after 17 years with Lockheed, deer and bobcats roamed the Field Laboratory, which also drew the likes of Werner von Braun, the pioneering rocket developer and staunch supporter of space exploration. During their breaks, Palmer's crew would fish in one of three ponds. Propellents were destroyed in the pond. The men would use a solution that was 90 percent hydrogen peroxide to neutralize the contamination. Sometimes, the water was so polluted it bubbled. The fish died off. "They had seven wells up there, water wells, and every damn one of them was contaminated," Palmer said. "It was a horror story." Past is never far behind him After Palmer retired, he joined Peggy in the real estate work she did. The hill is 38 years and 113 miles behind him. But in some ways, Palmer hasn't left Rocketdyne. He has envelopes filled with letters going back and forth between himself and the U.S Department of Labor. He has applied for compensation through a program open to contractors and subcontractors of Department of Energy facilities, such as the field lab. The process is maddening and slow. It requires proof about where he worked and how much radiation he was exposed to. Standing in his living room one afternoon, Palmer wondered aloud why he continued to fight. He lives comfortably. He paused a moment and then answered his own question: "It's the principle." -------- asia China backs Asean anti-nuke treaty By Richard McGregor in Beijing Published: October 30 2006 Financial Times http://www.ft.com/cms/s/3bc51094-6847-11db-90ac-0000779e2340.html China on Monday announced that it would sign a treaty establishing a “nuclear weapons free” zone in south-east Asia, a largely symbolic move that signals its increasing willingness to forge closer ties with regional nations. Wen Jiabao, China’s premier, made the announcement in Nanning, southern China, where he is meeting the leaders of the 10-strong Association of Southeast Asian Nations in a summit to mark 15 years of relations with its member nations. Beijing has signalled for the past year that it would accede to the protocol of the Treaty on the Southeast Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone, which came into force in 1997. The treaty bans the development and possession of nuclear weapons among Asean member nations and requires each state to declare whether nuclear-powered ships or nuclear-armed aircraft are visiting or passing through their territory. China itself has a small number of nuclear-powered submarines but they are not required to obtain permission to visit the ports of any neighbouring Asian countries. China operates no such ban in its territory: it has allowed, for example, visits by nuclear-powered and armed US aircraft carriers into Hong Kong. The announcement by Mr Wen is nonetheless consistent with Beijing’s efforts in recent years to accommodate its smaller Asian neighbours, many of which have long had tense relations with China. Closer ties with the Asean also dovetail with Beijing’s core policies of ensuring ­stability in the region to allow its economy to prosper, while retaining access to the area’s substantial raw materials. “Looking back, we are glad to see that relations have come a long way from the removal of misgivings, to the start of dialogue and mutual trust and to the final establishment of strategic partnership,” he said. Mr Wen also urged China and the Asean to “expand military dialogue and exchanges, [to] conduct and institutionalise defence co-operation”, and also to co-operate on cross-border issues, such as terrorism. On trade, the Chinese premier called for an acceleration of the negotiations towards the agreement in trade in services and investment needed for the establishment of a China-Asean trade zone by the target date of 2010. The trade agreement, a Chinese initiative covering 1.7bn people and 11 diverse economies, is the most ambitious of many such agreements being negotiated by Beijing. China and the Asean nations have made significant progress in eliminating tariffs on trade in goods but little in the more difficult areas of services and investment. There remains a hint of discord over Burma, with the Asean continuing to press China to use its influence in that country to force political reform. Syed Hamid Albar, Malaysia’s foreign minister, said the Asean would “be happy” if Beijing could use its influence to extract concessions from the military junta that rules the country. Meanwhile, on the gatherings’ sidelines, General Surayud Chulanont, Thailand’s military-installed prime minister, told Lee Hsein Loong, his Singaporean counterpart, that Thai courts would judge the legality of the takeover of Thailand’s largest telecommunications company by Temasek, the Singapore government’s investment arm. -------- australia Government to release nuclear power report By Jessica Marszalek October 30, 2006 AAP http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20669402-1702,00.html A QUEENSLAND government-commissioned report into nuclear power would be made public, Premier Peter Beattie said today. Mr Beattie used the report yesterday to argue that nuclear power was not a viable option while climate change continued to dramatically alter Australia's weather patterns. He said the independent study showed a nuclear power station would use 25 per cent more water than a coal-fired plant, making nuclear power unworkable in the current drought. State Liberal leader Bruce Flegg today accused Mr Beattie of "selectively quoting" from the report, saying it could have been written by the premier's "mates". He called for the report's release so it could be properly assessed. But Mr Beattie said Dr Flegg was "playing silly games" and that he had always intended to table the report in parliament tomorrow. He said it would now be available on the Queensland government website from this afternoon. Mr Beattie said Australia should look to less energy-dependent resources such as clean coal technology, geothermal energy and coal seam gas. In June, Prime Minister John Howard set up a review, to be headed by former Telstra boss Ziggy Switkowski, as part of a push for nuclear power to be considered in the nation's future energy mix. Mr Beattie said that at a time when farming communities were hurting and many towns were struggling for drinking water, it was "folly" for Mr Howard to entertain the thought of nuclear power stations. The federal Government today accused Mr Beattie of using scare tactics and of misrepresenting the truth to stall debate on nuclear energy. Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane, in Queensland today to announce $125 million in funding for two projects designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, said new-generation nuclear technology used much less water than Mr Beattie claimed. "And, I'm quite happy to debate Peter Beattie about the issue of nuclear power," he said. ---- Nuclear safeguards Interview with John Carlson, ASNO, on ABC Radio National Breakfast program Monday 30 Oct 2006 http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2006/1776525.htm MP3 audio file can be found online here: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2006/1776525.htm This transcript is unofficial - provided by Dimity Hawkins MAPW 7 Nov 06 ________________________________________ Fran Kelly: The Howard government's key nuclear safeguard adviser says Australia could set up a regional uranium enrichment plant involving neighbours like Indonesia. In his first media interview on uranium enrichment in Australia, John Carlson says the regional plan is one way of dealing with Asian fears of a nuclear arms race if Australia goes down the controversial enrichment path. Mined uranium needs to be enriched to produce fuel for nuclear power, but the same technology can also be used to produce weapons-grade nuclear material. John Carlson has also poured cold water over a plan being proposed by the International Atomic Energy Agency to control who gets to enrich and reprocess uranium in the future. Di Martin reports from Canberra. MARTIN:: John Carlson is a key figure in the debate on whether Australia goes down the controversial path of enriching uranium. As head of the Australian Safeguards and Non-proliferation Office (ASNO), his advice is critical in any plan to move on from just mining uranium and shipping it overseas. Both Prime Minster John Howard and Foreign Minister Alexander Downer are talking up the idea of enriching Australia's significant uranium deposits to cash in on the global nuclear power renaissance. In his first media interview on the topic, John Carlson is upfront about the sensitivities involved in processing uranium. CARLSON:: Power reactors generally require that the proportion of U235 in the fuel be increased above the natural level - that's the process called enrichment. And the issue is that the technologies that can be used for doing that can also be used to enrich to the very much higher levels that are required for nuclear weapons. MARTIN:: So theoretically if Australia had the capacity to enrich and reprocess uranium for a nuclear, domestic nuclear power industry, it would have the capacity to produce nuclear weapons? CARLSON:: We would have the capacity to produce the basic fissile material, so obviously we would be anxious to demonstrate to our neighbours and to the international community at large that our intentions were exclusively peaceful. MARTIN:: Warnings from credible quarters say and enrichment facility in Australia could spark a regional nuclear arms race as Asian neighbours scramble to develop a similar nuclear capacity. Of key importance to Canberra are relations with Indonesia, a country with deep suspicions about Australia's intent and a country which plans to set up a nuclear power industry. John Carlson reveals exclusively to Radio National a plan to allay Jakarta's concerns. CARLSON:: One solution could be to have a regional fuel cycle centre in Australia for instance, in which Indonesia would have its fuel enriched and would be a participant in an Australian plant. MARTIN:: John Carlson says the Australian enrichment centre would allow Asian nations to verify for themselves that Canberra is not secretly developing a secret nuclear weapons program. He says those nations might jointly own the facility, or jointly make decisions about how the centre is run. This plan is not only shows how seriously the Federal government is considering enriching uranium but also how advanced Canberra's thinking is on the question. The news comes as a Prime Ministerial taskforce finalises its draft report on the future of uranium mining, processing and nuclear energy in Australia. John Carlson says there are strong domestic reasons to consider enrichment. CARLSON:: From the domestic point of view I think the issue is pretty clear. As the Prime Minister has said, we have a third of the worlds uranium reserves, and clearly we need to look at whether we can value add rather than having the economic advantage of upgrading falling to only other countries. MARTIN:: John Carlson has a long history and experience in the nuclear industry and he says that an enrichment facility could be up and running much earlier than expected. Australian based nuclear enrichment firm SILEX says it would take 10-15 years to get such an industry operating in Australia but John Carlson halves that lower estimate. CARLSON:: for enrichment I think realistically it would be something like 5-10 years before a plant could be established and operating. MARTIN:: and the cost of such a venture? CARLSON:: If a private group came forward, then for a plant of a scale large enough to enrich say half of Australia's uranium production, you're probably looking at an investment in the order of say $1-2 billion dollars. MARTIN:: He also reveals that the governments not considering an American favoured proposal that those who ship fuel to other countries have to take back the nuclear waste for reprocessing. John Carlson againŠ CARLSON:: I think that the discussion is only about enrichment. For reprocessing - since we don't have nuclear power at the moment we don't have anything to reprocess so reprocessing is really not something that's under consideration. MARTIN:: Australia's nuclear debate comes at a sensitive time internationally. The world is grappling with North Koreas nuclear test, Iran's nuclear intransigence and widely fears of terrorists getting their hands on nuclear materials. But John Carlson denies that more nuclear reactors and facilities will mean more proliferation. CARLSON:: The problems we've seen to date haven't come from peaceful and safeguarded nuclear power programs. The Iranian program for instance originated through there being a black market in nuclear equipment and technologies. MARTIN:: Legally, is there any barrier to Australia unilaterally enriching uranium. CARLSON:: Legally no there is not a barrier provided its under safeguards, as it would be, then there's no barrier. And its for that reason that countries generally are looking at how to establish an international framework to govern these sorts of plans, because if there's no barrier for us, there's no barrier for anybody else either. MARTIN:: John Carlson is advocating a new international treaty to regulate who gets to enrich and reprocess uranium in the future. Eight countries now commercially enrich uranium and he says tight controls need to be placed on expanding that select group. CARLSON:: The last thing we would want to see would be a world where dozens of countries had these capabilities but that's not to say that the capabilities should be confined exclusively to those that currently have them. Australia has developed centrifuge enrichment in the past, and by anyone's definition, Australia has extremely strong non-proliferation credentials and ah would be regarded as being well qualified for having such a plant for upgrading uranium exports. MARTIN:: There have been suggestions made that there is a multi national approach to enriching uranium, in fact one put forward by the IAEA. What's your thoughts about a kind of a UN style approach to dealing with uranium issues. CARLSON:: Dr ElBaradei the head of the IAEA has put forward actual IAEA ownership and control of these facilities in the future. I'm not sure that it's a practical idea; to reach agreement by existing technology holders that they are prepared to hand over their facilities to the IAEA would be difficult. And also by their nature international organisations aren't necessarily the best way of operating industrial processes. MARTIN:: At the level of international treaties and agreements, who gets to decide which enrichment plan goes ahead? CARLSON:: That's a very good question. There clearly is a need to have international consensus on this and at the moment the only international grouping that is looking at this in any detail is the Nuclear Suppliers Group trying to develop criteria for assessing projects. If we come to establishing rules which I think is important then it may end up being something that has to be pronounced on by the United Nations. Fran Kelly: That's John Carlson, Director General of the ASNO talking with Di Martin. -------- britain Nuclear bunker put up for auction The bunker could withstand a missile attack, but not a direct hit Monday, 30 October 2006 BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/6098436.stm A nuclear bunker is up for sale at a disused airfield in Pembrokeshire. The concrete building with metre-thick walls and steel shutters was built as an RAF communication base in the early 1990s at Templeton, near Tenby. Auctioneers have put a guide price of £50,000 to £75,000 on the bunker, which will go under the hammer in December. But they believe the above-ground building will be of interest to someone looking for secure storage, rather than as a home or office. London-based auctioneers Andrews Robertson are selling the bunker on behalf of the Defence Estates, which is responsible for Ministry of Defence property and land. Auctioneer Jeremy Lamb said: "There were around 10 to 15 built in the early 1990s by the RAF as communication centres. "They have been selling them off over a number of years. We have sold some before - most recently south of Oxford - but they are quite unusual. "They are very difficult to price because of the limitations with what you can do with them." He said the owner of the last one he sold had recently gained B1 planning use - which meant it could be used as an office or for light industry - but there were usually very strict rules on their use. "The most useful thing is the secure storage it offers - there is a very high level of security as it is nuclear-proof. "They are designed to survive a missile attack and the fall-out, but not a direct hit. "They don't tend to lend themselves to offices because of the lack of natural light." He also said they were much smaller inside than they appeared from the outside because of the thickness of the walls. Internally it is divided into several small rooms with an open plan space that was used for offices. The building is on more than an acre of land on the edge of the disused airfield, which was used by the Army for a variety of training tasks, including helicopter and air defence exercises, low-level infantry tactics, and driver training. Nuclear bunker details Freehold with full vacant possession Gross internal area approx 600m sq Set on approx 1.26 acres Guide price £50,00-£75,000 Auction on 13 December at Covent Garden, London -------- china China to display military might at air show ZHUHAI, CHINA (AFP) Oct 30, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/2006/061030110945.ric78luq.html China will use a major air show to display its military might, just weeks after North Korea launched its first nuclear test, organisers said Monday. State-owned weapons manufacturer China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (CASIC) said it would exhibit a record number of missiles and fighter jets at Airshow China on Tuesday. The display will demonstrate "the advanced capability and level of Chinese missile weapon systems to safeguard its territorial air, sea and land," CASIC said in a statement. The move follows North Korea's declaration on October 9 that it had conducted its first nuclear test, which led to sanctions being imposed by the UN Security Council. Air, naval and surface-to-surface missiles will be on show at the Sixth China International Aviation and Aerospace Exhibition, which opens on Tuesday and will run until November 5. CASIC President Yin Xingliang said the company would also exhibit some small satellites, various unmanned aerial vehicles and unmanned ships. One of the highlights of the air show will be China's most advanced fighter-pilot trainer, the "Shanying", or Mountain Eagle. The two-seat, single-engine aircraft is capable of carrying 2,000 kilograms (4410 pounds) weapon payloads such as short-range air-to-air missiles and rocket launders and bombs, and will hold daily demonstrations at the show. The third-generation L-15 advanced training aircraft and the capsule of China's second manned, spacecraft Shenzhou VI will also be on display at the bi-annual event. Some of the newest Russia military aircraft are also expected, the organisers said. However, the much-anticipated FC-1 fighter aircraft, which China jointly developed with Pakistan, will not be on display. China's only international airshow will this year be attended by 550 exhibitors from over 33 countries and regions. Exhibitors include Airbus, Boeing, European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS), Embraer and Rolls-Royce. -------- depleted uranium UN checking claim of IDF uranium bomb By Jerusalem Post STAFF Oct. 30, 2006 http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1161811233117&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) is investigating reports that Israel used uranium-based weapons during this summer's war in Lebanon, the British newspaper The Independent reported Monday morning. According to the report, twenty UN experts have been working with Lebanese environmentalists for the past two weeks analyzing various samples. They are expected to present their findings in December. # The second Lebanon war: JPost.com special report The report also quotes Middle East UNEP director Butros al-Harb during an interview with a Lebanese radio station. "If uranium was used, we will find out and we will announce it. We cannot confirm anything now, but we will wait for results," al-Harb said. The IDF on Saturday denied a report by the British newspaper claiming that Israel used uranium-based munitions, including uranium-tipped bunker-buster bombs, during the war. "The IDF Spokesman's Office wants to make it clear that no munitions containing uranium were used in the war in Lebanon," an IDF spokesman told The Jerusalem Post. According to the report, 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 Hizbullah 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," it said. "The weapon was [either] some novel small experimental nuclear fission device or other experimental weapon (e.g., a thermobaric 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 Independent. ---- UN investigates Israel's 'uranium weapons' 30 October 2006 Belfast Telegraph Home http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=712118 The United Nations Environment Programme is investigating allegations, first published in The Independent, that Israel may have used uranium-based weapons during this summer's war in Lebanon. Twenty UN experts, working with Lebanese environmentalists, have spent two weeks assessing various samples. They are planning to report their findings in December. Butros al-Harb, Unep's Middle East director, told a Lebanese radio interviewer at the weekend: "If uranium was used, we will find out and we will announce it. We cannot confirm anything now, but we will wait for results." Yesterday Israel issued its most explicit denial yet. Major Avital Leibovitz, a spokeswoman for the Israel Defence Forces, said: "We deny using any weapons containing uranium." One official suggested that if the environmentalists had indeed found traces of uranium, they would have to look for a different explanation. Chris Busby, the scientific secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, based in Brussels, reported last week that two soil samples thrown up by Israeli bombs in the south Lebanese villages of Khiam and At Tiri, centres of fierce fighting between Israel and Hizbollah, showed "elevated radiation signatures". Dr Busby warned that particles from the explosions were long-lived in the environment and could be inhaled into the lungs, causing "significant" health effects on civilians. The Harwell laboratory for mass spectrometry in Oxfordshire confirmed the concentration of uranium isotopes in the samples, but the European experts were puzzled about what weapons Israel might have been using and why. Chris Bellamy, a professor of military science and doctrine at Cranfield University, said the initial tests "present an enigma". But he dismissed speculation that Israel was using a "dirty bomb" or micro-yield nuclear weapon. Government officials said Israel had received no approaches from either the Unep or the European committee. Mark Regev, the Foreign Ministry spokesman, said: "If someone comes with a complaint, comes with a charge, we will review it." But he protested that Israel was being singled out when nobody had accused it of deploying weapons banned under international law or practice. "The sort of munitions we used in the Lebanon campaign," he said, "were almost identical to the sort of weaponry used in conflicts over the past decade by Nato countries, by Western countries. Sometimes there's a feeling that the Jewish state is being singled out for special treatment. One really has to ask why it is that the finger is being pointed at Israel." Palestinian officials have frequently accused the IDF of firing shells tipped with depleted uranium, a hard metal byproduct of uranium enrichment, in the Gaza Strip. But Israel has denied it and no conclusive evidence has been produced. * Israel's Attorney General, Menachem Mazuz, called for President Moshe Katzav to stand down for the duration of any judicial proceedings after police recommended indicting him for alleged sexual offences against women employees. -------- europe Russia's group wins tender to build Bulgarian nuclear power plant SOFIA (AFP) Oct 30, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/2006/061030163854.w4cmvpjj.html Bulgaria's National Electricity Company (NEC) said Monday the Russian company Atomstroyeksport had been chosen as a preferred bidder in a government tender to build a nuclear power plant at Belene in the north of the country. The Czech company Skoda was the other bidder in the government tender for the 2.5-billion-euro (3.2-billion-dollar) project. The first of two reactors is expected to be operational within 6.5 years of the start of construction and the second a year later, company plans showed. Atomstroyeksport has already chosen Framatome of France as its sub-contractor. The Belene project was launched by the government in 1987 and the state invested 1.3 billion dollars in equipment and infrastructure at the site before pressure from ecologists blocked construction plans a couple of years later. The Bulgarian government decided in April 2005 to renew plans to build the facility ahead of an expected downturn in the country's energy exports after Bulgaria closes two of its four operational reactors at the end of 2006. The closure was agreed as part of pre-accession negotiations with the European Union, which Sofia is scheduled to join in 2007. Bulgaria is currently a major electricity exporter in the Balkans, sending over six billion kilowatt-hours of electrical power per year. But it will most probably have to halve its energy exports after 2007, experts said. ---- EU chief backs nuclear among energy reforms to fight climate change LISBON (AFP) Oct 30, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/2006/061030162423.ngy8ucgb.html The greater use of nuclear energy must be considered among reforms of Europe's energy sector aimed at cutting carbon emissions and fighting climate change, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said Monday. He said the commission would present a road map for the energy sector in January that will recommend meaures to increase energy efficiency and broaden the use of renewable energy sources, clean hydrocarbons and, "for those who want it", nuclear energy. "It is for the member states, not the commission, to decide on whether they use nuclear energy. But the community can make a contribution to those that want it, for example on research and on safety," he told an energy conference in Lisbon. "We cannot hide from the issue. A debate on nuclear energy should not be taboo," the former Portuguese prime minister added. Under European Union nuclear rules the European Commission, the executive arm of the 25-member bloc, must clear investments for building or renovating nuclear power plants. ---- German Nuclear Waste to Go Back to Mother Russia by Air Nuclear waste is usually transported by train rather than by plane 30.10.2006 Deutsche Welle http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2219040,00.html The state of Saxony has applied for 200 kilos (440 pounds) of nuclear waste enriched by uranium to be flown, instead of transported by train, from the former East Germany back to Russia. Saxony is seeking permission to fly nuclear waste back to Russia for reprocessing before the end of the year, the German environment ministry confirmed on Sunday. The federal office for radiation protection must first approve the transport. Safety experts and environmentalists have expressed concerns about the plans. They said the risks involved in transporting radioactive materials by air instead of by train, the most common means of transportation, could be higher. "We have always stood against transporting nuclear waste by air," said Heinz Smital, a Greenpeace nuclear expert based in Hamburg. "The consequences of an air attack or accident on a plane carrying radioactive material are unpredictable. Uranium, which has been 80 percent enriched, can be weapons grade," he added. Although the nuclear material to be transported on Dec. 1 contains only 36 percent uranium, it could easily become a "dirty bomb" in the wrong hands, Smital told Die Welt daily. Air transport more vulnerable Security experts say that air transport is particularly vulnerable to an international terrorist attack. Nuclear waste transports in Germany are usually accompanied by protestsBildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Nuclear waste transports in Germany are usually accompanied by protests "Arrangements for transporting material and security procedures are outlined in great detail in agreements with contractors. If such information is ever leaked to outsiders, potential terrorists could easily get their hands on radioactive materials," said a high level national security official. The 200-kilogram load of nuclear waste was produced by a former Soviet reactor in Rossendorf, on the outskirts of Dresden, and was shut down after German reunification in 1991. Under a Cold War agreement by the International Atomic Energy Agency, nuclear material is supposed to be returned to its country of origin. Special plane to transport uranium Other experts say that a specially adapted plane for transporting uranium enriched material is safer than by train. "That way less can happen to it than on the road or on train tracks," Udo Helwig, the director of the German association for nuclear technology and analysis (VKTA), told the Berliner Zeitung newspaper. Using aircraft was an economical means of transport, an environmental ministry spokesman Thomas Hagbeck suggested. "Considering the length of the trip, it makes sense to use air transport," he said. Since 2003, there have been four air shipments of German nuclear waste to Russia. Preparations to take weeks Since mainly non-reactive uranium is being sent back, the dangers from radioactivity should be minimal, according to Helwig. The waste will be brought to the Dresden airport in a secure container truck, with the flight being organized by the Russians themselves. Russian activists protest nuclear waste dumpingBildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Russian activists protest nuclear waste dumping Preparations for flying the waste will take four weeks and would need to undergo vigorous international safety criteria. The waste will be returned to the Russian atomic reactor in Podolsk, which is about 30 kilometers (around 19 miles) south of Moscow, where it will be reprocessed for further use. Environmental activists in Moscow staged protests against nuclear dumping earlier this month. ---- EU's Barroso urges states to push for 'low carbon' economy dpa German Press Agency Published: Monday October 30, 2006 http://rawstory.com/news/2006/EU_s_Barroso_urges_states_to_push_f_10302006.html Brussels- The European Union must step up the fight against global warming and accelerate moves to become a "low carbon economy," European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said Monday. "We must aim to substantially increase, over time, the amount of zero or low carbon energy we use in Europe," Barroso told a conference in Lisbon. A copy of his speech was released in Brussels. The commission chief said he would unveil proposals next year on plans to increase energy efficiency and step up the utilisation of renewable energies. EU countries must also substantially increase the consumption of "clean hydrocarbons" resulting from technological advances in reducing carbon emissions from hydrocarbons for example through the capture and storage of carbon dioxide. State-of-the-art clean coal technologies should be promoted, he said. Barroso also urged EU governments to open up debate on the use of nuclear energy. "We cannot hide from the issue. A debate on nuclear energy in Europe should not be taboo," said Barroso. EU governments are split over the pros and cons of nuclear energy. France produces almost 80 per cent of its electricity from nuclear power plants whereas Germany, which relies on nuclear energy for 30 per cent of its needs, plans to shut all nuclear power stations by 2021. However, fears of the EU's excessive dependence on imported oil and gas, have convinced many of the bloc's key policymakers that a rational discussion is needed on nuclear energy. The commission chief said he wanted EU leaders next Spring to set an overall objective for low carbon energy use in Europe. Governments could then hammer out their own blueprints on how to achieve the goals, he said. "There is no one-size-fits-all approach the energy mix for each member state depends on their circumstances and choices. But the overall, shared goal must be clear," said Barroso. ---- Russia Firm to Build Bulgaria Nuke Plant The Associated Press October 30, 2006 http://www.topix.net/content/ap/1348820304054815007705432972862098219955 A Russian company won a bid to construct a second nuclear plant in Bulgaria, officials announced Monday. In a statement, the state-owned National Electricity Company said the main reasons for picking the Russian offer were 'the higher safety and the longer term of operation of the reactors.' AtomStroyExport won the contract after beating out Czech consortium Skoda Alliance. The companies filed their initial bids for the construction of two nuclear reactors in February, but the Ministry of Economy and Energy declared both offers unsatisfactory and urged the bidders to consider improving them. In their modified offers, both companies said they were ready to build the first unit of the plant in six years, and the second a year later. Their previous bids offered to build the plant in eight to 10 years. Both companies refused to disclose details of their price offers. The Bulgarian government had invested more than $1 billion in the project for the construction of two 1,000 megawatt nuclear units at the Danube port of Belene, 155 miles northeast of Sofia, but froze it in 1990 after environmentalists said it could pose a safety risk. Bulgaria has signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, but the issue of proliferation in connection to its drive for more nuclear power has not been raised. Radioactive waste produced by nuclear reactors can be enriched to produce a nuclear weapon. -------- india Indian Official: Nuclear Energy a Must Monday October 30, 2006 By Ashok Sharma, Associated Press Writer http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/061030/india_nuclear_energy.html?.v=1 Nuclear Energy a Must for India to Meet Needs, Says Government Adviser NEW DELHI (AP) -- Nuclear energy is the best option to meet India's growing energy needs, a top official said Monday, noting that the country is dependent on oil and gas imports and its coal supplies are limited. The government's top scientific adviser, R. Chidambaram, acknowledged that hydroelectric dams provide cleaner and safer energy than any other options -- including nuclear -- but building new ones means displacing hundreds of thousands of people and potentially destroying habitats. "Nuclear energy is an inevitable option for India," Chidambaram said. "In future, the importance of nuclear energy will go on increasing. We are quite competent in this field." There are widespread concerns that energy shortages could eventually hamper further growth of India's booming economy, currently expanding at more than 8 percent a year. India's total commercial energy consumption is expected by 2030 to increase by 7.5 times 2001 levels, according to New Delhi's The Energy and Resources Institute, or TERI. If India remains dependent on oil and coal for its power, it would by 2030 be importing nearly 80 percent of the oil and coal it needs, TERI estimates. More nuclear power would help India cut it oil and coal imports, Chidambaram said. New Delhi, however, needs to import uranium for its reactors and is currently waiting for the U.S. Senate to approve a U.S.-India civilian nuclear cooperation deal that would allow America to provide atomic fuel and technology to India. Over the longer term, India is hoping to develop so-called fast breeder reactors to allow the use of thorium, which is in plentiful supply, to fuel reactors. If such technology is developed, "India would then become a supplier of nuclear energy," Chidambaram said. -------- iran U.S. seeks guarantees over Iran nuclear reactor By Sue Pleming Mon Oct 30, 2006 (Reuters) http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061030/ts_nm/nuclear_iran_usa_dc_1 WASHINGTON - The United States wants guarantees that a Russian-built nuclear reactor in Iran will not advance a weapons program but does not think differences over the issue will block a U.N. sanctions resolution against Tehran, a senior U.S. official said on Monday. The Bushehr power plant in southwestern Iran is due to begin operation early next year. The Russians want the project to go ahead. A sanctions resolution against Iran is being haggled over in New York and exempts Bushehr, although Washington has previously urged work at the plant stopped. The U.S. position has eased in recent days and State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said he did not see the Bushehr deal as blocking the U.N. resolution against Iran, which follows Tehran's refusal to give up uranium enrichment activities by an August 31 deadline. Iran says its nuclear program is for power generation purposes and not to build an atomic bomb. "Our belief is that it (the Bushehr plant) shouldn't pose an obstacle to passage of the kind of resolution that we, as well as others, think needs to be passed in this regard," McCormack told reporters. He said the United States wanted objective guarantees that safeguards laid out by the Russian government over the years -- including for spent fuel to be returned to Russia so it could not be diverted for weapons use -- would be met. "(These safeguards) would allow for, first of all, the construction to take place; second of all, the fuel to be delivered, monitored and then returned, once it had already been used," he said. "Essentially, what you would be talking about is dealing with a preexisting construction project in which there are some objective guarantees," he added. The nuclear fuel for the plant is only set to be delivered in the early part of next year, and the Bush administration is hoping this issue will be resolved by then. NO RUSH "There's a lot of time between now and then. We'll see what the Iranian behavior brings us and we'll see what the final outcome is with regard to this particular resolution," said McCormack. The U.N. resolution, drafted by Europeans in consultation with the United States, has now been sent to all 15 U.N. Security Council members. It exempts Bushehr from sanctions but says Russia must check with a Security Council committee if it delivers material that can be used for weapons. No meeting is scheduled yet, although one is expected later this week among the five permanent Security Council members with veto power -- the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France -- as well as Germany, a key negotiator. Participants close to the negotiations said Russia, among other complaints, was objecting to Bushehr being included in the resolution in the first place as it was legal under the 1970 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin, after a meeting of the six powers last Thursday said of Bushehr, "It has nothing to do (with the resolution) because it's a peaceful nuclear facility which we have been helping Iran to build in full conformity with the Nonproliferation Treaty." U.N. negotiations are expected to take at least another two weeks. McCormack declined to predict a date but said he hoped it would be before the U.S. Thanksgiving Holiday which is at the end of November. The resolution would ban Iranian trade in nuclear materials and ballistic missiles, freeze assets abroad and impose a travel ban on people or entities involved. (Additional reporting by Evelyn Leopold in New York) (Writing by Sue Pleming, editing by Cynthia Osterman; email:Sue.Pleming@Reuters.com; tel 202 898 8393) ---- Putin tells Ahmadinejad that Russia wants Iran nuclear talks to continue Posted 10/30/2006 (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-30-iran_x.htm MOSCOW — President Vladimir Putin told his Iranian counterpart Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday that Russia strongly favors further negotiations on Tehran's nuclear program, the Kremlin said. The brief statement after a telephone conversation was the latest indication that Russia opposes sanctions against Iran and believes the international community should try to defuse tension through talks. With Iran threatening a firm response to any sanctions, it also appeared aimed to cool Tehran's rhetoric and cast Russia as a peacemaker. In the Iranian-initiated conversation with Ahmadinejad, "Putin outlined the fundamental position of the Russian side in favor of a continuation of the negotiation process," the Kremlin said. U.N. Security Council members are deliberating a draft European resolution that would impose sanctions on Iran over its disputed nuclear program. Russia has indicated that the measure is too tough, while the United States says it's not tough enough. -------- japan Japan’s race to rearm started well before North Korean nuclear test By Associated Press Monday, October 30, 2006 http://news.bostonherald.com/international/view.bg?articleid=164889&format=text ABOARD THE KURAMA - Nearly 50 warships crowded the bay just south of Tokyo, all flying the Rising Sun flag. Sea-to-sea missiles roared off the decks of several destroyers and submarines emerged like a pod of whales from the surf. More than an exercise, this was a message: In Asia’s accelerating arms race, Japan is determined not to fall behind. “The security environment surrounding our nation has changed dramatically in recent years,” Prime Minister Shinzo Abe told the sailors aboard this destroyer after watching Japan’s annual fleet review Sunday. “I believe this is an excellent opportunity to demonstrate our readiness.” Though in the planning for months, the fleet review - Japan’s biggest show of its military might each year - came just weeks after North Korea sent shock waves through the region with the Oct. 9 announcement that it had conducted its first nuclear test. The test brought particularly strong condemnation from Japan, which is within striking distance of North Korea’s ballistic missiles. Japan plays host to some 50,000 U.S. troops, who would likely also be high on the list of potential targets should North Korea decide to launch an air attack. But well before North Korea’s nuclear announcement, Japan, the United States and Asia’s other big power, China, have been scrambling to enhance their military standing in a region rife with territorial disputes, economic tensions and the remnants of Cold War rivalries. “For Japan, the radical shift has already happened in many ways,” said Lance Gatling, a former U.S. Army intelligence officer who is now a private analyst. Gatling cited North Korea’s launch of a long-range ballistic missile over Japan’s main island in August 1998 as the key event. Tokyo responded by launching its own intelligence-gathering satellites and agreeing to join in the creation of a U.S.-led ballistic missile shield - a move it had previously considered too provocative. Japan, which Gatling said has just 7 to 12 minutes to respond to a North Korean missile attack, will soon be bristling with Patriot interceptors. A U.S. Army detachment is now being deployed on the southern island of Okinawa, and reports this week said Japan is also considering putting more missiles around Tokyo, where roughly one-quarter of all Japanese live. Japan spends roughly $42 billion annually on defense. The overall figure has remained relatively static at about 1 percent of GDP, but experts note it makes Japan fourth or fifth in the world in defense outlays and that spending on areas like missile defense are swelling. Because it is an island nation, there is also increasing pressure in Japan to bolster the navy, though it is already regarded by experts as one of the world’s best-equipped. Tokyo is seeking newer, more advanced submarines and possibly a small tactical aircraft carrier. Abe and other senior members of Japan’s ruling party, meanwhile, firmly support an overhaul of the country’s post-World War II constitution, which bans the use of military force as a means of settling international disputes. Over the next several months, the nation’s Defense Agency is expected to be revamped into a full-fledged ministry. “Our country’s Self-Defense Forces are being called upon to play a more crucial and varied role,” Abe said at Sunday’s review, adding that strengthening them is “an important duty” of the government. But officials also say the need for a stronger military is not a knee-jerk reaction to North Korea, and instead reflects deeper problems specific to the region. “With the creation of the European Union, it is now hard to imagine a nation-on-nation war in Europe,” Japan’s new defense chief, Fumio Kyuma, said last week. “But in East Asia, we still have this possibility.” Perhaps even more than North Korea, China, a nuclear power since 1964, has been the long-term catalyst. Though Beijing refuses to divulge the full extent of its military spending, in March it announced a 14 percent increase in military outlays for 2006, bringing its official figures up to over $35 billion. Chinese defense spending has jumped by double-digit percentages since the early 1990s. However, the United States and Japan have accused Beijing of vastly underestimating its defense budget, saying it could be as much as three times higher. Kyuma also noted that with the addition of North Korea, Asia is now the best-represented region in the world’s nine-country nuclear club - with India, Pakistan and China having already demonstrated their capabilities. Russia, though less of a factor in the region since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1992, and the United States up the Asian nuclear stakes even higher. Still, Tokyo, under the U.S. nuclear umbrella, has little political or strategic incentive to go nuclear. Defense chief Kyuma has come out strongly against that option, as has Abe. “I am from Nagasaki,” Kyuma said earlier this month. “I hope Nagasaki will be the last place on Earth ever to suffer a nuclear attack.” -------- korea Pyongyang Fortifies Combat Readiness After Nuclear Test By Jung Sung-ki Staff Reporter gallantjung@koreatimes.co.kr 10-30-2006 Korea Times http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/200610/kt2006103017364653460.htm North Korea has beefed up its combat readiness by test-firing five surface-to-air missiles during military exercises, in a move to prepare for possible military action by the United States, reports said yesterday. Pyongyang fired short-range missiles with ranges from 10 to 50 kilometers as part of an annual exercise at a camp in the western North Korea last week, the Chosun Ilbo reported, quoting an unidentified government official. ``It's an unusual move to fire as many as five ground-to-air missiles. The intelligence authorities are analyzing an ulterior motive behind the activity. We are paying attention to the fact that the move came amid Pyongyang's strong protest against the U.N. resolution sanctioning it,'' the official was quoted as saying. The missiles launched include SA-2 GUIDELINE missiles with a range of 35 to 50 kilometers and SA-3 GOA missiles with a range of 25 kilometers, according to the report. The report comes amid speculation that North Korea may be preparing for a second nuclear test following its first on Oct. 9. South Korean intelligence authorities said over the weekend that they had detected the movement of trucks and soldiers at a suspected test site in North Hamkyong Province, where the first nuclear bomb test was conducted. During a news conference yesterday, Gen. B. B. Bell said a second test is possible in the near future. ``I can only surmise that since they tested one, we would see at some time in the future yet another nuclear test. I hopes that's not the case, but there will be another test of some kind, either nuclear or missile or whatever,'' said Bell. Bell stressed that the United States and South Korea maintain a strong defense posture against the nuclear-armed North and, if deterrence fails, they will ``quickly and decisively defeat'' the enemy. ``I wish that North Korea would not only stop testing these devices, but stop making them and come back to the bargaining table,'' he added. The six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear weapons program have been stalled since last November as Pyongyang refused to rejoin, protesting the U.S. government's crackdown on the reclusive regime's alleged illicit financial activities, including money laundering and counterfeiting of U.S. bills. The U.N. Security Council on Oct. 14 unanimously adopted a resolution calling for a ban on weapon sales to the North and the inspection of cargo to and from the North. It also calls for freezing the assets of businesses supplying North Korea's nuclear and ballistic weapons programs, as well as restricting sales of luxury goods and overseas travel by North Korean officials. ---- N. Korea fires five missiles: report Oct. 30, 2006 United Press International http://washtimes.com/upi/20061030-011717-8079r.htm North Korea fired five short-range missiles during military exercises last week, Seoul's newspaper said Monday. "North Korea launched five ground-to-air and air-to-ground missiles last week from its west training ground," the Chosun Ilbo quoted an unidentified South Korean government official as saying. The missiles were presumed to have ranges between six and 30 miles, according to the South's largest newspaper. The missile launch seemed to be part of the North's annual military training, but it was unusual for the country to fire as many as five missiles, the Chosun Ilbo said. "We are analyzing the North's intentions because the missile launch came at a time when it was responding strongly to U.N. sanctions (for its nuclear test earlier this month)," the official said. Seoul media reports also said the South Korean military has observed activity where North Korea reportedly conducted its first nuclear test, a possible sign the North is preparing a second nuclear test. ---- N.Korea 'Exported 40 Missiles to Mideast, Africa' Oct. 30, 2006 Chosun Ilbo http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200610/200610300015.html North Korea exported 40 missiles over the last four years, a U.S. report says. “North Korea shipped about 40 ballistic missiles to other nations in the four-year period ending in 2005,” the new York Times on Sunday quoted a report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) as saying. “Transfers of these weapons are prohibited under international agreements to control the trade of ballistic missiles,” the daily added. North Korea was caught attempting to export Scud missiles to Yemen by Spanish authorities back in 2002. The U.S. Defense Department speculates that Pyongyang recently exported weapons to 18 countries in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia. AP reports that these countries are Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, Libya, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Angola, Burma, Ethiopia and Indonesia. Meanwhile, The CRS said Russia overtook the U.S. as the biggest arms exporter last year by shifting US$7 billion worth of weapons. France was second with $6.3 billion and the U.S. came third with $6.2 billion. The CRS compiles and announces statistics about weapons exports in countries around the world every year. (englishnews@chosun.com ) ---- US general predicts second NKorea nuclear test Mon Oct 30, 2006 (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061030/pl_afp/nkoreanuclearweapons_061030081253 SEOUL - The head of US forces in South Korea predicted North Korea will stage a second nuclear test, as experts said the Stalinist regime's security threat should not overshadow "crimes against humanity" by its rulers. "I can only surmise that since they've tested one, that some time in the future we're going to get another test of a nuclear device," General B.B. Bell said. Referring to the North's nuclear and missile programmes, he added: "I think we can expect future tests as part of their programme to develop these kinds of very provocative weapons." The first test on October 9 triggered worldwide shock and UN Security Council sanctions. But Bell told a press conference it had not changed the balance of power on the Korean peninsula. The general, who would head the South's 650,000-strong military as well as the 29,500 US troops on the peninsula in case of war, warned the North to give "long and deliberate thought" to what he called the enormous capacity of US air and naval forces in the region. If North Korea attacked the South "we would quickly and decisively defeat aggression," he said. Despite what some arms experts see as the need for a second test to validate the results of the first, China said last week it had received assurances from North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il that his country has no plans for a second test. But Kim reportedly added that if others put pressure on Pyongyang, it may take unspecified "further measures." Weekend news reports said suspicious activities had continued in the northeastern area where the first test was staged. Military sources said there had been continuous activity at Punggyeri in Kilju county. "However, it remains unclear whether these activities are related to a second nuclear test or North Koreans are just faking it," one source said. Experts say any second test would attract much tougher sanctions. A report prepared by DLA Piper LLP, a global legal firm, and the US Committee for Human Rights in North Korea said the North's rights record should also prompt UN action. The report, commissioned by former Czech president Vaclav Havel, ex-Norwegian prime minister Kjell Bondevik and US Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel, said the rights issue should be treated on a parallel track with the security threat. In a foreword, they said Kim Jong-Il and the North Korean government "are actively committing crimes against humanity." It allowed as many as one million, and possibly many more, of its own people to die during the famine in the 1990s, they said, and 37 percent of children remain chronically malnourished. Furthermore, North Korea imprisons more than 200,000 people in its modern-day gulag, and it is estimated that more than 400,000 have died in that system over 30 years, the trio said. In written remarks to AFP, Bondevik said: "Nowhere else in the world today is the abuse of rights so comprehensive and institutionalised as it is in North Korea." It was time for the UN Security Council to intervene in North Korea on the basis of the government's failure in its responsibility to protect its own people. The report suggests that the council first adopt a non-punitive resolution under Chapter Six of the UN Charter, seeking UN and other international access to provide humanitarian aid to vulnerable groups and calling for the release of all political prisoners. Should North Korea fail to comply, the council should consider adopting a binding resolution under Chapter Seven, which can authorise military action to enforce compliance. Chosun Ilbo, South Korea's largest-circulation newspaper, said North Korea launched five short-range missiles during military exercises last week. They presumably had ranges between 10 and 50 kilometers (six and 30 miles), it said, quoting an unnamed official. The official said the launch seemed part of annual military training but it was rare for the North to fire off as many as five missiles. Bell urged Pyongyang to end its drive for weapons and "attend to the needs of its people instead of the needs of its military." ---- US general warns on N Korea By Anna Fifield in Seoul Published: October 30 2006 Financial Times http://www.ft.com/cms/s/80b3da28-67f2-11db-90ac-0000779e2340.html North Korea is likely to test another nuclear device and more missiles, the US’s top soldier in South Korea said Monday as he warned that combined US-South Korean forces could “quickly and decisively defeat” North Korea if it were to escalate its defiance into an attack. “I can only surmise that since they tested one, we would see at some time in the future yet another test of a nuclear device,” said General Burwell B. Bell, commander of US Forces Korea, without specifying any kind of time frame. “I think we can expect future tests as part of their programme to develop these kinds of very provocative weapons,” he told reporters Monday, referring to both nuclear devices and missiles. After launching seven missiles in July, North Korea this month conducted its first nuclear test, saying the test was part of its efforts to defend itself from US “threats”. There have since been reports of further movement around the test site and many analysts and officials say they expect another test at some stage, especially since the first appeared to be a technical failure. North Korean state media have warned the US not to “miscalculate” it. But Gen Bell said the nuclear test in no way affected the balance of power on the peninsula, where 30,000 US troops work alongside almost 700,000 South Koreans. “I also know with some certainty that if for some reason deterrence fails and North Korea attacks South Korea in any way, that we would quickly and decisively defeat the aggression,” he said. The test came amid controversy over the transfer of wartime operational control from the US – which has had responsibility for such control since the end of the Korean war in 1953 – to the South Korean army. The two sides have agreed that Seoul should take over wartime command between 2009 and 2012, with the US pushing for control to be transferred within the shorter timeframe. The transition plan is expected to be completed in the first half of next year but Gen Bell said that, regardless, the US would provide provide “bridging” capabilities to ensure South Korea remained fully protected. ---- China, ASEAN call on NKorea to give up nuclear weapons NANNING, China (AFP) Oct 30, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/2006/061030112858.qki49pk6.html Chinese and Southeast Asian leaders called on North Korea Monday to abide by its pledge last year to abandon its nuclear weapons program, after discussing the issue at a regional summit here. "We jointly advocate the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and demand all parties continue respecting the September 19 joint statement last year on the aim of denuclearization," Chinese premier Wen Jiabao said after the summit. "We call on the early resumption of the six-party talks." At the six-nation talks in September last year, North Korea agreed to give up its nuclear weapons in exchange for pledges of aid and security. However North Korea pulled out of the talks -- which also involve hosts China, South Korea, the United States, Japan and Russia -- three months later because of US financial sanctions imposed against it. North Korea then declared it had conducted its first test of an atomic bomb on October 9, drawing strong international condemnation even from close ally China. The United Nations Security Council quickly passed a resolution condemning North Korea for the test, imposing sanctions against it and demanding it return to the six-party talks. Philippine's President Gloria Arroyo, who co-chaired Monday's summit with Wen, told reporters the North Korean nuclear crisis had drawn the other Asian nations closer. "In the light of recent events in North Korea, regional peace and security has never been more important... it helps tie the region together and strengthen solidarity in times of crisis," Arroyo told reporters. She said the 10 ASEAN leaders and China had agreed on the way ahead to end the latest flare-up over North Korea. "We were impressed by the unanimity of every leader on the issue of North Korea and their resolve to work together as a region to seek a diplomatic resolution through the resumption of the six-party talks," Arroyo said. She also praised China on behalf of the 10 ASEAN states for its efforts to end the North Korean stand-off. "We were... impressed by the concern that was expressed by China and the hands-on role it is playing to bring this issue to a positive conclusion," Arroyo said. China is seen as key to curtailing North Korea's nuclear program as it is the isolated nation's strongest ally, its biggest provider of aid and largest trade partner. China has said restarting the six-nation talks is essential to resolving the crisis, but Pyongyang insists it will not attend as long as the United States maintains the financial sanctions imposed against it last year. In last year's six-party agreement, North Korea said it would renounce all nuclear weapons and programs, return to the international Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and allow UN weapons inspectors back into the country. In return other nations involved agreed to "respect" the North's demand for peaceful nuclear energy and said Pyongyang's request to have a light-water nuclear reactor for peaceful purposes would be revisited "at an appropriate time". ASEAN groups Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. -------- security Meeting held on stopping nuke terrorism JOHN THORNE Associated Press Mon, Oct. 30, 2006 http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/world/15887562.htm RABAT, Morocco - The world's five leading nuclear powers and seven other nations kicked off a new program Monday aimed at keeping nuclear weapons beyond the reach of terrorists. Amid the global concerns over North Korea's test of an atomic bomb and suspicions Iran is trying to develop such weapons, delegations from the United States and the other states said it was paramount for the world to guard against terrorist groups joining the hunt. "The concern is fundamental - we must stop terrorists from acquiring" nuclear weapons, said Robert Joseph, U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control and international security. The world's five leading nuclear powers - the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France - form the core of the new Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism. Those five plus Italy, Japan, Canada, China, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Australia and Morocco signed two agreements on common principles and "terms of reference" that were not immediately made public after the start of the two-day meeting in Rabat. The initiative aims to provide guidelines for keeping track of radioactive materials, ensuring the safety of nuclear facilities, and combating illicit trafficking that could deliver nuclear materials into the hands of terrorists. While Russia and the United States have been at odds on how to rein in Iran's suspect nuclear program, the two countries combined to provide the impetus for this international effort to keep atomic arms from terrorist groups. They hope the initiative will lead to better security for the world's nuclear materials and knowledge. "It's about galvanizing the elements in the world to protect ... people from one of the most dangerous threats we face," Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak said. "We do agree on some things. We have disagreements and nuances on others," he added, referring to the United States and dealing with North Korea and Iran. "I think we will work together, but we might disagree on the technique." A senior Western diplomat said the meeting was an important sign of cooperation between Americans and Russians in an area where they haven't always seen eye-to-eye, particularly over whether to impose sanctions on Iran. The U.S. and its allies are seeking to force the Iranians to halt uranium enrichment, which can produce material for fueling nuclear reactors but also for nuclear warheads. Russia and China, which have economic links to Iran, have shied away from imposing punitive measures. Iran insists its nuclear effort is solely aimed at using reactors to generate electricity. The diplomat, who agreed to discuss the meeting only on condition of anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity, said the initiative's sponsors hope to prevent nuclear terrorism by doing more to curtail terrorist financing and improving safeguards for radioactive materials, from naturally occurring sources to hospital equipment. President Bush and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, announced the initiative July 15 at the Group of Eight summit in St. Petersburg, Russia. In a statement, the two leaders urged like-minded countries to expand joint efforts to "combat nuclear terrorism on a determined and systematic basis." ---- NMSU facility to start dirty-bomb training By New Mexico State University 10/30/2006 http://www.scsun-news.com/news/ci_4572927 LASCRUCES — New Mexico State University's Institute for Energy and the Environment (IEE) has implemented a first-responder training program targeted toward "dirty bomb" attacks. Dirty bombs, a class of weapons also known as radiological dispersal devices (RDD), are viewed as one of the gravest anticipated terrorist threats facing the United States and other nations. The principle type of dirty bomb would combine a conventional explosive such as dynamite with radioactive material to create economic and social disruption well beyond the potential immediate lethality of the radiological dispersion and physical destruction. A second type of RDD would hold a powerful radioactive source hidden in a public place, such as a trash bin or subway station, where passers-by are likely to get a significant dose of radiation. According to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's public affairs office, a dirty bomb is in no way similar to a nuclear weapon. The presumed purpose of its use would be not as a "weapon of mass destruction" but rather as a "weapon of mass disruption." The Carlsbad Environmental Monitoring and Research Center (CEMRC), a division of IEE, is playing a critical role in the dirty-bomb threat-reduction program and is doing so with high marks. "Because the general public is so frightened about anything radioactive, fear must be anticipated even if there is no real health threat from the radioactive component," said CEMRC Director Jim Conca. "Even a phantom RDD, where no radioactive material was used but an implication or anonymous tip indicates there was, could still cause considerable fear with large economic consequences." In training first-responders such as firefighters and emergency medical personnel, Conca stresses the criticality of risk, perception and education. He also trains emergency personnel to assume that all bombs are dirty and to follow the first priority at the scene — defining the hot zone. "This is the most important first response, and a simple alarming dosimeter is the most useful piece of equipment for a dirty bomb attack," Conca said. A dosimeter is a device used to measure an individual's exposure to radiation and can weigh as little as an ounce and cost as little as $70. CEMRC's ability to implement effective first-responder training for dirty bombs comes from its years of experience in environmental training and education, nuclear energy issues and issues involving Homeland Security. The unique radiochemistry facility has a special plutonium-uranium lab, mobile laboratories, computing operations and offices. "We have probably the lowest detection limits of any lab for radionuclides and have been monitoring the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant site for 10 years — people, air, water and soil — making WIPP the only nuclear facility in the world with a before-and-after on its population and its environment," Conca said. "Three Mile Island wishes it had that!" WIPP is the world's first underground repository licensed to permanently dispose of radioactive waste left over from the research and production of nuclear weapons. "CEMRC's solid experience in nuclear waste management and environmental monitoring of radiological and inorganic materials is a great foundation for implementing first responder training at NMSU," said IEE Executive Director Abbas Ghassemi. "As an IEE division, the CEMRC group complements our strengths in the environment and renewable energy. We're building a group focused on maintaining and protecting sustainable resources for our nation, which in many ways is also tied to our national security." The IEE comprises WERC: A Consortium for Environmental Education and Technology Development, the Southwest Technology Development Institute and CEMRC. For more information, contact Ghassemi at (505) 646-2038 or visit www.werc.net. "Eye on Research" is provided by New Mexico State University. This week's feature was written by Therese Shakra, media relations specialist for IEE. -------- terrorism Morocco calls on world to tackle roots of nuclear terrorism RABAT (AFP) Oct 30, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/2006/061030150258.pms8mu5j.html Morocco called on the international community to tackle poverty and regional conflict as root causes of "nuclear terrorism", during a meeting Monday on ways to jointly prevent the threat. "The international community must address the profound causes of this phenomenon (nuclear activity by terrorists) by resolving international and regional conflicts and the fight against injustices, frustrations and misery," the Moroccan representative at the Rabat conference, Omar Hilale, said in remarks published by Morocco's MAP news agency. The two-day meeting is the first held by the "Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism" -- jointly launched by US President George W. Bush and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin at July's G8 summit in Saint Petersburg. It gathers representatives from the G8 nations (Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United States), along with Australia, China, Kazakhstan and Turkey. Rabat has observer status at the gathering, aimed to improve the control and protection of nuclear and radioactive substances and nuclear installations to prevent nuclear terrorism. The International Atomic Energy Agency is also present. In his address, Hilale called on the international community to work jointly to boost sustainable development, dialogue among nations and domestic democracy-building initiatives. Warning against "uncontrolled nuclear material and the existence of a black market of these techniques and materials for twin purposes," the Moroccan official also urged states to cooperate closely against "this world threat without limits of devastation and cruelty." ---- Morocco joins global anti-nuclear initiative By Lamine Ghanmi Mon Oct 30, 2006 (Reuters) http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061030/wl_nm/nuclear_initiative_morocco_dc_1 RABAT - Morocco on Monday became the first Arab state to join a global initiative led by Russia and the United States to combat nuclear terrorism, officials said. The five major nuclear weapons states and seven other countries held their first meeting in Rabat to begin implementing the anti-nuclear terror initiative, first launched at the Group of 8 summit in Russia in July, they said. "We launched our cooperation against nuclear terrorism and established a shield of cooperation to stop such terrorism," Omar Hilali, secretary general of Morocco's Foreign Ministry, told a news conference. UnderSecretary of State Robert Joseph and Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak addressed the news conference to praise Morocco's anti-nuclear proliferation record and commitment to fighting global terrorism. The two officials are co-chairmen of the initiative. Morocco joined the 12 initial members at the end of the first day of the meeting on Monday in the first expansion of the initiative's membership. It was initially an observer. "Meeting in Morocco will send a positive signal in the global fight against nuclear terrorism," Joseph said. The meeting in Rabat aims to make progress on a statement of principles for a "global initiative to combat nuclear terrorism," he said. Joseph said the countries attending the meeting must work together to deny terrorists access to nuclear materials, prevent nuclear terrorism, and respond in case of a nuclear attack by terrorists. "A terrorism nuclear attack will change the world as we know," said Hilali. Participating states included Britain, China and France -- which like Russia and the United States have nuclear weapons -- plus Australia, Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Turkey and Morocco. Kazakhstan, which gave up nuclear weapons after the Soviet Union fell, was keen to lead the initiative in Central Asia, which had seen instability and dissident groups vying for power, the officials said. Turkey was invited because of its role as an important crossroads between the Middle East and the West. The three officials were vague about what the outcome of the meeting in Rabat. An U.S. official who spoke from Washington in condition of anonymity said the initiative aimed to have participating states make "a commitment and build capacities to prevent the acquisition of sensitive materials by terrorist groups." He cited "better protection of radioactive and nuclear materials, better accounting, better security practices, including improved protection of civilian nuclear facilities which may be vulnerable to terrorist attack." "The emphasis is on both detection and interdiction of the material once detected," he added. Not on the list were two other nuclear weapons states -- India, which is developing new ties with the United States, and Pakistan. Participants said the program was modeled on the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), launched by Washington several years ago as a loosely organized group. Adherents, who number more than 60, share intelligence and conduct exercises aimed at interdicting shipments, including at sea, of items that could be used to make weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems. (Additional reporting by Carol Giacomo in Washington) -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- new jersey N.J. power plant wants to increase output Hope Creek proposal, a worry to industry watchers, under review By JEFF MONTGOMERY, The News Journal Posted Monday, October 30, 2006 at 9:35 pm Courtesy of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061030/NEWS/61030055/1006/rss The owners of the Hope Creek nuclear plant hope to squeeze more production – the equivalent of another small power plant – out of its reactor next year under a revised proposal now before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Skip Sindoni, spokesman for PSEG Nuclear, said the company wants to add 120 megawatts to Hope Creek’s output by boosting heat levels and steam pressure in the plant, which is located in Salem, N.J., on the bank of the Delaware River. The proposed 15 percent heat increase could raise Hope Creek’s regular power generation by about the equivalent of the output from NRG Energy’s Dover plant. Company officials are still developing design and cost details for the major overhaul needed to manage the hotter, higher-pressure system. Regulatory commission officials have approved more than 100 requests for increases, termed “uprates,” around the nation, with another 27 expected during the next five years that would produce the equivalent of what two Indian River power plants would. Salem Units 1 and 2, which stand near Hope Creek, already have undergone the process. PSEG Nuclear withdrew an earlier plan to uprate Hope Creek in February, after commission staffers raised questions about vibrations and the damage potential at the higher power. Agency documents note concerns about increased vibration and equipment cracking. “We have a number of concerns about things that could go wrong, and we would prefer to err on the side of safety at this point,” said Neil Cohen, who directs Unplug Salem, a group opposed to nuclear power. Stephen Grot, a Middletown-area resident and president of a fuel cell manufacturer Ion Power, said he plans to follow the commission’s review closely. “I would definitely be concerned about them narrowing the safety margin,” Grot said. “You keep increasing the temperature and raising the pressure, it’s going to blow itself to pieces.” Grot said he was unsatisfied with PSEG Nuclear’s handling of vibration problems in a major cooling-water pump in 2004, when a steam leak shut down the plant. Commission officials eventually allowed the company to postpone major repairs to the system, but only after installation of additional monitoring equipment. David Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer for the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit based in Washington, said plant operators and regulators don’t yet know enough about the consequences of higher temperatures and pressures in some boiling water reactor designs. The same concerns helped prolong public debates over a power increase at a smaller, Exelon-operated plant in Vermont. Public opposition and protests kept that project under review for more than two years. “The NRC is shirking its responsibility to protect the public by allowing clueless plant owners to crank up … to see what happens,” Lochbaum wrote in a briefing paper issued in 2004. A document filed with the regulatory agency earlier this year showed that regulators had “significant” concerns about the stress and vibration studies used by PSEG to support its previous uprate proposal. Company officials committed to additional analysis of both issues. Plans for Hope Creek involve the most elaborate type of uprate, requiring replacement of steam turbines, pumps, generators and other equipment. Critics of the changes argue that they also involve the greatest amount of new stresses, and point to damage that developed in the Dresden and Quad Cities plants in Illinois after an 18 percent uprate. “NRC staff have determined these issues do not pose an immediate safety concern, given the plants’ current operating conditions,” commission officials said in a briefing paper on uprates. But the agency “continues to examine its regulatory options based on industry actions and the information available.” Suzanne Leta, a spokeswoman for the nonprofit group Environment New Jersey, said that her organization also viewed power uprates as experimental. “There’s a history that provides reasonable cause for concern,” Leta said. “Uprates in the past have clearly left public safety behind and were essentially experimental.” Hope Creek and the twin Salem reactors rank as the nation’s second-largest nuclear generating complex, and also among those with the greatest potential for deaths and casualties in the event of a catastrophic accident, according to agency records. Contact Jeff Montgomery at 678-4277 or jmontgomery@delawareonline.com. -------- pennsylvania PPL Seeks to Renew Operating Licenses for Susquehanna Nuclear Plant Posted on : Mon, 30 Oct 2006 PR Newswire http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,12967.shtml BERWICK, Pa., Oct. 30 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- PPL is seeking U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval to renew the operating licenses for the Susquehanna nuclear power plant in Luzerne County, Pa., for an additional 20 years. The NRC has accepted PPL's application and is starting the formal review process after confirming that the 2,000-page application provides the information needed to begin a detailed technical review. During the review process, which is expected to take two to three years, the NRC will provide many opportunities for public input. "The power plant has been a vital part of the community and the local economy for more than 20 years," said Lou Ramos, community relations manager for the Susquehanna plant. "It produces electricity reliably and safely, is one of the area's largest employers and generates millions of dollars in state and local tax revenue." In 2005, the Susquehanna plant generated 18 million megawatt-hours, which is enough electricity to supply about 1.8 million homes. Susquehanna produced about 8 percent of all electricity generated in Pennsylvania last year. The plant has set records for power generated in five of the last six years. "The plant's safety and reliability are a result of the hard work and dedication of plant employees and the ongoing investments PPL makes in plant systems and equipment," Ramos said. "Susquehanna is well-maintained and well-operated, and we hope to remain an important part of the community for many years to come." The two reactors at the Susquehanna plant are operating under the original 40-year licenses approved by the NRC in 1982 for Unit 1 and 1984 for Unit 2. PPL's request seeks to extend the licenses until 2042 for Unit 1 and 2044 for Unit 2. Concurrently, PPL has submitted a request to the NRC to increase the amount of electricity the Susquehanna plant can generate. The NRC also will be conducting a thorough technical review of that request, which is expected to take at least 12 months. The Susquehanna plant, located in Luzerne County about seven miles north of Berwick, is owned jointly by PPL Susquehanna LLC and Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc. and is operated by PPL Susquehanna. PPL Corporation CONTACT: Lou Ramos, PPL Corporation, +1-570-759-2285 -------- MILITARY -------- afghanistan Poppy Wars by Ann Jones and Tom Engelhardt Tom Dispatch October 30, 2006 http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=9933 While the Iraqi catastrophe – and whether we are about to be at a post-midterm election "tipping point" in that country – preoccupies Americans, an older Bush administration Afghan "success" story has sprung enough holes to sink the Titanic and looks to be taking on water fast. The president has long claimed that Iraq is the "central front in the war against terrorism." Looking at Afghanistan, however, it's increasingly clear that Bush's Iraqi adventure is the literal motor for terrorism that the recently leaked National Intelligence Estimate suggested it was. ("The Iraq conflict has become the 'cause célèbre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world, and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement.") Iraq is proving the central training ground and testing field for the renewed Afghan rebellion. The Taliban, this summer and fall, returned to the battle in Afghanistan in force (with plans to continue their offensive well into that country's bitter winter) – and with some techniques clearly imported from Iraq. So, the use of sophisticated IED or roadside explosive devices and of suicide bombers, as well as targeted assassinations of government officials, have been on the rise – all techniques pulled directly off the Iraqi battlegrounds; while foreign jihadists are now, according to Sebastian Rotella of the Los Angeles Times, choosing Afghanistan over Iraq as the prime place to make a stand (as it was during the anti-Soviet jihad of the 1980s). Meanwhile, NATO and U.S. forces in that country find themselves engaged in the kind of warfare that results, as in Iraq, in high body counts but also generates lots of enemies in the long run, fueling the Taliban's war. (As one British officer put it, "For every Taliban you kill, you recruit three or four more.") From simple cultural ignorance to the slaughter of civilians from the air and even the desecration of the dead, not to mention the imprisonment of the living, Western forces are acting in ways that can't help but bring events in Iraq to mind. NATO (and American) casualties have been on the rise; troops have been locked down and increasingly isolated in some Afghan cities for fear of suicide bombers; while unease, not to say disgruntlement, is growing among commanders who, as with Iraq, are starting to go public. Just this weekend, Prime Minister Tony Blair's most trusted military commander and confidant, General the Lord Guthrie "branded as 'cuckoo' the way Britain's overstretched army was sent into Afghanistan." And then there are the drugs. Afghanistan is now the globe's prime narco-state. Ann Jones, whose vivid memoir, Kabul in Winter: Life Without Peace in Afghanistan, is riveting reading, plunges into the Alice-in-Wonderland world of drug-eradication efforts in that land and shows why our Afghan programs are headed for the nearest cliff. Tom -------- africa As rioters burn ballots, Congo strives to tally presidential vote The Associated Press MONDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2006 http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2006/10/30/news/congo.php KINSHASA, Congo Rioting mobs destroyed polling stations in Congo's east and electoral officials organized a revote over burned ballots in the north Monday, yet much of the war-scarred Central African nation called the landmark presidential vote a success as the colossal task of counting ballots began. The election pitted President Joseph Kabila against his vice president, Jean- Pierre Bemba, a former rebel, in a vote that many hoped would usher the country into democracy after more than 40 years of dictatorship and war. But there are also fears the vote would ignite a return to fighting, four years after a 1998- 2002 conflict that drew armies from more than half a dozen African nations. On Monday, a day after the vote, mobs in the northeastern border town of Fataki destroyed 43 polling stations - and the ballots stored within - after an army sergeant killed two electoral workers. A spokesman for the United Nations, Leocadio Salmeron, said it was unclear what had prompted the shooting, which sparked rioting. Elsewhere, polling stations posted tallies and election workers prepared to go home after spending two nights at their posts. In Kinshasa, where problems collecting and counting millions of first-round ballots in July left the results open to criticism, the UN commandeered trucks and cars from its various agencies to retrieve ballots and bring them to 14 collection centers. Both candidates have pledged to accept the results - an important pact given that fighting between their personal security forces in August killed at least 23 people after results from the first round were released. At least one person died Sunday when protesters who suspected ballot tampering ransacked a dozen polling stations and clashed with security forces in the northwest town of Bumba. The looted polling centers were scheduled to reopen Tuesday to give voters another chance to vote. Meanwhile, a rights group said blockades set up by soldiers extorting money prevented thousands from voting in the east. -------- arms U.S. Failed To Track Weapons Sent to Iraq Monday, October 30th, 2006 Democracy Now! Headlines http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/30/1535223 A new U.S. government report has determined that the military has failed to track hundreds of thousands of weapons intended for Iraqi security forces. The Pentagon failed to even record the serial numbers of weapons given to the Iraqi military. In addition the report found the Pentagon has failed to provide spare parts or repair manuals for most of the weapons. ---- U.S. Is Said to Fail in Tracking Arms for Iraqis By JAMES GLANZ New York Times October 30, 2006 http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/sf/nyt10_30_6.htm The American military has not properly tracked hundreds of thousands of weapons intended for Iraqi security forces and has failed to provide spare parts, maintenance personnel or even repair manuals for most of the weapons given to the Iraqis, a federal report released Sunday has concluded. The report was undertaken at the request of Senator John W. Warner, the Virginia Republican who is the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and who recently expressed an assessment far darker than the Bush administration’s on the situation in Iraq. Mr. Warner sent his request in May to a federal oversight agency, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. He also asked the inspector general to examine whether Iraqi security forces were developing a logistics operation capable of sustaining the hundreds of thousands of troops and police officers the American military says it has trained. The answers came Sunday from the inspector general’s office, which found discrepancies in American military records on where thousands of 9-millimeter pistols and hundreds of assault rifles and other weapons have ended up. The American military did not even take the elementary step of recording the serial numbers of weapons provided to Iraqis, the inspector general found, making it impossible to track or identify any that might have fallen into the wrong hands. Exactly where untracked weapons could end up was not examined in the report, although black-market arms dealers thrive on the streets of Baghdad, and official Iraq Army and police uniforms can easily be purchased as well, presumably because government shipments are intercepted or otherwise corrupted. Because the inspector general is charged only with looking at weaponry financed directly by the American taxpayer, the total numbers of lost weapons could end up being higher. The Government Accountability Office and the Pentagon inspector general are expected to take a broad look at weapons financed by all sources, including the Iraqi government. The inspector general’s office, led by Stuart W. Bowen Jr., also a Republican, responded to Mr. Warner’s query about the Iraqi Army’s logistical capabilities with another report released at the same time, concluding that Iraqi security forces still depended heavily on the Americans for the operations that sustain a modern army: deliveries of food, fuel and ammunition, troop transport, health care and maintenance. Mr. Bowen found that the American military was not able to say how many Iraqi logistics personnel it has trained — in this case because, the military told the inspector general, a computer network crash erased records. Those problems have occurred even though the United States has spent $133 million on the weapons program and $666 million on building up Iraqi logistics capabilities. The report said that although the United States planned to scale back its support for logistics and maintenance for Iraqi security forces in 2007, it was unclear whether the Iraqi government had any intention of compensating by allocating sufficient money in its budget to the Ministries of Interior and Defense. Mr. Warner confirmed through his spokesman, John Ullyot, that he was reviewing the reports over the weekend in advance of a scheduled meeting with Mr. Bowen on Tuesday. Mr. Warner “believes it is essential that Congress and the American people continue to be kept informed by the inspector general on the equipping and logistical capabilities of the Iraqi Army and security forces, since these represent an important component of overall readiness,” Mr. Ullyot said in a statement released Sunday. Mr. Bowen said in an interview that he was particularly concerned that it was unclear whether the Iraqi government intended to allocate enough money to support the logistics and maintenance needed for the Iraqi security forces to operate effectively. “There’s a couple of red flags,” Mr. Bowen said. “Most significantly, is the Iraqi Ministry of Interior properly preparing to take over the mission and sustain it?” “We don’t know because we don’t have adequate visibility into their budgeting,” he said, “and to a lesser extent the same red flag is up for the Department of Defense.” Another report unrelated to Mr. Warner’s request was also released by the inspector general on Sunday, on the so-called provincial reconstruction teams that the United States is creating to carry out the next phase of rebuilding Iraq’s infrastructure. While some of the teams, intended to be scattered around the country in each of Iraq’s 18 provinces, are functioning, security problems have severely hampered work in others, the report says. As a result, the inspector general recommended, the United States should consider reassigning its personnel in six provinces — including Basra in the south and Anbar in the west — to other places where effective work can be done. The western desert province of Anbar is a central focus of the Sunni insurgency, and power struggles between Shiite militias have made Basra an increasingly violent city. The other four provinces that the inspector general recommends essentially abandoning are also in the Shiite-held south. In its assessment of Iraqi weaponry, the inspector general concluded that of the 505,093 individual weapons that have been given to the Ministries of Interior and Defense over the last several years, serial numbers for only 12,128 were properly recorded. The weapons include rocket-propelled grenade launchers, assault rifles, machine guns, shotguns, semiautomatic pistols and sniper rifles. Of those weapons, 370,000 were purchased with American taxpayer money under what is called the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund, or I.R.R.F., and therefore fell within the inspector general’s mandate. Despite the potential chaos involved in losing track of those weapons — involving 19 different contracts and 142 delivery orders — the United States recorded serial numbers for no more than a few thousand of those weapons, the inspector general said. There are standard regulations for registering military weaponry in that way, governed by the Department of Defense small-arms serialization program. The inspector general’s report said that when asked why so many weapons were funneled to Iraq with no record of their serial numbers, American military officials in Baghdad replied that the regulations did not cover foreign-owned weapons. Officials at three different military agencies in the United States disagreed with that conclusion, the report said. Because the American military in Baghdad did not believe it was bound by the registration regulations, the report said, at most only a tiny percentage of weapons found their way into the D.O.D. registry. In addition, money was allocated for only 5 of the 12 different kinds of weapons sent to Iraq — and when the inspector general contacted units of the Defense and Interior Ministries, none actually knew how or where to requisition spare parts. There were also significant discrepancies in the numbers of weapons issued and those that actually showed up in Iraqi warehouses. For example, while 176,866 semiautomatic pistols were purchased with American money, just 163,386 showed up in warehouses — meaning that more than 13,000 were unaccounted for. All 751 of the M1-F assault rifles sent to Iraq went missing, and nearly 100 MP-5 machine guns. The inspector general did not attempt to track what happened to the weapons once they were recorded as delivered to the Iraqi warehouses. -------- biological weapons Anthrax vaccine opponents gear up to renew fight By Gayle S. Putrich Staff writer October 30, 2006 Army Times http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2318585.php Retired Air Force Capt. Kelli Donley, a former judge advocate, contracted idiopathic spinal cerebellar ataxia, a shrinking of the brain’s cerebellum, after taking three anthrax vaccine shots in 2000. — Jill DiPasquale As the Pentagon prepares to resume mandatory anthrax shots, vaccine opponents — including lawyers, medical experts and veterans — gathered Saturday in Washington to discuss current cases and potential legal avenues for helping those who say they were harmed by the vaccine. The day-long seminar was held in the shadow of the Defense Department’s Oct. 16 announcement of its plan to resume mandatory anthrax vaccinations after a nearly two-year, court-ordered hiatus. But Byron Holcomb, the lawyer who organized the seminar, said the day-long event was not prompted by the Pentagon’s policy change. He said it had been in the works since July with an underlying goal of trying to “see what we can do … to get us yoked together to do the right thing.” Holcomb, a retired Navy judge advocate general who has been involved with various anthrax-related court cases since 2002, said every victim’s story pains him, and has spurred him to seek ways in which legal, medical and defense officials could cooperate to ensure those harmed by the vaccine get the legal and medical help they need. “These are young people who are essentially done for in life,” Holcomb said. The Defense Department’s recent announcement of its decision to restart the mandatory vaccination program made the seminar even more relevant and necessary, Holcomb said. Part of the reason the Seattle-based lawyer wanted to hold the event in Washington was to make it easier for military lawyers who adjudicate contested findings from military medical and physical evaluations boards and military doctors, especially those from the vaccine health care center at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, to attend. Holcomb said many were invited — but none came. He said those who had previously indicated they would attend canceled at the last minute, without giving a specific reason. Although the Pentagon insists the vaccine is safe and effective, with an adverse event rate that is not outside the norm for other vaccines, reported side effects of the anthrax shots range from mild reactions such as rashes and sores to severe, incapacitating, irreversible damage. For example, retired Air Force Capt. Kelli Donley, a former military lawyer, told seminar attendees she contracted idiopathic spinal cerebellar ataxia, a shrinking of the brain’s cerebellum, which governs motor function, after taking the first three shots of the six-shot anthrax vaccine regimen in 2000. She said she began to suffer from slurred, slow speech, became clumsy in her movements and experienced numbness in the arm in which she received the shots. After returning to the U.S. from Korea, she underwent tests that showed her cerebellum was shrinking. “It was a bittersweet relief — I wasn’t imagining this,” she said. Also attending the seminar were Air Force Reserve Maj. Margaret McFann, a nurse diagnosed with lupus after receiving the vaccine, and former Air Force Reserve Lt. Col. Frank Fisher, a physician who contracted Still’s disease and became disabled after taking the shots. Still’s disease is a rare disorder marked by high, spiky fevers, rashes and joint pain that may lead to chronic arthritis. Some service members have died after taking the shots, but the Defense Department says the deaths cannot be conclusively linked to the vaccine. The Food and Drug Administration issued a report on adverse reactions to the anthrax vaccine last December, at about the same time that it made a final ruling on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. From July 1990 through March 2005, the government-sponsored Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) logged 4,279 reports of health problems as a result of anthrax vaccine, 390 of which were classified as “serious.” But critics of the vaccine have claimed the number of adverse events is actually much higher, and even the FDA acknowledged the voluntary nature of VAERS may lead to underreporting. Dr. Mark Geier, a Maryland-based physician who previously worked as a researcher at the National Institutes of Health for 10 years and has studied vaccines for more than 30 years, told seminar attendees that his review of available data shows the anthrax vaccine has “a safety profile significantly worse than almost any civilian vaccine.” Continuing the fight The U.S District Court for the District of Columbia shut down the military’s mandatory anthrax vaccine program in December 2004 with an injunction. At that time, Judge Emmet Sullivan ruled that forcing troops to take the vaccine amounted to an illegal order because the FDA had failed to follow its own regulatory procedures in declaring the drug safe and effective against all forms of anthrax, including the inhalation variety that defense officials say poses a threat to U.S. troops. In the interim, defense officials launched a voluntary vaccination program. About half the troops offered the vaccine have taken it, officials said. In December 2005, the FDA followed through on the approval process and a federal appeals court dissolved the injunction, clearing the way for the Pentagon to resume mandatory shots. Mark Zaid, one of the lawyers representing the six anonymous military and civilian plaintiffs in the Doe v. Rumsfeld anthrax lawsuit, said he expects to file a new suit in the coming weeks to challenge the resumption of the mandatory program on the grounds that in addition to being potentially extremely harmful, the vaccine’s effectiveness is questionable at best. “You can’t show it’s effective in humans from the studies,” said Zaid, who gave a legal history of the vaccine and the fight against the mandatory program at the seminar. The suit will question the science behind the FDA’s approval of the vaccine, he said, which has been a pillar of the opposition’s strategy all along. “There will be nothing new in this lawsuit,” Zaid said. “The Defense Department is just exploiting the weakness of the FDA.” Geier noted that the efficacy of the anthrax vaccine is based on several studies in animals and has never been tested in a double-blind, placebo-controlled human vaccine trial. The only study of anthrax vaccine use in humans, he said, was published in 1962 of a clinical trial among 1,133 mill workers who handled animal hides. In addition to being geared specifically toward the skin form of anthrax — not the inhalation variety troops would be expected to encounter on the battlefield — the vaccine in that trial had a different formulation than the current one, Geier said. As it has from the beginning, the Pentagon maintains that the drug is safe and effective against all forms of anthrax. “The licensed vaccine is safe, effective and based on sound science,” Dr. William Winkenwerder Jr., the Defense Department’s top health official, said in a statement. “This was determined by eight separate independent reviews, including the National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine.” The IOM also states adverse events due to the anthrax vaccine are ‘comparable to those observed with other vaccines administered to adults,’ ” he said. When the inoculation program resumes in 30 to 60 days, the shots will be mandatory for all service members, defense civilian employees and contractors going for more than 15 days to Korea or anywhere within the U.S. Central Command area of operations, which includes Afghanistan and Iraq. U.S. personnel in those areas are considered by the Pentagon to be at “high risk” for weaponized anthrax exposure. “We vaccinate our service members to protect them against deadly diseases — both natural and those potentially spread by terrorists or enemy forces,” Winkenwerder said. “Protection against anthrax is important to the mission, and that’s why we are returning to a mandatory program for those at higher risk.” -------- iraq U.S. responsible for nearly 2,000,000 deaths in Iraq since 1991 Monday 30, Oct 2006 http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2006/10/11/01245.html A United Nations corroborated estimate of one million people had died as a result of U.S. led efforts not to lift sanctions against Iraq. Most nations wished to lift the sanctions, but the U.S. with the additional support of the U.K., continued to oppose any such calls. The sactions which were in violation of United Nations Conventions on human rights, had gross consequences for the people of Iraq. The brutal Saddam Hussain, whom the U.S. helped to bring into power in the 1980's in the first place, remained unaffected while the Iraqi people suffered. Iraq used to have one of the best levels in the world for standards of living. However, after U.S. coerced sanctions, Iraq sank to the bottom twenty percent, in just 10 years. Basic medicines were not available, as children died from treatable diseases. Even chlorine had been blocked, and that is needed for disinfection of water that has already been contaminated from the allied bombing. Cancer rates have shot up, believed to have resulted from the use of depleted Uranium by the allied bombing-which was cleaned up in Kuwait, but not in Iraq. Anti-Vietnam War Movement in the 1960's Vested interests seek to repress the kind of information that had lead to the massive Anti-Vietnam War Movement in the 1960's, which eventually forced used troops to withdraw from Vietnam. When asked on U.S. television if she [Madeline Albright, then U.S. Secretary of State] thought that the death of half a million Iraqi children [from sanctions in Iraq] was a price worth paying, Albright replied: "This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it.", as reported by John Pilger, in "Squeezed to Death", The Guardian, March 4, 2000. A release by the medical journal Lancet release stipulates that at least 600,000 have died as the result the U.S. pre-emptive strike based upon a fraudlent representation that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Independent Iraqi accounts from disenfranchised groups added to the Lancet reported scholarly calculations, shows that an estimated nearly 2 million Iraqis have died as a result of the policies of the U.S. political-military-industrial complex. "Deaths are occurring in Iraq now, at a rate more than three times that [rate] from before the invasion of March 2003," Dr. Gilbert Burnham, lead author of the Lancet published study, said in a statement. The major funder of the new Lancet published study was the Massachusetts ---- A Blueprint for Leaving Iraq Now by George S. McGovern and William R. Polk October 30, 2006 http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/mcgovern-polk1.html Following is an excerpt from the new book, Out of Iraq, by George S. McGovern and William R. Polk. This excerpt was published in the October edition of Harper's Magazine and was entered into the Congressional Record by Rep. James McGovern. Staying in Iraq not an option. Many Americans who were among the most eager to invade Iraq now urge that we find a way out. These Americans include not only civilian "strategists'' and other "hawks'' but also senior military commanders and, perhaps most fervently, combat soldiers. Even some of those Iraqis regarded by our senior officials as the most pro-American are determined now to see American military personnel leave their country. Polls show that as few as 2 percent of Iraqis consider Americans to be liberators. This is the reality of the situation in Iraq. We must acknowledge the Iraqis' right to ask us to leave, and we should set a firm date by which to do so. We suggest that phased withdrawal should begin on or before December 31, 2006, with the promise to make every effort to complete it by June 30, 2007. Withdrawal is not only a political imperative but a strategic requirement. As many retired American military officers now admit, Iraq has become, since the invasion, the primary recruiting and training ground for terrorists. The longer American troops remain in Iraq, the more recruits will flood the ranks of those who oppose America not only in Iraq but elsewhere. Withdrawal will not be without financial costs, which are unavoidable and will have to be paid sooner or later. But the decision to withdraw at least does not call for additional expenditures. On the contrary, it will effect massive savings. Current U.S. expenditures run at approximately $246 million each day, or more than $10 million an hour, with costs rising steadily each year. Although its figures do not include all expenditures, the Congressional Research Service listed direct costs at $77.3 billion in 2004, $87.3 billion in 2005, and $100.4 billion in fiscal year 2006. Even if troop withdrawals begin this year, total costs (including those in Afghanistan) are thought likely to rise by $371 billion during the withdrawal period. Economist Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, a former assistant secretary of commerce, have estimated that staying in Iraq another four years will cost us at least $1 trillion. Let us be clear: there will be some damage. This is inevitable no matter what we do. At the end of every insurgency we have studied, there was a certain amount of chaos as the participants sought to establish a new civic order. This predictable turmoil has given rise to the argument, still being put forward by die-hard hawks, that Americans must, in President Bush's phrase, "stay the course.'' The argument is false. When a driver is on the wrong road and headed for an abyss, it is a bad idea to "stay the course.'' A nation afflicted with a failing and costly policy is not well served by those calling for more of the same, and it is a poor idea to think that we can accomplish in the future what we are failing to accomplish in the present. We are as powerless to prevent the turmoil that will ensue when we withdraw as we have been to stop the insurgency. But we will have removed a major cause of the insurgency once we have withdrawn. Moreover, there are ways in which we can be helpful to the Iraqis – and protect our own interests – by ameliorating the underlying conditions and smoothing the edges of conflict. The first of these would be a "bridging'' effort between the occupation and complete independence. To this end, we think that the Iraqi government would be wise to request the temporary services of an international stabilization force to police the country during and immediately after the period of American withdrawal. Such a force should itself have a firm date fixed for its removal. Our estimate is that Iraq would need this force for no more than two years after the American withdrawal is complete. During this period, the force could be slowly but steadily cut back in both personnel and deployment. Its purpose would be limited to activities aimed at enhancing public security. Consequently, the armament of this police force should be restricted. It would have no need for tanks or artillery or offensive aircraft but only light equipment. It would not attempt, as have American troops, to battle the insurgents. Indeed, after the withdrawal of American troops, as well as British regular troops and mercenary forces, the insurgency, which was aimed at achieving that objective, would almost immediately begin to lose public support. Insurgent gunmen would either put down their weapons or become publicly identified as outlaws. We imagine that the Iraqi government, and the Iraqi people, would find the composition of such a force most acceptable if it were drawn from Arab or Muslim countries. Specifically, it should be possible under the aegis of the United Nations to obtain, say, five contingents of 3,000 men each from Morocco, Tunisia, and Egypt. Jordan and Syria might also be asked to contribute personnel. If additional troops were required, or if any of these governments were deemed unacceptable to Iraq or unwilling to serve, application could be made to such Muslim countries as Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Indonesia. Other countries might be included if the Iraqi government so wished. It would benefit both Iraq and the United States if we were to pay for this force. Assuming that a ballpark figure would be $500 per man per day, and that 15,000 men would be required for two years, the overall cost would be $5.5 billion. That is approximately 3 percent of what it would cost to continue the war, with American troops, for the next two years. Not only would this represent a great monetary saving to us but it would spare countless American lives and would give Iraq the breathing space it needs to recover from the trauma of the occupation in a way that does not violate national and religious sensibilities. The American subvention should be paid directly to the Iraqi government, which would then "hire'' the police services it requires from other governments. The vast amount of equipment that the American military now has in Iraq, particularly transport and communications and light arms, should be turned over to this new multinational force rather than shipped home or destroyed. As the insurgency loses its national justification, other dangers will confront Iraq. One of these is "warlordism,'' as we have seen in Afghanistan, and other forms of large-scale crime. Some of this will almost certainly continue. But the breakdown of public order will never be remedied by American forces; it can only be addressed by a national police force willing to work with neighborhood, village, and tribal home guards. Ethnic and regional political divisions in Iraq have been exacerbated by the occupation, and they are unlikely to disappear once the occupation is over. They are now so bitter as to preclude a unified organization, at least for the time being. It is therefore paramount that the national police force involve local leaders, so as to ensure that the home guards operate only within their own territory and with appropriate action. In part, this is why Iraq needs a "cooling off'' period, with multinational security assistance, after the American withdrawal. While the temporary international police force completes its work, the creation of a permanent national police force is, and must be, an Iraqi task. American interference would be, and has been, counterproductive. And it will take time. The creation and solidification of an Iraqi national police force will probably require, at a rough estimate, four to five years to become fully effective. We suggest that the American withdrawal package should include provision of $1 billion to help the Iraqi government create, train, and equip such a force, which is roughly the cost of four days of the present American occupation. Neighborhood, village, and tribal home guards, which are found throughout Iraq, of course constitute a double-edged sword. Inevitably, they mirror the ethnic, religious, and political communities from which they are drawn. Insofar as they are restricted each to its own community, and are carefully monitored by a relatively open and benign government, they will enhance security; allowed to move outside their home areas, they will menace public order. Only a central government police and respected community leaders can possibly hope to control these militias. America has no useful role to play in these affairs, as experience has made perfectly clear. It is not in the interests of Iraq to encourage the growth and heavy armament of a reconstituted Iraqi army. The civilian government of Iraq should be, and hopefully is, aware that previous Iraqi armies have frequently acted against Iraqi civic institutions. That is, Iraqi armies have not been a source of defense but of disruption. We cannot prevent the reconstitution of an Iraqi army, but we should not, as we are currently doing, actually encourage this at a cost of billions to the American taxpayer. If at all possible, we should encourage Iraq to transfer what soldiers it has already recruited for its army into a national reconstruction corps modeled on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The United States could assist in the creation and training of just such a reconstruction corps, which would undertake the rebuilding of infrastructure damaged by the war, with an allocation of, say, $500 million, or roughly the cost of two days of the current occupation. Withdrawal of American forces must include immediate cessation of work on U.S. military bases. Nearly half of the more than 100 bases have already been closed down and turned over, at least formally, to the Iraqi government, but as many as fourteen "enduring'' bases for American troops in Iraq are under construction. The largest five are already massive, amounting to virtual cities. The Balad Air Base, forty miles north of Baghdad, has a miniature golf course, 2 PXs, a Pizza Hut, a Burger King, and a jail. Another, under construction at al-Asad, covers more than thirteen square miles. Although Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated on December 23, 2005, that "at the moment there are no plans for permanent bases. . . . It is a subject that has not even been discussed with the Iraqi government,'' his remarks are belied by action on the ground, where bases are growing in size and being given aspects of permanency. The most critical of these are remote military bases. They should be stood down rapidly. Closing these bases is doubly important: for America, they are expensive and already redundant; for Iraqis, they both symbolize and personify a hated occupation. With them in place, no Iraqi government will ever feel truly independent. It is virtually certain that absent a deactivation of U.S. military bases, the insurgency will continue. The enormous American base at Baghdad International Airport, ironically named "Camp Victory,'' should be the last of the military bases to be closed, as it will be useful in the process of disengagement. We should of course withdraw from the Green Zone, our vast, sprawling complex in the center of Baghdad. The United States has already spent or is currently spending $1.8 billion on its headquarters there, which contains, or will contain, some 600 housing units, a Marine barracks, and more than a dozen other buildings, as well as its own electrical, water, and sewage systems. The Green Zone should be turned over to the Iraqi government no later than December 31, 2007. By this time, the U.S. should have bought, or rented, or built a "normal'' embassy for a considerably reduced complement of personnel. Symbolically, it would be beneficial for the new building not to be in the Green Zone. Assuming that a reasonable part of the Green Zone's cost can be saved, there should be no additional cost to create a new American embassy for an appropriate number of not more than 500 American officials, as opposed to the 1,000 or so Americans who today staff the Green Zone. Insofar as is practical, the new building should not be designed as though it were a beleaguered fortress in enemy territory. Withdrawal from these bases, and an end to further construction, should save American taxpayers billions of dollars over the coming two years. This is quite apart from the cost of the troops they would house. America should immediately release all prisoners of war and close its detention centers. Mercenaries, euphemistically known as "Personal Security Detail,'' are now provided by an industry of more than thirty "security'' firms, comprising at least 25,000 armed men. These constitute a force larger than the British troop contingent in the "Coalition of the Willing'' and operate outside the direct control – and with little interference from the military justice systems – of the British and American armies. They are, literally, the "loose cannons'' of the Iraq war. They should be withdrawn rapidly and completely, as the Iraqis regard them as the very symbol of the occupation. Since the U.S. pays for them either directly or indirectly, all we need to do is stop payment. Much work will be necessary to dig up and destroy land mines and other unexploded ordinance and, where possible, to clean up the depleted uranium used in artillery shells. These are dangerous tasks that require professional training, but they should be turned over wherever possible to Iraqi contractors. These contractors would employ Iraqi labor, which would help jump-start a troubled economy and be of immediate benefit to the millions of Iraqis who are now out of work. The United Nations has gained considerable knowledge about de-mining – from the Balkans, Afghanistan, and elsewhere – that might be shared with the Iraqis. Although cleanup will be costly, we cannot afford to leave this dangerous waste behind. One day's wartime expenditure, roughly $250 million, would pay for surveys of the damage and the development of a plan to deal with it. Once the extent of the problem is determined, a fund should be established to eradicate the danger completely. These elements of the "withdrawal package'' may be regarded as basic. Without them, Iraqi society will have little chance of recovering economically or governing itself with any effectiveness. Without them, American interests in the Middle East, and indeed throughout the world, will be severely jeopardized. These measures are, we repeat, inexpensive and represent an enormous savings over the cost of the current war effort. Building on them are further actions that would also help Iraq become a safe and habitable environment. To these "second tier'' policies we now turn. Property damage incurred during the invasion and occupation has been extreme. The World Bank has estimated that at least $25 billion will be required to repair the Iraqi infrastructure alone – this is quite apart from the damage done to private property. The reconstruction can be, and should be, done by Iraqis, as this would greatly benefit the Iraqi economy, but the United States will need to make a generous contribution to the effort if it is to be a success. Some of this aid should be in the form of grants; the remainder can be in the form of loans. Funds should be paid directly to the Iraqi government, as it would be sound policy to increase the power and public acceptance of that government once American troops withdraw. The Iraqis will probably regard such grants or loans as reparations; some of the money will probably be misspent or siphoned off by cliques within the government. It would therefore benefit the Iraqi people if some form of oversight could be exercised over the funds, but this would tend to undercut the legitimacy and authority of their government, which itself will probably be reconstituted during or shortly after the American occupation ends. Proper use of aid funds has been a problem everywhere: America's own record during the occupation has been reprehensible, with massive waste, incompetence, and outright dishonesty now being investigated for criminal prosecution. No fledgling Iraqi government is likely to do better, but if reconstruction funds are portioned out to village, town, and city councils, the enhancement of such groups will go far toward the avowed American aim of strengthening democracy, given that Iraqis at the "grass roots'' level would be taking charge of their own affairs. We suggest that the United States allocate for the planning and organization of the reconstruction the sum of $1 billion, or roughly four days of current wartime expenditure; After a planning survey is completed, the American government will need to determine, in consultation with the Iraqi government (and presumably with the British government, our only true "partner'' in the occupation), what it is willing to pay for reconstruction. We urge that the compensation be generous, as generosity will go a long way toward repairing the damage to the American reputation caused by this war. Nearly as important as the rebuilding of damaged buildings and other infrastructure is the demolition of the ugly monuments of warfare. Work should be undertaken as soon as is feasible to dismantle and dispose of the miles of concrete blast walls and wire barriers erected around present American installations. Although the Iraqi people can probably be counted on to raze certain relics of the occupation on their own, we should nonetheless, in good faith, assist in this process. A mere two days' worth of the current war effort, $500 million, would employ a good many Iraqi demolition workers. Another residue of war and occupation has been the intrusion of military facilities on Iraqi cultural sites. Some American facilities have done enormous and irreparable damage. Astonishingly, one American camp was built on top of the Babylon archaeological site, where American troops flattened and compressed ancient ruins in order to create a helicopter pad and fueling stations. Soldiers filled sandbags with archaeological fragments and dug trenches through unexcavated areas while tanks crushed 2,600-year-old pavements. Babylon was not the only casualty. The 5,000-year-old site at Kish was also horribly damaged. We need to understand that Iraq, being a seedbed of Western civilization, is a virtual museum. It is hard to put a spade into the earth there without disturbing a part of our shared cultural heritage. We suggest that America set up a fund of, say, $750 million, or three days' cost of the war, to be administered by an ad-hoc committee drawn from the Iraqi National Museum of Antiquities or the State Board of Antiquities and Heritage, the British Museum, the World Monuments Fund, the Smithsonian Institution, and what is perhaps America's most prestigious archaeological organization, the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, to assist in the restoration of sites American troops have damaged. We should not wish to go down in history as yet another barbarian invader of the land long referred to as the cradle of civilization. Independent accounting of Iraqi funds is urgently required. The United Nations handed over to the American-run Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) billions of dollars generated by the sale of Iraq petroleum with the understanding that these monies would be used to the benefit of the Iraqi people and would be accounted for by an independent auditor. The CPA delayed this audit month after month, and it was still not completed by the time the CPA ceased to exist. Any funds misused or misappropriated by U.S. officials should be repaid to the proper Iraqi authority. What that amount is we cannot predict at this time. Although the funds turned over to the CPA by the U.N. constitute the largest amount in dispute, that is by no means the only case of possible misappropriation. Among several others reported, perhaps the most damaging to Iraq has been a project allocated to Halliburton's subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root as part of a $2.4 billion no-bid contract awarded in 2003. The $75.7 million project was meant to repair the junction of some fifteen pipelines linking the oil fields with terminals. Engineering studies indicated that as conceived the project was likely to fail, but KBR forged ahead and, allegedly, withheld news of the failure from the Iraqi Ministry of Petroleum until it had either spent or received all the money. Despite this, KBR was actually awarded a bonus by the Army Corps of Engineers, even though Defense Department auditors had found more than $200 million of KBR's charges to be questionable. There would seem to be more greed than prudence in the repeated awards to Halliburton in the run-up to the war, during the war itself, and in contracts to repair the war damages. Especially given that Vice President Dick Cheney was formerly CEO of Halliburton, the U.S. should make every effort to investigate this wrongdoing, prosecute and correct it, and depart from Iraq with clean hands. The United States should not object to the Iraqi government voiding all contracts entered into for the exploration, development, and marketing of oil during the American occupation. These contracts clearly should be renegotiated or thrown open to competitive international bids. The Iraqi government and public believe that because Iraqi oil has been sold at a discount to American companies, and because long-term "production-sharing agreements'' are highly favorable to the concessionaires, an unfair advantage has been taken. Indeed, the form of concession set up at the urging of the CPA's consultants has been estimated to deprive Iraq of as much as $194 billion in revenues. To most Iraqis, and indeed to many foreigners, the move to turn over Iraq's oil reserves to American and British companies surely confirms that the real purpose of the invasion was to secure, for American use and profit, Iraq's lightweight and inexpensively produced oil. It is to the long-term advantage of both Iraq and the United States, therefore, that all future dealings in oil, which, after all, is the single most important Iraqi national asset, be transparent and fair. Only then can the industry be reconstituted and allowed to run smoothly; only then will Iraq be able to contribute to its own well-being and to the world's energy needs. Once the attempt to create American-controlled monopolies is abandoned, we believe it should be possible for investment, even American investment, to take place in a rapid and orderly manner. We do not, then, anticipate a net cost connected with this reform. Providing reparations to Iraqi civilians for lives and property lost is a necessity. The British have already begun to do so in the zone they occupy. According to Martin Hemming of the Ministry of Defence, British policy "has, from the outset of operations in Iraq, been to recognize the duty to provide compensation to Iraqis where this is required by the law. ..... [B]etween June 2003 and 31 July 2006, 2,327 claims have been registered .....'' Although there is no precise legal precedent from past wars that would require America to act accordingly, American forces in Iraq have now provided one: individual military units are authorized to make "condolence payments'' of up to $2,500. The United States could, and should, do even more to compensate Iraqi victims or their heirs. Such an action might be compared to the Marshall Plan, which so powerfully redounded to America's benefit throughout the world after the end of the Second World War. As we go forward, the following points should be considered. The number of civilians killed or wounded during the invasion and occupation, particularly in the sieges of Fallujah, Tal Afar, and Najaf, is unknown. Estimates run from 30,000 to well over 100,000 killed, with many more wounded or incapacitated. Assuming the number of unjustified deaths to be 50,000, and the compensation per person to be $10,000, our outlay would run to only $500 million, or two days' cost of the war. The number seriously wounded or incapacitated might easily be 100,000. Taking the same figure as for death benefits, the total cost would be $1 billion, or four days' cost of the war. The dominant voice in this process should be that of Iraq itself, but in supplying the funds the United States could reasonably insist on the creation of a quasi-independent body, composed of both Iraqis and respected foreigners, perhaps operating under the umbrella of an internationally recognized organization such as the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies or the World Health Organization, to assess and distribute compensation. In the meantime, a respected international body should be appointed to process the claims of, and pay compensation to, those Iraqis who have been tortured (as defined by the Geneva Conventions) or who have suffered long-term imprisonment. The Department of Defense admits that approximately 3,200 people have been held for longer than a year, and more than 700 for longer than two years, most of them without charge, a clear violation of the treasured American right of habeas corpus. The number actually subjected to torture remains unknown, but it is presumed to include a significant portion of those incarcerated. Unfortunately, there exists no consensus, legal or otherwise, on how victims of state-sponsored torture should be compensated, and so it is not currently possible to estimate the cost of such a program. Given that this is uncharted legal territory, we should probably explore it morally and politically to find a measure of justifiable compensation. The very act of assessing damages – perhaps somewhat along the lines of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission – would, in and of itself, be a part of the healing process. America should also offer – not directly but through suitable international or nongovernmental organizations – a number of further financial inducements to Iraq's recovery. These might include fellowships for the training of lawyers, judges, journalists, social workers, and other civil-affairs workers. Two days' cost of the current war, or $500 million, would ably fund such an effort. In addition, assistance to "grass roots'' organizations and professional societies could help encourage the return to Iraq of the thousands of skilled men and women who left in the years following the first Gulf war. Relocation allowance and supplementary pay might be administered by the Iraqi engineers' union. Medical practitioners might receive grants through the medical association. Teachers might be courted by the teachers' union or the Ministry of Education. Assuming that some 10,000 skilled workers could be enticed to return for, say, an average of $50,000, this would represent a cost to the American taxpayer of $500 million. Roughly two days' cost of the war would be a very small price to pay to restore the health and vigor of Iraqi society and to improve America's reputation throughout the world. We should also encourage the World Health Organization, UNICEF, and similarly established and proven nongovernmental organizations to help with the rebirth of an Iraqi public-health system by rebuilding hospitals and clinics. One reason for turning to respected international organizations to supervise this program is that when the CPA undertook the task, funds were squandered. At last count, some seventeen years ago Iraq possessed an impressive health-care infrastructure: 1,055 health centers, 58 health centers with beds, 135 general hospitals, and 52 specialized hospitals. Many of these facilities were badly damaged by a decade of sanctions and by the recent warfare and looting. If we assume that fully half of Iraq's hospitals and health centers need to be rebuilt, the overall outlay can be estimated at $250 million, one day's cost of the current war. Equipment might cost a further $170 million. These figures, based on a study prepared for the United Nations Millennium Development Goals project, throw into sharp relief the disappointing results of the American "effort'': one American firm, Parsons Corporation, has been investigated for having taken a generous "cost plus'' contract to rebuild 142 clinics at a cost of $200 million; although the company put in for and collected all the money, only twenty clinics were built. Estimating the cost of staffing these facilities is more complicated. Theoretically, Iraq has a highly professional, well-trained, reasonably large corps of health workers at all levels. Yet many of these people left the country in the years following the 1991 war. The Iraqi Health Ministry has estimated that about 3,000 registered doctors left Iraq during the first two years of the American occupation. Hopefully these workers will return to Iraq once the occupation and the insurgency have ended, but even if they do so, younger replacements for them need to be trained. The UNMDG study suggests that the training period for specialists is about eight years; for general practitioners, five years; and for various technicians and support personnel, three years. We suggest that a training program for a select number, say 200 general practitioners and 100 advanced specialists, be carried out under the auspices of the World Health Organization or Médecins Sans Frontie`res, especially given that some of this training will have to be done in Europe or America. Even if the estimated cost of building and equipping hospitals turned out to be five times too low, even if the American government had to cover the bulk of salaries and operating costs for the next four years, and even if additional hospitals had to be built to care for Iraqis wounded or made ill by the invasion and occupation, the total cost would still be under $5 billion. It is sobering to think that the maximum cost of rebuilding Iraq's public-health system would amount to less than what we spend on the occupation every twenty days. The monetary cost of the basic set of programs outline roughly $7.25 billion. The cost of the "second tier'' programs cannot be as accurately forecast, but the planning and implementation of these is likely to cost somewhere in the vicinity of $10 billion. Seventeen and a quarter billion dollars is a lot of money, but assuming that these programs cut short the American occupation by only two years, they would save us at least $200 billion. Much more valuable, though, are the savings to be measured in what otherwise are likely to be large numbers of shattered bodies and lost lives. Even if our estimates are unduly optimistic, and the actual costs turn out to be far higher, the course of action we recommend would be perhaps the best investment ever made by our country. Finally, we as a nation should not forget the young Americans who fought this war, often for meager pay and with inadequate equipment. As of this writing, more than 2,600 of our soldiers have been killed, and a far greater number wounded or crippled. It is only proper that we be generous to those who return, and to the families of those who will not. That said, we should find a way to express our condolences for the large number of Iraqis incarcerated, tortured, incapacitated, or killed in recent years. This may seem a difficult gesture to many Americans. It may strike them as weak, or as a slur on our patriotism. Americans do not like to admit that they have done wrong. We take comfort in the notion that whatever the mistakes of the war and occupation, we have done Iraq a great service by ridding it of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. Perhaps we have, but in the process many people's lives have been disrupted, damaged, or senselessly ended. A simple gesture of conciliation would go a long way toward shifting our relationship with Iraq from one of occupation to one of friendship. It would be a gesture without cost but of immense and everlasting value – and would do more to assuage the sense of hurt in the world than all of the actions above. George S. McGovern, the United Nations Global Ambassador on Hunger, was the Democratic candidate for president in 1972. He is the author of numerous books, including The Third Freedom: Ending Hunger in Our Time. William R. Polk was a member of the Policy Planning Council responsible for the Middle East and, later, professor of history and founder-director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Chicago. -------- us U.S. Carries Out War Games In Persian Gulf Monday, October 30th, 2006 Democracy Now! Headlines http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/30/1535223 The United States has begun carrying out a naval exercise in the Persian Gulf near the coast of Iran. The U.S.-led war games are reportedly designed to test the ability of nations to intercept ships carrying weapons of mass destruction. The exercises are being conducted in the waters off of Bahrain. The ships will be within 120 miles of the Iranian coast. Iran called the naval exercise “adventurous.” ---- The Military's Fight Against Friendly Fire Newsweek, Oct. 30, 2006 issue —Dan Ephron http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15365155/site/newsweek/ The Pentagon plans to complete by late November its fourth investigation into the friendly-fire killing of former NFL player Pat Tillman in Afghanistan, says the congressman from Tillman's district. Launched in March under pressure from the family, the probe will determine if members of Tillman's Army Rangers unit should be tried for criminal negligence and whether there was a cover-up. The inquiry was to have been completed last month, but Army investigators had trouble tracking down soldiers, most of whom are no longer in uniform, says Congressman Michael Honda, who represents California's San Jose area. He was briefed on the investigation recently by top Defense Department officials. Honda says more than 50 people had been questioned and many of them had hired lawyers. "It's been frustrating for them," he says of Tillman's parents. "They want to get to the bottom line." Tillman was killed by fellow Rangers during a 2004 fire fight with Afghan guerrillas. Army officers initially told his family that he was shot by guerrillas and died a hero. An autopsy weeks later revealed the truth about the means of his death. But three investigations failed to answer key questions: why, for example, Rangers burned his uniform and body armor. Honda says the cover-up investigation is being conducted separately, but the Pentagon will announce the results of both probes simultaneously. Some top Army officers worry that the findings will overshadow the military's broader success in reducing friendly fire. Less than 1 percent of soldiers killed so far in Iraq and Afghanistan were victims of fratricide, the official military term for it, compared with 17 percent in Operation Desert Storm, and about 10 percent in Vietnam. Military analysts say part of that success is circumstantial: ambushes and roadside bombings are less complicated than large war maneuvers and cause fewer mistakes. But technology has also been a factor. Many of the Army's Stryker vehicles, for instance, have onboard computer systems where friendly troops appear as thin blue circles superimposed on a Baghdad satellite map. A NEWSWEEK reporter riding with troops in a Stryker vehicle on a dark night in Baghdad last week could see clusters of U.S. forces on nearby streets. "It tells you where you are, where your friends are and where the enemy is," Col. Peter Fuller, the project manager for the Stryker Brigade Combat Team, said by phone from ground-combat-systems HQ in Detroit. Lower-tech gizmos are also helping. New uniforms issued last year include a patch the size of a postage stamp with a unique infrared signature. Troops who shine a light on the patch from across a hill or from a chopper above can tell the soldiers are friendly—the kind of thing that might have saved Pat Tillman. -------- ENERGY -------- alternative energy Congressional candidates back renewable energy Philadelphia Inquirer October 30, 2006 http://www.topix.net/content/kri/1857944772141035450942357316273352497042 Americans used to love their cars. Then they loved their SUVs. But with love came dependency on oil and the often unfriendly nations that produce it. The insatiable demand for oil has upped the stakes in Iraq and forced the United States and other Western nations into often uncomfortable alliances with petroleum-producers. And while politicians have been preaching energy independence since gas lines formed in the 1970s, reliance on foreign oil has only grown. So questions about oil use, motor vehicle fuel economy standards, and the future of nuclear power were put to the candidates in the Philadelphia suburbs' three pivotal U.S. House races. In an October USA Today/Gallop poll, 90 percent of the people surveyed said gas prices would be an important issue in Congressional races this year. 'The issue of energy and where we get it has been something that has been on people's minds,' said Steve Cochran, climate campaign director for the nonprofit Environmental Defense. 'They feel that the Congress hasn't dealt with it.' Republican incumbents Jim Gerlach, Curt Weldon and Mike Fitzpatrick - and their Democratic challengers Lois Murphy, Joe Sestak and Patrick Murphy - all echoed the tenor of the times. They said the country should shift its emphasis from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. All call for increasing fuel economy standards for motor vehicles. They have mixed opinions on using nuclear power instead of coal to generate electrical power. 'We put a man on the moon in 10 years, we should be able to wean ourselves off of foreign oil addiction in that same time frame,' said Patrick Murphy, who is running against Fitzpatrick in the Eighth District. Of course, candidates from both parties have been making that point for the the last 30 years, with little result. Weldon and Gerlach voted for the major Energy Policy Act of 2005, which offered loan guarantees for innovative technologies, gave tax credits to the owners of hybrid vehicles, and mandated a four-week extension of daylight saving time. Fitzpatrick said he voted no on the bill because it gave too much to oil and gas interests. Lois Murphy, Gerlach's challenger in the Sixth, criticized the law for giving subsidies to gas, oil and nuclear industries. 'Congress has pandered to big oil and gas interests, and as a result consumers and the environment have suffered,' she said. All of the candidates said government should promote alternatives such as wind and solar energy. Only Gerlach said, 'We need to develop our own domestic oil and natural gas supply through expanded off-shore drilling, and increase refinery capacity.' Fuel economy standards have changed little since 1985. Gasoline accounts for 45 percent of the oil used in the United States. Currently, average fuel economy standards are 27.5 miles per gallon for cars and 21.6 miles per gallon for light trucks, which include most SUVs. Some argue that raising standards too high would threaten the domestic car industry, while others warn that not doing so means the nation will just keep pumping dollars overseas. 'One of the rules of government is to set national standards of what we should be living up to,' said Cathy Duvall, the Sierra Club's national political director. Congress, she said, should be raising the bar on standards for fuel economy. Sestak, who won the Sierra Club's endorsement over Weldon in the Seventh, believes fuel economy standards for cars and eventually for light trucks should be set at 40 miles per gallon, the highest suggested by any of the six candidates. Cars should meet that goal by 2011, and light trucks by 2016, he said. Last year, Weldon, Gerlach and Fitzpatrick, who has the Sierra Club's endorsement in the Eighth District, voted for a amendment that would have increased the standards for both types of vehicles to 33 m.p.g. It was defeated by a 177-254 vote, with most Republicans voting against it and most Democrats voting for it. 'Our auto manufacturers have the technology and ability to produce automobiles that will go farther on a gallon of gas,' Fitzpatrick said, calling an increase in fuel economy standards 'a reasonable, commonsense action.' Both Fitzpatrick and his opponent, Patrick Murphy, see nuclear power as too risky an alternative to coal, which is used to generate about half of the nation's electricity. While citing concerns about nuclear energy, the others weren't as quick to write it off. 'I could be moved to [see it as an alternative to coal] if we first solve the issue of where spent fuel is going to reside,' said Sestak. 'And if we to come to an agreement that all nuclear reactors are built to one common standard.' Weldon said, 'If we are going to cut our dependence on foreign oil... the United States needs to have a variety of options on the table.' Gerlach said, 'The U.S. sits on extensive supplies of coal.... With that said, we should explore all avenues. Building a new generation of nuclear power plants should be part of the discussion.' The Sierra Club declined to endorse either candidate in the Sixth District. -------- OTHER -------- environment Deadly Waste Shipped Out of Ivory Coast to France Story by Peter Murphy REUTERS IVORY COAST : October 30, 2006 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/38714/story.htm ABIDJAN - Tonnes of deadly toxic waste which killed 10 people and made thousands ill in Ivory Coast were shipped out of the West African country in sealed containers, bound for a treatment plant in France. The poisonous chemical waste was dumped in August in open-air sites around Abidjan, economic capital of the world's top cocoa grower, after being unloaded from an oil tanker. Thousands of Abidjan residents became ill with vomiting, diarrhoea, nosebleeds and nausea and 10 died in a health scandal which created an international outcry and forced the war-divided country's cabinet to resign before a reshuffle. "I wouldn't say this is the end of it," said Safiatou Ba N'Daw, president of the government's toxic waste crisis committee as the boat sailed out of Abidjan port late on Friday. "I'd say it's more the beginning of the end now we have the first load now leaving. We're still cleaning up the soil here." More than 140 reinforced containers carrying a mixture of the waste and contaminated earth were loaded on to the French-registered Toucan container ship for a 10-day journey to Europe. A French company specialising in cleaning up hazardous waste, Tredi International, is carrying out the clean-up operation. PUNGENT ODOUR A pungent odour could be smelt emanating from the lower tier of the ship where sealed tanks were stowed. More were on the top deck. The shipment was the first of four which will deliver the waste to a treatment centre in Salaise in southeast France. The French Ecology Ministry said on Friday the chemical residue would be treated over five months from mid-November. Tredi spokesman Henri Petitgand said the company was in the final stages of the clean-up operation in Abidjan that began nearly six weeks ago. Inquiries are still under way in Ivory Coast and Europe to find out how around 500 tonnes of the oil-based waste were dumped without any health or environmental precautions after they were unloaded from a Panamanian-registered tanker, Probo Koala, chartered by Dutch-based oil trader Trafigura. Trafigura's director and West African regional chief have been detained in Abidjan and face charges under Ivorian toxic waste and poisoning laws. The company denies any wrongdoing, saying it entrusted the load to a state-registered local waste disposal company. This week a Dutch lawyer representing victims of the toxic waste demanded Trafigura pay 10 million euros (US$12.66 million) as an advance on potential future damages and said the company would face court action if it did not pay within two weeks. The lawyer, Bob van der Goen, said Trafigura should have known Ivory Coast did not have the necessary facilities to process the waste. Charles Kouakou, a docker at Abidjan port, said he was pleased to see the waste shipped out. "People were killed so I'm pleased to see it go. I want to know who allowed this to happen and for them to be punished," he said. -------- ACTIVISTS Student Protesters At Deaf School Claim Victory Monday, October 30th, 2006 Democracy Now! Headlines http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/30/1535223 Student protesters at the nation’s premier school for the deaf are proclaiming victory after the board of trustees voted to terminate the appointment of the incoming school president. Gallaudet University had been the scene of several student and faculty protests over the hiring of Jane Fernandes to head the school. In recent weeks, student protesters had taken over school buildings and staged a three-day blockade of the campus. More than 130 students were arrested in the protests. ---- Brad Will 1970-2006: Friends Remember Indymedia Journalist and Activist Killed in Oaxaca Monday, October 30th, 2006 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/30/1535239 Mourners gathered outside the Mexican consulate in New York on Saturday to pay tribute to journalist and activist Brad Will. He was shot dead in Oaxaca Mexico on Friday. He died with his camera in his hands. We speak with some of Brad's friends and colleagues who remember his lifetime of activism. [includes rush transcript] Indymedia journalist Brad Will had been covering the situation in Oaxaca for four weeks. In his last dispatch from Oaxaca, he wrote about a demonstrator named Alejandro García Hernández who was killed on the barricades. Brad wrote "one more death... one more martyr in a dirty war... one more time to cry and hurt... one more time to know power and its ugly head... one more bullet cracks the night." On Friday, Brad died at those same barricades. He had his videocamera in his hand. His camera kept recording even after he was shot. - Footage from Brad Will's camera. Brad Will died as he was being taken to the hospital. He was 36 years old. The Mexican daily El Universal has published photos of the alleged executioners. On Saturday, the mayor of Santa Lucia del Camino, Manuel Martinez Feria, said five men had been turned over to state authorities for possible involvement in the killing. He identified them as two members of the local city hall, two municipal police officers and the former justice of the peace of a nearby town. Reporters Without Borders said it was deeply shocked over the killing of Brad Will. The organization called for Oaxaca governor Ulises Ruiz to be summoned before the new prosecutor's office dealing with attacks on press freedom. It also urged federal authorities to investigate Ruiz and the Oaxaca municipal police. John Gibler joins us on the line from Oaxaca. He is an independent journalist who knew Brad Will. - John Gibler, U.S.-based journalist based in Mexico. Here in New York, demonstrators are gathering outside the Mexican Consulate at 9 a.m. this morning to protest the murder of Brad Will and the killing of other peaceful protesters in Oaxaca. Brad Will was a well-known and much loved activist and journalist in New York and around the world. He was involved in countless struggles over the past decade. Many in New York remember him standing on the roof of a squat on 5th Street in Manhattan just as the city was trying to demolish the building. The scene was captured in a documentary made by Paper Tiger Television. Brad would later play a key role in trying to protect the city's community gardens. He hosted his own radio show on the pioneering microradio station Steal This Radio. For years he was involved in the Indymedia network in New York as well as in Latin America. He spent much of the past few years documenting the people's movements in Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina and most recently Mexico. On Saturday night, an emergency rally was held outside the Mexican consulate in New York. Speakers included longtime New York activist Beka Economopoulos. - Beka Economopoulos, New York City activist speaking, October 28, 2006. Brandon Jourdan of the New York City Independent Media Center also spoke outside the Mexican Consulate. - Brandon Jourdan, New York City Independent Media Center speaking, October 28, 2006. Joinsing us in our firehouse studio are two guests who knew Brad: - Dyan Neary, was a close friend of Brad's. Together they traveled extensively through Latin America to help build Indymedia centers. - Leslie Kauffman, longtime New York activist and friend of Brad's. Since Friday hundreds of activists from around the world have paid tribute to Brad Will. Many have posted their memories on the New York City Indymedia website. On Sunday we reached one Indymedia activist in Brazil named Toya who worked closely with Brad. - Toya, Indymedia activist in Brazil. AMY GOODMAN: Indymedia journalist Brad Will had been covering the situation in Oaxaca for four weeks. In his last dispatch from Oaxaca, he wrote about a demonstrator named Alejandro Garcia Hernandez, who was killed on the barricades. Brad wrote, quote, “one more death -- one more martyr in a dirty war -- one more time to cry and hurt -- one more time to know power and its ugly head -- one more bullet cracks the night.” Well, on Friday, Brad Will died at those same barricades. He had his video camera in his hand. His camera kept recording, even after he was shot. [footage from Brad Will’s camera] AMY GOODMAN: Brad Will died as he was being taken to the hospital. He was 36 years old. The Mexican daily, El Universal, has published photos of the alleged executioners. On Saturday, the mayor of Santa Lucia del Camino, Manuel Martinez Feria, said five men had been turned over to state authorities for possible involvement in the killing. He identified them as two members of the local city hall, two municipal police officers and the former justice of the peace of a nearby town. Reporters Without Borders said it was deeply shocked over the killing of Brad Will. The organization called for Oaxaca governor Ulises Ruiz to be summoned before the new prosecutor's office dealing with attacks on press freedom. It also urged federal authorities to investigate Ortiz and the Oaxaca municipal police. John Gibler, as well, joins us on the phone from Oaxaca, an independent journalist who knew Brad Will. John Gibler, can you talk about Brad? JOHN GIBLER: I met Brad in Chiapas, when the Zapatistas’ Other Campaign began last January. We traveled together with a number of other people throughout a month, as we were filming -- or he was filming. I was mainly conducting interviews and writing for ZNet about the people, the everyday people who were coming out to join the Zapatistas’ movement there. And then I saw him in the streets about a month ago here in Oaxaca for the first time since then, and we went off to get coffee and talked about what was going on. He said he had been trying to get here more or less since the state police came in the June 14th crackdown. It had taken him time to work up enough money to come down here and take time off work. And he was most interested in filming interviews with just the everyday people and the people that he thought their voices would slip through the cracks in international media coverage and not get out to the people that he was hoping would be paying attention to what was happening here in Oaxaca. At first, he was saying he was really nervous. He didn’t want to walk around the barricades at night until he kind of got a feel for the town, which I thought was definitely very wise, and spent a couple of weeks just going out and hitting all the barricades, all the protest encampments, and conducting hours and hours of interviews with people. I saw him in several of the mobile brigades, where we joined the people who had commandeered city buses and go around to spray paint government offices. And he was definitely fearless, once he had gotten a feeling for the town, and just going wherever the action was. But he was also being smart. He was hanging out with all the national and the local press corps here who know the scene pretty well. But you can only be so smart when paramilitaries jump out of houses with machine guns. AMY GOODMAN: Gustavo Esteva, you also knew Brad Will. You also, in addition to founding the University of the Land in Oaxaca, are a columnist for La Jornada, the Mexican newspaper. GUSTAVO ESTEVA: Yes, yes. He was coming to our office. We were collaborating with Indymedia. And he was fantastic. I liked the guy a lot. He had a peculiar genius for reporting, and he was, of course, very courageous. Yes, he was prudent, as was just mentioned, but he was very courageous. He had no limits on his activity with the people, and he shared this element of being unarmed and doing his things and being attacked by these people. Yes, he had a peculiar genius for reporting. AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to go to break, and when we come back we’ll continue this discussion and also the extended struggle, why the teachers originally went out on strike five months ago. We’re talking to Gustavo Esteva. He is a columnist for La Jornada. We’re also speaking with John Gibler. He is a U.S. journalist who is based in Oaxaca, like Brad Will, who was killed on Friday at one of the barricades, shot by men who have been identified and apparently have been taken into custody. The break today is Brad Will singing. [break] AMY GOODMAN: Federal police have laid siege to the city square in Oaxaca, as of last night. We’re talking today also about one of the people who were killed over the weekend. It’s believed six people were killed. Our guests are Gustavo Esteva, columnist for La Jornada, as well as in John Gibler, a U.S.-based journalist who is in Oaxaca right now and has been reporting for us. Gustavo, can you go back and talk about why the teachers went on strike five months ago? What is the significance of this uprising that has taken place? GUSTAVO ESTEVA: Well, the question was that the teachers started their strike, as usual. Every year, they are forced to do this kind of strike to get some improvement in their terrible conditions, terrible economic condition. But that was not something special. That was the usual thing. But then, after three weeks of their strike, on June 14th, they suffered a terrible, stupid, barbaric repression by the police of Ulises Ruiz, the governor, and that was the detonator of the movement. People started to react immediately, joining and supporting, expressing solidarity with the teachers and expressing the decision to oust the governor. And then this was the detonator of the accumulated discontent of the whole state. After that, five days later, we have APPO, the creation of this Assembly of the Peoples of Oaxaca. We have a march of almost a million people. That is a third of the population of the state. We have every kind of activities after that, with -- that was the consolidation, the expression of a very well organized discontent of the people. This is a movement without leaders, in which the people themselves, very well organized, with amazing courage and amazing capacity of expressing their will. They are organized first to oust this governor, and then to change our society, to create a different kind of society. We don’t want anymore this kind -- as the woman said, we don’t want anymore this kind of repression, of corrupt government, of imposition of authoritarianism, and we want a different kind of conviviality in our lives. AMY GOODMAN: It’s interesting, Gustavo, that you said that, in fact, the federal police don't have control of the city, whether or not they’ve taken the city square. It’s certainly not what’s being reported in the U.S. press. The reports are that Vicente Fox, as a result of an American journalist being killed and others, moved in thousands of federal police to restore order to Oaxaca, and they have taken the city. GUSTAVO ESTEVA: Well, the disorder has not been created by the people. It has been created by this barbaric, psychopathic governor. You see hired killers, and you’ve seen the structures of authority, that should protect the law, to violate the law. It is not the people themselves who have created disorder in the city. That is the alibi of President Fox, using the police to support this governor in a very peculiar structure of cynicism and complicity. It is a combination that is forcing the people of Oaxaca to pay a very heavy price for a democratic, peaceful struggle. And I cannot avoid but remembering, it was Napoleon, they say, who said that “My units can be used for many things, except to sit on them.” You cannot govern or control the city with the police. The police, yes, can kill us. The police can come and occupy with all their weapons, with all their tanks. They can occupy one plaza. They can occupy one specific point, but they cannot control the city. They cannot govern the city. They cannot govern our lives and our conscience. We are in control of the city and in control of our lives. And we will surround these police with our bare hands, and we will still control our lives, not the police. AMY GOODMAN: John Gibler, this report of the five men that have been taken and that Gustavo also commented on -- on Saturday, the mayor of Santa Lucia del Camino said five men had been turned over to state authorities for the killing, identified as two members of the local city hall, two municipal police officers, the former justice of the peace of a nearby town. Just before Brad Will was killed, you did a piece on paramilitaries and death squads. Can you talk about them? JOHN GIBLER: Absolutely. It's really important to remember, and this kind of reinforces Gustavo’s point about who creates disorder in Oaxaca. Since August, paramilitary groups who have been identified in photographs have been driving through the city killing protesters at barricades, and they’ve been doing this with total impunity. The fact that they’ve claimed to have apprehended and turned over to authorities the five gunmen who were killing people on Friday is of little consolation, since they’ve had these people identified for months. And the very authorities themselves have taken steps back to actually trying to enforce the law and bring the gunmen to any kind of justice. Both the government and most of the press, especially the international press, has made much more of a fuss about protesters wearing bandannas and spray painting pretty buildings than they have about paramilitary death squads who have been driving around town, with total impunity, killing people for months. AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to turn now to the response in New York to Brad Will being killed. And also, I want to let our radio listeners know that we are broadcasting this on television, of course, as we do every day, and all of the video here is available online at democracynow.org. But in New York, demonstrators gathering outside the Mexican consulate this morning at 9:00 a.m. to protest the murder of Brad Will and the killing of other peaceful protesters in Oaxaca. Brad Will was a well-known and much loved activist and journalist in New York and around the world. He was involved in countless struggles over the past decade. Many in New York remember him standing on the roof of a squat on 5th Street in Manhattan just as New York was trying to demolish the building. The scene was captured in a documentary made by Paper Tiger Television. Brad would later play a key role in trying to protect the city's community gardens. He hosted his own radio show on the pioneering microradio station, Steal This Radio. For years he was involved in the Indymedia network in New York, as well as in Latin America. He spent much of the past few years documenting the peoples’ movements in Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, most recently Mexico. On Saturday night, an emergency rally was held outside the Mexican consulate in New York. Speakers included longtime New York activist Beka Economopoulos. BEKA ECONOMOPOULOS: Our friend Brad Will was murdered by government-backed paramilitary forces in Oaxaca, Mexico. Now Brad’s death is being used as a pretext by the government and the media to send in more of those same troops. Brad was there to support and document the resistance of teachers and other civilians. We demand that his death not be used as an excuse to increase of the oppression and violence against the people of Oaxaca by government forces. In solidarity with the people of Oaxaca, we demand that the federal government negotiate directly with people on the barricades in Oaxaca, remove all armed forces acting on behalf of the government against the people, the immediate removal of the illegitimate governor, Ruiz, all guilty parties at all levels be identified and held accountable for the assassination of Brad Will and other civilian victims in Oaxaca. We make these demands in support of the Oaxacan people’s efforts to establish a new autonomous popular government that recognizes local traditions and values. AMY GOODMAN: That was Beka Economopoulos. Brandon Jourdon of the New York City Independent Media Center also spoke outside the Mexican consulate. BRANDON JOURDON: Brad Will went to Oaxaca, because he was a firm believer in direct democracy. He went there to document what was happening amongst people there, who are trying to create a system of direct democracy. He died doing what he loved. He died with his passion, doing media activism and creating a radical alternative to the corporate media. The Independent Media Center is a network of over 160 Independent Media Centers worldwide. This developed out of the movement against corporate globalization in 1999 in Seattle. Brad was a volunteer from the very beginning. Brad was close to all of us. He will be missed. He was a wonderful, gentle, beautiful person. AMY GOODMAN: Indymedia journalist Brandon Jourdan outside the Mexican consulate. We’re joined by Dyan Neary now in our firehouse studio. She was a close friend of Brad’s. Together they traveled extensively through Latin America to help build Indymedia centers. Leslie Kauffman is also with us. She’s a longtime New York activist, a friend of Brad’s. Welcome, both, to Democracy Now! DYAN NEARY: Thank you. LESLIE KAUFFMAN: Thank you. AMY GOODMAN: Dyan, you just flew in from Hawaii. How did you hear about Brad’s death? DYAN NEARY: I was sitting alone in a park in Hilo, Hawaii, on the Big Island, where I’ve been living for the past couple months, and I got a phone call from someone named [inaudible], someone I don't even know, and he was at a Critical Mass in New York, and it was all loud behind him. And I’m like, “What’s this about?” And he told me that Brad had been hurt and that he wanted me to get in touch with his mother. And I said, “How hurt? You know, I want to be able to tell her what’s going on.” And so, he told me to call someone named Jacob, who I also didn’t know. And Jacob thought that I did know, so he just said, “Oh, yeah. It’s been confirmed: Brad’s been shot in the chest, and he’s dead.” And I was like -- I just crumbled and fell. I couldn’t move or talk or breathe or any normal human functions for hours. And I didn’t believe it. And then, everyone in the world was calling me, and I had to believe it. And really quick, just because this was really eerie, Brad and I -- Brad was a musician. He said a lot. He sang on Democracy Now! We used to sing songs together. I knew dozens of songs that he had taught me. I haven’t sung these songs in a couple years, because I always felt really self-conscious doing it without him. And that day in the park, half an hour before I found out, all of a sudden randomly I had this urge to sing as loud as I possibly could all these songs. And like five-six songs in a row that I remembered, all of a sudden all the words were coming back to me, and I thought, “Wow, I gotta go write Brad,” because he had just emailed me, and I’m like, “Oh, I gotta go write to him and let him know that for the first time in a couple years, I’m sitting here just singing these songs that he taught me.” I don't know what that was. AMY GOODMAN: Did he email you from Oaxaca? DYAN NEARY: Mm-hmm. Yes. AMY GOODMAN: What did he tell you about what was happening there? DYAN NEARY: He had told me that he was a little scared, that it was like a turning point, that this was a people's revolt, that it was a crucible, that it was inspiring to him, but that things were getting sketchy and that he didn’t even know if he was up for it, but he knew that he had to be. Brad was always putting himself in the firing line, you know, whether or not -- I mean, he knew in the back of his mind -- you know, we always knew when things were dangerous, but for him that was secondary to getting the story out and being an observer and being there and struggling and fighting and being there to bear witness to things that weren’t going to otherwise make news media and documenting this, like, very human struggles. AMY GOODMAN: Leslie Kauffman, how did you meet Brad Will? LESLIE KAUFFMAN: I met Brad during the fight to save the Chico Mendez Mural Garden in the Lower East Side, which was ultimately bulldozed in early ’98. Brad not only participated in the movement to save the gardens, he really transformed it. He had been on the West Coast working with Earth First! He had been at Redwood Summer at the Headwaters, working to save the old growth forest there. And he came back to New York, and he brought a whole series of tactics borrowed from Earth First, which really changed the face of the garden movement -- the notion of doing lockdowns and various kinds of ways to doing barricades in order to hold land as part of a nonviolent struggle. But he also brought a utopian vision, where, you know, Brad would talk about a garden as a temporary autonomous zone, not just a plot of land, not just a respite from the city, but as a place to build a model of a different kind of life and a different kind of society. And those two things had tremendous influence on the movement to save community gardens, which Brad stayed involved in for years. AMY GOODMAN: And then, his travels through Latin America. Dyan, you went to some of these places with Brad Will. DYAN NEARY: Yes. AMY GOODMAN: Where? DYAN NEARY: We went to Argentina, Ecuador, Bolivia, Peru and Brazil. We spent about three-and-a-half months in Ecuador and a few months in Argentina and Brazil. And then we passed through other places, but that’s where we spent a lot of our time on various projects. AMY GOODMAN: Since Friday, hundreds of activists from around the world have paid tribute to Brad Will. Many have posted their memories on the New York City Indymedia website. On Sunday, we reached one Indymedia activist in Brazil named Toya, who worked closely with Brad. TOYA: …met him. He was coming from a long trip around the coast of, like, South America. And he went to Ecuador and came out down the coast, you know, like he and his companion Dyan at the time, they were carrying like heavy, heavy backpacks, full of like equipment that they collected around United States. And so, they would stop, every country, like they stopped at Peru, they stopped at Bolivia, and get together with the social movements in there and other anarchist collective, Indymedia collective, and share those equipments and also knowledge. AMY GOODMAN: Toya in Brazil. Do you know her, Dyan? DYAN NEARY: Yeah. Toya was a friend of ours. It’s good to hear her voice again. I haven’t spoken to her since this, but I’ve been meaning to get in touch with her. AMY GOODMAN: And Brad’s mission in Latin America, the reason he went to Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil, Mexico? DYAN NEARY: Well, I think that he saw a spirit there that didn’t exist here. I think -- we ultimately talked about maybe moving down there for good. You know, like, he -- I mean, and afterwards I realized, like, he’s a traveler. He just always wanted to be where the action was. He really did. He wanted to be a part of that spirit, so that it filled him. And it just seemed like everywhere we went, he would always say, like, “Oh, the United States, we don't even have a culture. But here, like, their culture is so much music and food and dancing and just spirit of people.” And they have -- like everywhere, the things that we seemed to be a part of, there was a lot of, like, revolutionary spirit intrinsic to people, because when you’re oppressed on a daily basis, it’s naturally -- like the natural reaction is to rebel, and he respected that and honored it and just felt like it was necessary. And if that’s where all the action was going to be, then feeling that, then he wanted to be a part of it, you know? And he wanted to tell those stories and be a part of those struggles. And I don’t know. When we first went down to Brazil for the first time, we were in Fortaleza. It was the Inter-American Development Bank conference. And he said, “Oh, there’s going to be this big protest. I want to help plan actions, and I want to help people,” because they were asking for people to help with mobilization-type stuff. We had experience, and he just went, not to like teach people how to protest, but just kind of to be a part of that. And what we saw -- and I think this was so glaring -- was, for instance, they were pushing people out of their own communities. There were internet cafes, coffee shops and restaurants where the locals couldn’t even go. They said, “This whole zone is reserved for people who are part of this conference.” And we were both floored. We were like, “So, you live here, but now you can’t go” -- like, these kids were saying that they were being kicked off their own beach so they could build a hotel, so they were like bulldozing all these houses that people had built with their own hands twenty years ago from these beaches in Fortaleza, Brazil, this beautiful tropical place, to make it a tourist resort. So, also it’s about, like, the earth and preserving these beautiful places throughout South America, many of which we visited and just realizing they were going to become resorts or whatever it was, because of American -- AMY GOODMAN: Dyan Neary and Leslie Kauffman, we’re going to go to break, which is again Brad Will singing, and then we’ll return, and we’ll also continue talking with our guests in Oaxaca.