NucNews January 13, 2007 -------- NUCLEAR Doomsday clock to move closer to nuclear Armageddon CHICAGO (AFP) Jan 13, 2007 http://www.spacewar.com/2006/070113022551.7agiv5qv.html The world is inching closer to nuclear Armageddon, a group of prominent scientists and security experts said Friday. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has kept a Doomsday clock since 1947 as a reminder of the dangers of nuclear proliferation. The clock will be moved forward Wednesday at simultaneous events in Washington and London whose speakers will include physicist Stephen Hawking, the Chicago-based periodical said in a statement. The Bulletin warned that the world had entered a "Second Nuclear Age marked by grave threats." It cited the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea; escalating terrorism; unsecured nuclear materials in Russia and elsewhere, the continuing "launch-ready" status of 2,000 of the 25,000 nuclear weapons held by the United States and Russia, and "new pressure from climate change for expanded civilian nuclear power that could increase proliferation risks." First set at seven minutes to midnight -- a phrase that has become part of pop culture -- the clock has been moved 17 times in response to global events. The most recent shift was in 2002 when it moved two minutes forward because the United States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and terrorists were known to be seeking nuclear and biological weapons. It currently stands once again at seven minutes to midnight, the closest to danger since the end of the Cold War. Founded in 1945 by scientists who had helped develop the atomic bomb and were deeply concerned about the use of nuclear weapons, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists counts 17 Nobel laureates among its boards of directors and sponsors. Here are the dates and reasons for previous changes: - 2002: Seven minutes to midnight The United States rejects a series of arms control treaties and announces it will withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Terrorists seek to acquire and use nuclear and biological weapons. - 1998: Nine minutes to midnight India and Pakistan "go public" with nuclear tests. The United States and Russia cannot agree on further deep reductions in their nuclear stockpiles. - 1995: Fourteen minutes to midnight Further arms reductions stall while global military spending continues at Cold War levels. Risks of nuclear "leakage" from poorly guarded former Soviet facilities increase. - 1991: Seventeen minutes to midnight The United States and the Soviet Union sign the long-stalled Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) and announce further unilateral cuts in tactical and strategic nuclear weapons. - 1990: Ten minutes to midnight The Cold War ends as the Iron Curtain falls. - 1988: Six minutes to midnight The United States and the Soviet Union sign a treaty to eliminate intermediate-range nuclear forces; superpower relations improve; more nations actively oppose nuclear weapons. - 1984: Three minutes to midnight The arms race accelerates. - 1981: Four minutes to midnight Both superpowers develop more weapons for fighting a nuclear war. Terrorist actions, repression of human rights, and conflicts in Afghanistan, Poland and South Africa add to world tension. - 1980: Seven minutes to midnight The deadlock in US-Soviet arms talks continues; nationalistic wars and terrorist actions increase; the gulf between rich and poor nations grows wider. - 1974: Nine minutes to midnight SALT talks reach an impasse; India develops a nuclear weapon. - 1972: Twelve minutes to midnight The United States and the Soviet Union sign the first Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. - 1969: Ten minutes to midnight The US Senate ratifies the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. - 1968: Seven minutes to midnight France and China acquire nuclear weapons; wars rage in the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent, and Vietnam; world military spending increases while development funds shrink. - 1963: Twelve minutes to midnight The US and Soviet signing of the Partial Test Ban Treaty "provides the first tangible confirmation of what has been the Bulletin's conviction in recent years -- that a new cohesive force has entered the interplay of forces shaping the fate of mankind." - 1960: Seven minutes to midnight Growing public understanding that nuclear weapons made war between the major powers irrational amid greater international scientific cooperation and efforts to aid poor nations. - 1953: Two minutes to midnight The United States and the Soviet Union test thermonuclear devices within nine months of one another. - 1949: Three minutes to midnight The Soviet Union explodes its first atomic bomb. - 1947: Seven minutes to midnight The clock first appears on the Bulletin cover as a symbol of nuclear danger. -------- business Uranium 2007: The Year of the Price Hiccup, asks StockInterview Mining News, January 13, 2007 http://paguntaka.org/2007/01/13/uranium-2007-the-year-of-the-price-hiccup-asks-stockinterview/ Will spot uranium’s momentous price rise stall in 2007, or ‘hiccup’ as StockInterview’s Senior Editor James Finch writes? He cautions investors to consider the risks of Russian-enriched uranium and speculative carrying costs during the race for $100/pound uranium. “There should be fireworks through 2007 as the uranium price approaches and probably crosses the $100/pound threshold, perhaps as early as late spring,” StockInterview Senior Editor James Finch wrote. But, Finch also advised there may not be as much upside left to the uranium price. Finch warned of new Russian-enriched uranium supplying panicked U.S. utilities with nuclear fuel, “The hiccup in uranium’s price rise could come with the U.S. Commerce Department settlement with Russia ’s Tekhsnabexport.” Finch also cautioned of the large quantity of physical uranium that speculators have been hoarding. According to Treva Klingbiel, editor of TradeTech’s Nuclear Market Review, which first publishes the weekly spot uranium price on Fridays, “Speculators are holding about 24 million pounds of U3O8 equivalent.” Finch warned speculators may need to unload the quantity of uranium which they accumulated before and during the near doubling of the spot uranium price during 2006. Finch wrote, “The loan rate for uranium has also jumped since the year 2000. According to TradeTech’s Loan Rate for uranium purchases the carrying cost is the highest since September 1978. It is one-half-percent lower than the peak months of 1974.” http://www.uranium.info/prices/loanrate.html In the second article of a two-part series, entitled, “Russia, Speculators to Dictate Future Price Swings in Uranium Price,” StockInterview Senior Editor James Finch examines the hurdles the uranium price might face on its race to the century level. The second part of a two-part series can be read at: http://www.stockinterview.com/News/01102007/Future-Uranium-Price-Swings.html About StockInterview.com Stockinterview.com is an online news service, which provides investigative reporting, editorial, analysis and provocative commentary of the nuclear fuel cycle, uranium mining, nuclear power, the environment and the natural resource industry. StockInterview.com has rapidly become the most popular website on uranium mining stocks and is now widely followed as a result of its publication, “Investing in the Great Uranium Bull Market: A Practical Investor’s Guide to Uranium Stocks.” The 304-page trade softcover edition of “Investing in the Great Uranium Bull Market,” is available online by visiting: http://bookstore.stockinterview.com/ Contact: Julie Ickes Editor, StockInterview.com Telephone: 1+ 941-929-1640 http://www.stockinterview.com -------- canada Dion dismisses nuclear power in oilsands extraction Jason Fekete, CanWest News Service; Saturday, January 13, 2007 Calgary Herald jfekete@theherald.canwest.com http://www.canada.com/montreal/news/story.html?id=b82cb455-9a3f-472a-a585-affa59168642&k=23241 CALGARY -- Federal Liberal Leader Stephane Dion threw cold water Friday on using nuclear energy to extract bitumen from the Alberta oilsands. Speaking Friday to the Calgary Herald editorial board, Dion acknowledged nuclear is part of the "energy mix" in Canada, but doesn't believe it's a viable option for use in Alberta's oilsands due to lingering concerns about whether its waste can be safely disposed. "I have no power to stop a province to do that. It's provincial jurisdiction," Dion said. "I am concerned about the waste and I don't hide my concerns." The debate over nuclear power in Alberta has heated up in recent months as industry and government look for ways to reduce the use of natural gas and slash greenhouse gas emissions from the Athabasca oilsands -- a major contributor to carbon dioxide emissions in Canada. Enormous amounts of gas are used in the heating and extraction of tar-like bitumen, and oilsands output generates significantly more carbon dioxide than conventional crude production. A nuclear plant would be used to produce electricity and generate steam that would be pumped underground to help melt the bitumen for easier extraction. However, exact construction costs are unknown -- some estimates peg it at $4 billion -- and significant technical and political hurdles must be cleared before a nuclear plant in the oilsands could proceed. Earlier this week, Husky Energy CEO John Lau said his company is studying nuclear energy for its future oilsands developments in northern Alberta. But new provincial Environment Minister Rob Renner said he's skeptical about nuclear energy in the oilsands, including concerns over how to dispose of its waste. "We obviously have no experience with it in Alberta," Renner told the Herald this week. "It's worth looking at, but I think it's a very long-term solution." Environmental groups also are opposed. "It's the farthest thing from clean energy. It's pretty much a toxic energy," said Marlo Raynolds, executive director of the Alberta-based Pembina Institute. Raynolds doubts the economic viability of a nuclear facility and said it could make the oilsands potentially a larger terrorist target. -------- depleted uranium The Anti-Empire Report Some things you need to know before the world ends - Johnny got his gun PDF Print E-mail Saturday, 13 January 2007 by William Blum Atlantic Free Press http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/665/32/ In the past year Iran has issued several warnings to the United States about the consequences of an American or Israeli attack. One statement, issued in November by a high Iranian military official, declared: "If America attacks Iran, its 200,000 troops and 33 bases in the region will be extremely vulnerable, and both American politicians and military commanders are aware of it."[1] Iran apparently believes that American leaders would be so deeply distressed by the prospect of their young men and women being endangered and possibly killed that they would forswear any reckless attacks on Iran. As if American leaders have been deeply stabbed by pain about throwing youthful American bodies into the bottomless snakepit called Iraq, or were restrained by fear of retaliation or by moral qualms while feeding 58,000 young lives to the Vietnam beast. As if American leaders, like all world leaders, have ever had such concerns. Let's have a short look at some modern American history, which may be instructive in this regard. A report of the US Congress in 1994 informed us that: Approximately 60,000 military personnel were used as human subjects in the 1940s to test two chemical agents, mustard gas and lewisite [blister gas]. Most of these subjects were not informed of the nature of the experiments and never received medical followup after their participation in the research. Additionally, some of these human subjects were threatened with imprisonment at Fort Leavenworth if they discussed these experiments with anyone, including their wives, parents, and family doctors. For decades, the Pentagon denied that the research had taken place, resulting in decades of suffering for many veterans who became ill after the secret testing.[2] In the decades between the 1940s and 1990s, we find a remarkable variety of government programs, either formally, or in effect, using soldiers as guinea pigs — marched to nuclear explosion sites, with pilots sent through the mushroom clouds; subjected to chemical and biological weapons experiments; radiation experiments; behavior modification experiments that washed their brains with LSD; widespread exposure to the highly toxic dioxin of Agent Orange in Korea and Vietnam ... the list goes on ... literally millions of experimental subjects, seldom given a choice or adequate information, often with disastrous effects to their physical and/or mental health, rarely with proper medical care or even monitoring.[3] In the 1990s, many thousands of American soldiers came home from the Gulf War with unusual, debilitating ailments. Exposure to harmful chemical or biological agents was suspected, but the Pentagon denied that this had occurred. Years went by while the veterans suffered terribly: neurological problems, chronic fatigue, skin problems, scarred lungs, memory loss, muscle and joint pain, severe headaches, personality changes, passing out, and much more. Eventually, the Pentagon, inch by inch, was forced to move away from its denials and admit that, yes, chemical weapon depots had been bombed; then, yes, there probably were releases of deadly poisons; then, yes, American soldiers were indeed in the vicinity of these poisonous releases, 400 soldiers; then, it might have been 5,000; then, "a very large number", probably more than 15,000; then, finally, a precise number — 20,867; then, "The Pentagon announced that a long-awaited computer model estimates that nearly 100,000 U.S. soldiers could have been exposed to trace amounts of sarin gas."[4] If the Pentagon had been much more forthcoming from the outset about what it knew all along about these various substances and weapons, the soldiers might have had a proper diagnosis early on and received appropriate care sooner. The cost in terms of human suffering has been incalculable. Soldiers have also been forced to take vaccines against anthrax and nerve gas not approved by the FDA as safe and effective; and punished, sometimes treated like criminals, if they refused. (During World War II, soldiers were forced to take a yellow fever vaccine, with the result that some 330,000 of them were infected with the hepatitis B virus.[5]) And through all the recent wars, countless American soldiers have been put in close proximity to the radioactive dust of exploded depleted uranium-tipped shells and missiles on the battlefield; depleted uranium has been associated with a long list of rare and terrible illnesses and birth defects. It poisons the air, the soil, the water, the lungs, the blood, and the genes. (The widespread dissemination of depleted uranium by American warfare — from Serbia to Afghanistan to Iraq — should be an international scandal and crisis, like AIDS, and would be in a world not so intimidated by the United States.) The catalogue of Pentagon abuses of American soldiers goes on ... Troops serving in Iraq or their families have reported purchasing with their own funds bullet-proof vests, better armor for their vehicles, medical supplies, and global positioning devices, all for their own safety, which were not provided to them by the army ... Continuous complaints by servicewomen of sexual assault and rape at the hands of their male counterparts are routinely played down or ignored by the military brass ... Numerous injured and disabled vets from all wars have to engage in an ongoing struggle to get the medical care they were promised ... One should read "Army Acts to Curb Abuses of Injured Recruits" (New York Times, May 12, 2006) for accounts of the callous, bordering on sadistic, treatment of soldiers in bases in the United States ... Repeated tours of duty, which fracture family life and increase the chance not only of death or injury but of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).[6] National Public Radio's "All Things Considered", on December 4 and other days, ran a series on· Army mistreatment of soldiers home from Iraq and suffering serious PTSD. At Colorado's Ft. Carson these afflicted soldiers are receiving a variety of abuse and punishment much more than the help they need, as officers harass and punish them for being emotionally "weak." Keep the above in mind the next time you hear a president or a general speaking on Memorial Day about "honor" and "duty" and about how much we "owe to the brave young men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the cause of freedom and democracy." And read "Johnny Got His Gun" by Dalton Trumbo for the ultimate abuse of soldiers by leaders of nations. The conscience of our leaders After he ordered the bombing of Panama in December 1989, which killed anywhere from 500 to a few thousand totally innocent people, guilty of no harm to any American, the first President George Bush declared that his "heart goes out to the families of those who have died in Panama".[7] When asked by a reporter: "Was it really worth it to send people to their death for this? To get Noriega?", Bush replied: "Every human life is precious, and yet I have to answer, yes, it has been worth it."[8] Speaking in November 1990 of his imminent invasion of Iraq, Bush, Sr. said: "People say to me: 'How many lives? How many lives can you expend?' Each one is precious."[9] While his killing of thousands of Iraqis was proceeding merrily along in 2003, the second President George Bush was moved to say: "We believe in the value and dignity of every human life."[10] In December 2006, the White House spokesman for Bush, Jr., commenting about American deaths reaching 3,000 in Iraq, said President Bush "believes that every life is precious and grieves for each one that is lost."[11] Both father and son are on record expressing their deep concern for God and prayer both before and during their mass slaughters. "I trust God speaks through me," said Bush the younger in 2004. "Without that, I couldn't do my job."[12] After his devastation of Iraq and its people, Bush the elder said: "I think that, like a lot of others who had positions of responsibility in sending someone else's kids to war, we realize that in prayer what mattered is how it might have seemed to God."[13] God, one surmises, might have asked George Bush, father and son, about the kids of Iraq. And the adults. And, in a testy, rather ungodlike manner, might have snapped: "So stop wasting all the precious lives already!" In the now-famous exchange on TV in 1996 between Madeleine Albright and reporter Lesley Stahl, the latter was speaking of US sanctions against Iraq, and asked the then-US ambassador to the UN, and Secretary of State-to-be: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And — and you know, is the price worth it?" Replied Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price — we think the price is worth it."[14] Ten years later, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, continuing the fine tradition of female Secretaries of State and the equally noble heritage of the Bush family, declared that the current horror in Iraq is "worth the investment" in American lives and dollars.[15] And do not forget that pulling out of Iraq now would dishonor the troops who haven't died yet. The American media as the Berlin Wall In December 1975, while East Timor, which lies at the eastern end of the Indonesian archipelago, was undergoing a process of decolonization from Portugal, a struggle for power took place. A movement of the left, Fretilin, prevailed and then declared East Timor's independence from Portugal. Nine days later, Indonesia invaded East Timor. The invasion was launched the day after US President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had left Indonesia after giving President Suharto permission to use American arms, which, under US law, could not be used for aggression. But Indonesia was Washington's most valuable ally in Southeast Asia and, in any event, the United States was not inclined to look kindly on any government of the left. Indonesia soon achieved complete control over East Timor, with the help of the American arms and other military aid, as well as diplomatic support at the UN. Amnesty International estimated that by 1989, Indonesian troops had killed 200,000 people out of a population of between 600,000 and 700,000, a death rate which is probably one of the highest in the entire history of wars.[16] Is it not remarkable that in the numerous articles in the American daily press following President Ford's death last month, there was not a single mention of his role in the East Timor massacre? A search of the extensive Lexis-Nexis and other media databases finds mention of this only in a few letters to the editor from readers; not a word even in the reports of any of the news agencies, like the Associated Press, which generally shy away from controversy less than the newspapers they serve; nor a single mention in the mainstream broadcast news programs. Imagine if following the recent death of Augusto Pinochet the media made no mention of his overthrow of the Allende government in Chile, or the mass murder and torture which followed. Ironically, the recent articles about Ford also failed to mention his remark a year after Pinochet's coup. President Ford declared that what the United States had done in Chile was "in the best interest of the people in Chile and certainly in our own best interest."[17] During the Cold War, the American government and media never missed an opportunity to point out the news events embarrassing to the Soviet Union which became non-events in the communist media. Man shall never fly The Cold War is still with us. Because the ideological conflict that was the basis for it has not gone away. Because it can't go away. As long as capitalism exists, as long as it puts profit before people, as it must, as long as it puts profit before the environment, as it must, those on the receiving end of its sharp pointed stick must look for a better way. Thus it is that when Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez announced a few days ago that he plans to nationalize telephone and electric utility companies to accelerate his "socialist revolution", the spokesperson for Capitalism Central, White House press secretary Tony Snow, was quick to the attack: "Nationalization has a long and inglorious history of failure around the world," Snow declared. "We support the Venezuelan people and think this is an unhappy day for them."[18] Snow presumably buys into the belief that capitalism defeated socialism in the Cold War. A victory for a superior idea. The boys of Capital chortle in their martinis about the death of socialism. The word has been banned from polite conversation. And they hope that no one will notice that every socialist experiment of any significance in the past century has either been corrupted, subverted, perverted, or destabilized ... or crushed, overthrown, bombed, or invaded ... or otherwise had life made impossible for it, by the United States. Not one socialist government or movement — from the Russian Revolution to Cuba, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and the FMLN in Salvador, from Communist China to Grenada, Chile and Vietnam — not one was permitted to rise or fall solely on its own merits; not one was left secure enough to drop its guard against the all-powerful enemy abroad and freely and fully relax control at home. Even many plain old social democracies — such as in Guatemala, Iran, British Guiana, Serbia and Haiti, which were not in love with capitalism and were looking for another path — even these too were made to bite the dust by Uncle Sam. It's as if the Wright brothers' first experiments with flying machines all failed because the automobile interests sabotaged each test flight. And then the good and god-fearing folk of America looked upon this, took notice of the consequences, nodded their collective heads wisely, and intoned solemnly: Man shall never fly. Tony Snow would have us believe that the government is no match for the private sector in efficiently getting large and important things done. But is that really true? Let's clear our minds for a moment, push our upbringing to one side, and remember that the American government has landed men on the moon, created great dams, marvelous national parks, an interstate highway system, the peace corps, built up an incredible military machine (ignoring for the moment what it's used for), student loans, social security, Medicare, insurance for bank deposits, protection of pension funds against corporate misuse, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institutes of Health, the Smithsonian, the G.I. Bill, and much, much more. In short, the government has been quite good at doing what it wanted to do, or what labor and other movements have made it do, like establishing worker health and safety standards and requiring food manufacturers to list detailed information about ingredients. When George W. took office one of his chief goals was to examine whether jobs done by federal employees could be performed more efficiently by private contractors. Bush called it his top management priority. By the end of 2005, 50,000 government jobs had been studied. And federal workers had won the job competitions more than 80 percent of the time.[19] We have to remind the American people of what they've instinctively learned but tend to forget when faced with statements like that of Tony Snow — that they don't want more government, or less government; they don't want big government, or small government; they want government on their side. And by the way, Tony, the great majority of the population in the last years of the Soviet Union had a much better quality of life, including a longer life, under their "failed nationalized" economy, than they have had under unbridled capitalism. None of the above, of course, will deter The World's Only Superpower from continuing its jihad to impose capitalist fundamentalism upon the world. Unwelcome guests at the table of the respectable folk Sen. Joseph Biden, Democrat from Delaware, the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has announced four weeks of hearings focused on every aspect of US policy in Iraq. He really wants to get to the bottom of things, find out how and why things went so wrong, who are the ones responsible, hold them accountable, and what can be done now. The committee will hear the testimony of top political, economic and intelligence experts, foreign diplomats, and former and current senior US officials, like Condoleezza Rice, Brent Scowcroft, Samuel Berger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright and George Shultz.[20] All the usual suspects. But why not call upon some unusual suspects? Why do congressional committees and committees appointed by the White House typically not call experts who dissent from the official explanations? Why not hear from people who had the wisdom to protest the invasion of Iraq and condemn it in writing before it even began? People who called the war illegal and immoral, said we should never start it, and predicted much of the horrible outcome. Surely they may have some insights and analyses that will not be heard from the mouths of the usual suspects. Likewise, why didn't the September 11 Committee, or any of the congressional committees dealing with the terrorist attack, call upon any of the numerous 9-11 experts who have done extensive research and who question various aspects of the official story? Traditionally, of course, such committees have been formed to put a damper on dissident questioning of official stories, to ridicule them as "conspiracy theorists", not to give the dissidents a larger audience. Speaking engagements January 25 — Flagstaff, AZ March 9 — Venice, CA March 10 — Irvine, CA March 17 or 18 — Columbus, OH See www.killinghope.org for the details NOTES [1] Fars News Agency, November 21, 2006 [2] Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, "Is Military Research Hazardous to Veterans' Health? Lessons Spanning Half a Century", December 8, 1994, p.5 [3] Ibid., passim [4] Washington Post, October 2 and 23, 1996 and July 31, 1997 for the estimated numbers of affected soldiers. [5] "Journal of the American Medical Association", September 1, 1999, p.822 [6] Washington Post, December 20, 2006, p.19 [7] New York Times, December 22, 1989, p.17 [8] New York Times, December 22, 1989, p.16 [9] Los Angeles Times, December 1, 1990, p.1 [10] Washington Post, May 28, 2003 [11] Washington Post, January 1, 2007, p.1 [12] Washington Post, July 20, 2004, p.15, statement attributed to President Bush in the Lancaster (Pa.) New Era newspaper from a private meeting with Amish families on July 9. The White House later said Bush said no such thing. Yes, we know how the Amish lie. [13] Los Angeles Times, June 7, 1991, p.1 [14] CBS "60 Minutes", May 12, 1996 [15] Associated Press, December 22, 2006 [16] National Security Archive — www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/ — Search ; William Blum, Rogue State, p.188-9 [17] New York Times, September 17, 1974, p.22 [18] Washington Post, January 10, 2007, p.7 [19] Washington Post, March 23, 2006, p.21 [20] Washington Post, January 5, 2007 William Blum's Speaking engagements 2007 January 25 -- Flagstaff, AZ March 9 -- Venice, CA March 10 -- Irvine, CA March 17 or 18 -- Columbus, OH ---- Site 300 test threat Tracy Press/ Saturday, 13 January 2007 http://tracypress.com/content/view/7024/2/ EDITOR, Those of us who’ve lived in the rural area southwest of Tracy since the 1970s have known when underground detonations at Site 300 have gone off as windows shudder and millions of tiny fissures appear on the stucco exteriors of our houses. The reason the Royster Tire fire of 1998 was not extinguished was because allowing the fire to smolder and eventually burn itself out would be safer as the ground would harden underneath (the kiln effect), thus not allowing toxic oil by-products to seep into the groundwater table. The new owner who bought the Royster property under a distressed value faces the possibility that such harmful by-products did leech into the aquifer, similar to what happened to tritium, the underground detonation residue from Site 300. Meanwhile, three of my immediate neighbors have died from a cancer-related illness. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory admits that depleted uranium in aerosol form might accompany new Site 300 explosive testing. What obscure national agency is going to be held accountable for posing a threat to the health and safety of persons or property in and around these test sites “Oh fear not ye’ of frail heart,” you may wish to hold on to your wallet instead, for it is we who will suffer the inequities of someone else’s negligence. -------- europe EU breathes sigh of relief over Belarus-Russia energy accord Sat Jan 13, 2007 (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070113/ts_afp/russiabelarusenergyeu_070113215340 BRUSSELS - The European Union breathed a sigh of relief after Russia and Belarus ended a row over oil trading arrangements that cut Russian supplies to Europe earlier this week. "I welcome the agreement reached between Russia and Belarus. This is good news for both countries and for the European Union," EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said in Brussels. "I have been in touch with both sides during the negotiations and encouraged them to find an early solution that would avoid a negative impact on oil supplies to the European Union." The agreement, which straddles several aspects of the countries' complex oil trading arrangements, will see Minsk pay a tax of 53 dollars (41 euros) per tonne of oil that it imports from Russia. Belarus will also pay Russia a tariff on exports of oil products made in Belarussian refineries using Russian oil. The import tax was well below the 180 dollars originally demanded by Russia after Belarus attempted to impose a 45-dollar-per-tonne tax on oil crossing its territory from Russia to Europe. European jitters over the reliability of Russian energy supplies were exacerbated on Monday when the row led to the closure of the Droujba pipeline, the main channel for Russian oil flowing to the EU. Supplies were disrupted for three days. Solana said that despite the new accord between Russia and Belarus, questions remained over Europe's energy supply arrangements with Moscow. "The interruption of oil supplies, which affected several EU member states, points to the need for a better understanding between the European Union and Russia on the basic principles of a future energy partnership," he said. Russia and Belarus have welcomed the deal as a "balanced" solution to their dispute. Belarussian Deputy Prime Minister Andrei Kobykov said the deal inked Friday was a "civilised way to resolve the dispute," while Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov said it satisfied the "interests of both countries". -------- india Synchronised talks needed to seal N-deal Rajeev Deshpande 13 Jan, 2007 IST TIMES NEWS NETWORK http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/India/Synchronised_talks_needed_to_seal_\N-deal/articleshow/1162037.cms NEW DELHI: A complex interplay of events spanning four continents needs to fall in place before a new nuclear dawn ushers India into a reworked atomic order. Negotiations with the US have to proceed in tandem with India-specific IAEA safeguards and a key Nuclear Suppliers Group exception. As things stand, this is how the deal has to move over the next few months: To begin with, India and US have to sort out differences over issues like re-processing spent fuel and New Delhi’s insistence not to bind itself to a bilateral no-test clause. All this will be part of the 123 Agreement. But even as US and India stay engaged in 123 talks, India has to persuade all 45 members of the NSG to give New Delhi a "waiver", on the lines provided by the US Congress, to allow civil nuclear cooperation. This waiver will have to be approved by the NSG plenary when it meets in South Africa in April. The NSG waiver now under negotiation is very different from the draft that US had provided to the group. NSG, which includes five recognised nuclear powers, and other exporters of fuel and technology, is considering a focussed statement. This is about cooperation with India despite it having tested and being outside NPT. And despite India not accepting full-scope safeguards and not giving up its weapons programme. This is an extraordinary "exception" as India will not put all its nuclear reactors under safeguards while continuing to develop its weapons programme. This is what the civil-nuclear separation plan arrived at with US is all about: demarcating military facilities by 2014. The third, and perhaps most critical, theatre of negotiations is with IAEA at Vienna. Here, yet another piece of nuclear history is in the making as safeguards for a nation that is not a recognised weapons state or a member of either NPT or NSG has never been previously attempted. This, alongwith the additional protocol also being discussed with IAEA, marks a first. The India-specific safeguards are important. If US and India successfully conclude the 123 Agreement, it will have to go back to Congress which will want to know the nature of the safeguards that have been devised for India. Similarly, before NSG finally grants an exception for India, it would want the protocol and safeguards tied up. All this is also contingent on some political consideration. US President will have to ignore terms of the Hyde Act which critics in India have claimed will cap the nuclear programme. The Manmohan Singh government will have to build sufficient national consensus over the deal to make its efforts appear more creditable. While choreographing events, even as a host of variables have to be accounted for and may seem difficult, Indian negotiators appear confident that the deal can be clinched. The benefits, they argue, are well worth the effort. -------- security A Call for Station Guards January 13, 2007 CBS21 http://www.whptv.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=96ddc42a-dbfe-407f-8ec6-5fb8daa9c829 The Federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission plans to ask for public comment on a petition to require nuclear power plants to station guards at plant entrances. The watchdog group Three Mile Island Alert says terrorists may try to attack nuclear plants if they perceive an unmanned gate as a sign of weakness. Three Mile Island has increased security since 9/11 with concrete barriers, more officers, and guard towers. But armed guards are not located at the entrance, they're posted a few hundred yards inside. ---- Anti-nuclear crowd questions plant safety from airliner attack By: PAUL SISSON - Staff Writer January 13, 2007 North Coast Times http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/01/13/news/coastal/21_38_471_12_07.txt OCEANSIDE ---- A recent letter calling for new nuclear plants to be designed with potential attacks from commercial airliners in mind has caused the anti-nuclear activist community to ask fresh questions about the safety of the nation's 101 existing nuclear plants, including the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station north of Oceanside. Rochelle Becker, a founding member of the California-based Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility activist group, said she believes that the nuclear industry's call for new plant design guidelines to consider commercial aircraft attack is an admission ---- whether intentional or unintentional ---- that current plants are vulnerable. "That's what the public has been saying for six years since (the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks)," Becker said. She said the alliance, and other national anti-nuclear groups, will compare notes in a conference call Wednesday and will determine whether to file a fresh request with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, calling for better protection against intentional commercial airliner attacks. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has rebuffed previous proposals from anti-nuclear activist organizations calling for a range of safety enhancements, including the suggestion to shield each plant with a giant steel cage. Representatives from both the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear industry's lobbying arm which wrote the letter that has riled the anti-nuclear community, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the federal agency in charge of making sure plants are safe, said they disagree with any attempt to link the design process for new plants with safety at existing plants. Tony Pietrangelo, vice president for regulatory affairs at the energy institute, said the letter, mailed to nuclear regulators Dec. 8, was simply meant to make sure that all potential security threats are considered during new plants' design phases, not after the fact ---- such as what was done at existing plants in the wake of 9/11. Pietrangelo said the institute harbors no uncertainties about existing plants' abilities to withstand a direct strike from a commercial airliner. "I think we convinced ourselves that the containment buildings and the fuel pools are adequate," he said. Becker said she and many others see the fuel pools as the weak link in most reactor systems. Each of San Onofre's two operating reactors has a 45-foot-deep pool that stores hundreds of highly radioactive spent uranium fuel assemblies. According to Southern California Edison, the assemblies must be stored under water for seven to 10 years before they are cool enough to be moved to dry storage in nearby concrete vaults near the plant's twin containment domes. Though today Edison will not specify the exact dimensions of San Onofre's spent-fuel pools, the company told the North County Times in 2002 that they are below ground. Company spokesman Ray Golden said the pools are surrounded by a reinforced concrete wall that is "several feet thick" and that those walls are capped by a concrete roof of similar heft. Golden added that the pools are tucked between the plant's tall containment domes and its metal electrical distribution lines, making a direct plane strike more difficult. Golden said that Edison has conducted its own technical review of the pools and is confident they could withstand a direct hit from a commercial airliner. Scott Burnell, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, dismissed any attempt to link new plant design guidelines to existing plant security as tenuous at best. He said that the commission's governing board has long shied away from addressing attacks from commercial aircraft in its official design guidelines, because defending from such a threat requires more resources than a private plant owner could muster. "The commission has repeatedly said that commercial aircraft are outside the realm that a private facility should be required to defend against," Burnell said. He added that the commission believes, like Edison and the nuclear institute, that the nation's plants can withstand the large explosions and fires that such a strike could generate. Contact staff writer Paul Sisson at (760) 901-4087 or psisson@nctimes.com. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- washington Low-level waste landfill records falsified Published Saturday, January 13th, 2007 By Annette Cary, Tri-City Herald staff writer http://www.tri-cityherald.com/tch/local/story/8558225p-8451749c.html A Hanford subcontractor discovered Friday that data related to the long-term integrity of the nuclear reservation's low-level radioactive waste landfill had been falsified. "This has everyone's attention," said Pat Pettiette, president of contractor Washington Closure Hanford. "All the focus is on getting to the bottom of it." S.M. Stoller, which holds the subcontract to operate the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, or ERDF, found the problem during a routine audit. After contaminated soil and building debris from the cleanup of Hanford is added to the landfill, bulldozers are used to compact it with different standards followed for different types of material. That ensures that once the landfill is closed and an engineered cap is placed on the top to make sure water does not infiltrate contaminated waste, the cap remains secure. If compaction is not adequate, settling can occur that disturbs the cap. Bulldozers run nearly continuously at the landfill, and at least once per shift a technician goes in with instruments to test compaction and confirm that it is adequate. But Stoller officials noticed that one worker recorded results for compaction tests when there was no record of the worker entering the contamination area where he would have needed to be to perform the tests. When questioned, the employee admitted to making entries for data without performing the test on some occasions over the last year, said Jeff James, director of waste operations for Washington Closure. In recent months another employee has been doing most of the compaction tests. The employee who admitted to entering false data no longer works for Stoller, said Jim Archibald, Stoller vice president. Stoller has evaluated whether there is other data that employee was responsible for that could compromise the landfill and determined the compaction tests were the only problem, Archibald said. An investigation is continuing. Among unanswered questions is the extent of falsified tests. The Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates the landfill, was notified of the problem Friday but does not know enough yet to draw conclusions on any long-term effects, said Nick Ceto, EPA Hanford project manager. "It does raise concerns about the operation," he said. The Department of Energy also is continuing to evaluate the problem, said DOE spokeswoman Karen Lutz. Until Washington Closure knows more, "we have to expect the worst," Pettiette said. But because the compaction methods are sound, odds of a problem with the compaction are low, he said. "I fundamentally believe in the integrity of the landfill," he said. Thousands of compaction tests have been done at ERDF over the last decade and only a handful have showed that compaction was inadequate, James said. In most of those cases, another pass by a bulldozer solved the problem, he said. Some of the areas of the landfill where compaction data is suspected of being falsified have not had more waste piled on top yet. Checks will be done on those areas. Monday, Stoller plans a stand down at the landfill to emphasize the importance of following requirements, although some limited work may be done that day, Archibald said. Both he and the Stoller president plan to come to Hanford for the stand down. Pettiette said work wouldnot resume until Washington Closure and Stoller are confident there will not be a problem going forward. Almost all the waste Washington Closure is removing from the 300 Area just north of Richland and from old nuclear reactor sites along the Columbia River is buried at ERDF in central Hanford. It's tearing down buildings, digging up burial grounds and digging up dirt contaminated from the past production of plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons program. -------- MILITARY -------- afghanistan Afghanistan a source of worry Sen. Clinton says more troops needed to fight Taliban, not in Iraq By Julian E. Barnes and Peter Spiegel Los Angeles Times Staff Writers January 13, 2007 http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-gates13jan13,0,1105223.story?coll=la-home-headlines http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/sf/latimes198.htm WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates expressed deep concern Friday over the stability of Afghanistan, and a top U.S. military official said additional troops might be needed to strengthen the government in Kabul, which is under growing pressure from Taliban forces. Gates plans to travel soon to the region to look for ways to aid the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Speaking to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Gates appeared worried by the rising violence in Afghanistan, where military commanders have warned that the spring thaw may bring one of the most brutal fighting seasons since the 2001 U.S. invasion. "We mustn't let this one slip out of our attention and, where we have had a victory, put it at risk," Gates told senators in describing his upcoming trip. "One of the things that I am focused on particularly is, what will it take to reverse the trend line in Afghanistan and to strengthen the Karzai government?" Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, indicated that he was open to raising troop levels in Afghanistan as well as Iraq. Despite concerns that U.S. land forces are overstretched by their growing commitment in Iraq, the Pentagon could sustain an increase of forces in Afghanistan as well, he said. About 22,000 U.S. military personnel are in Afghanistan; about half of them are fighting along with 32,000 other foreign troops under the command of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who is to stop in Afghanistan during a trip to the Middle East starting this weekend, said she believed that President Bush's plan to increase troops in Iraq was misguided and that new troops instead should be sent to Afghanistan, where, she said, U.S. policy was on "autopilot." "I wish we were discussing additional troops for Afghanistan," Clinton said, speaking in Washington. "We are hearing increasingly troubling reports out of Afghanistan, and we will be searching for accurate information about the true state of affairs both militarily and politically." The comments by Gates and Pace came at a hearing on the Bush administration's revised Iraq policy. The Armed Services panel includes several senators — Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) — who have been outspoken supporters of a troop buildup. McCain said those who want to begin withdrawing troops "have a responsibility to tell us what they believe are the consequences of withdrawal in Iraq. If we walk away from Iraq, we'll be back, possibly in the context of a wider war in the world's most volatile region." Still, Democrats voiced skepticism about the administration's new strategy. The new committee chairman, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), advocates a timetable for troop withdrawals and opposes the new plan. "The reality behind the president's new rhetoric is that the open-ended commitment continues," Levin said. Gates said he thought that Bush, who "has a longer view," at times had to make decisions that didn't "have broad support of the American people." julian.barnes@latimes.com peter.spiegel@latimes.com -------- ENERGY -------- alternative energy Energy needs drive leaders to alternatives Sat, 13 Jan 2007 Earthtimes.org Author : Energy News Editor http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/19725.html WINDHOEK, Namibia, Jan. 12 The Namibian government announced its decision to turn to nuclear power in order to avoid the possibility of a power supply deficit in southern Africa. Government made a policy decision to that effect, said Joseph Iita, the permanent secretary in the Namibian Ministry of Mines and Energy. Namibia imports about 50 percent of its electricity needs, mainly from South Africa, but will use its own uranium supply to power the proposed nuclear generation plant, reported The Namibian. Iita was approached for comment after the Panapress news agency reported Wednesday that Namibia asked for aid in building a nuclear plant. Energy experts had predicted shortages in the electricity supply in the region due to South Africa's shrinking surplus, increased local demand and lack of investment in new power plants. Nuclear energy is one of the options we are considering; it is not the (only) option, but one of many options, Iita said. We are also looking into renewables like wind and solar power, gas like the Kudu gas field or hydropower from the Baynes Mountains on the Kunene River.The issue of management and storage of nuclear waste coming from the proposed power plant has not yet been addressed. We (will) look at all aspects, Iita said. Until plans for a plant are finalized, Aeolus Associated, a Dutch investor, will establish a $130 million, 92 megawatt wind power farm to meet about 25 percent of Namibia's demand.