NucNews January 18, 2007 -------- NUCLEAR -------- accidents and safety Four nuclear plants in NE alerted over problem at Minnesota plant January 18, 2007 Associated Press http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/01/18/four_nuclear_plants_in_ne_alerted_over_problem_at_minnesota_plant/ MONTICELLO, Minn. --Four nuclear power plants in the Northeast were alerted to look for potential safety problems because of a failure that caused a shutdown at Xcel Energy's Monticello nuclear plant, federal officials said Wednesday. Jan Strasma, spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said the agency notified managers of the four plants because they're similar in age and design to the Monticello plant, about 45 miles northwest of Minneapolis, which began operating in 1970. The plants are Vermont Yankee, Oyster Creek in New Jersey, Nine Mile Point in New York and Pilgrim in Massachusetts, he said. "Typically when there's a problem at one plant, we look to see if any aspects have the potential of applying to other plants," Strasma said. "It's a precautionary or prudent notification." Monticello has been shut down since last Wednesday when welds failed that held in place a 35,000-pound box containing valves that control steam pressure. One end of the box fell eight to 12 inches, coming to rest on a pipe that carries radioactive steam. The pipe did not rupture or leak, officials said, but there was a pressure drop that triggered the plant's automatic safety systems and shut the plant down. Strasma said initial indications are that that control box might have been improperly welded in place on its support beams when the plant was built back in the early 1970s, and that vibration may have fatigued the welds. Two months ago, Xcel received federal permission to extend the plant's license for 20 years after its current license expires in 2010. Until last Wednesday's shutdown, Monticello had been operating for a record 637 consecutive days, 161 days longer than ever before, according to Xcel officials. George Crocker, a local nuclear safety activist, said the incident should be a warning for several reasons. "Market forces that push nuclear plants to the limit, coupled with aging issues, coupled with the lack of understanding about how these components and materials perform over time as they're subjected thermally and radiologically -- all of these factors are increasing the likelihood that a really unforgiving event will occur." Charles Bomberger, Xcel's general manager for nuclear asset management, denied that the Monticello plant was being pushed to the limit. He said the long time since the last scheduled shutdown showed that the plant was being operated efficiently. He said equipment failures or other problems are more likely when a plant is stopped and restarted than when it's running at a constant rate. ---- Radiation release, false data prompt Hanford safety review THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Thursday, January 18, 2007 http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6600AP_WA_Hanford_Safety.html?source=rss RICHLAND, Wash. -- A radiation leak just days after the discovery that an employee had falsified records halted some cleanup efforts at the Hanford nuclear reservation so workers could take a "safety break." The safety review Wednesday affected about 1,000 employees and subcontractors of Washington Closure Hanford, which is cleaning up contaminated areas near former reactor sites along the Columbia River. Workers returned to their jobs Thursday, Washington Closure spokesman Todd Nelson said. On Tuesday, radioactive tritium contamination was found to have spread outside a tent where radiological work was being performed near the closed B and C reactors on the nuclear reservation's north side. The levels of contamination were too low to require reporting and were not believed to have affected worker health, Nelson said. It is too early to say whether the U.S. Department of Energy will fine the company, Nelson said Thursday. "They're going to have to say," he said. "We're taking aggressive action to get work going and make sure it doesn't happen again." DOE spokeswoman Colleen French did not immediately return a call for comment from The Associated Press on Thursday. Washington Closure and Energy Department officials were working on a decontamination plan for the tritium, an isotope of hydrogen that spreads easily because it binds with oxygen. The spread of tritium and the problem with landfill compacting records discovered last week "make us concerned about the conduct of operations," said Nick Ceto, Hanford project manager for the Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates the cleanup project. EPA will discuss its concerns with DOE and Washington Closure officials, he said. Tritium, which is used in hydrogen bombs, was produced at Hanford reactors from 1949-1952 until its production was moved elsewhere. The leak occurred after workers tapped a small canister Friday that was among debris retrieved from a burial ground that held waste from Hanford's B Reactor and nearby buildings. They discovered tritium gas inside. Work inside the radiological tent was halted Monday after tritium contamination was found. Additional tests found the contamination had been tracked outside the tent. Washington Closure has about 700 workers and its subcontractors have about 300. The company is in charge of cleaning 761 waste sites and burial grounds contaminated by radioactive and chemical wastes. The radiation contamination comes on the heels of the discovery last Friday that a subcontractor employee had falsified records at a low-level radioactive waste landfill. S.M. Stoller, which operates the landfill, said that one employee had been recording compaction test data even though he had not performed the test at times over the past year. The test ensures that compacting of waste is adequate so that contents won't settle and possibly affect the integrity of an engineered cap that will cover the landfill. The Energy Department's primary concern has been working with Washington Closure to ensure employees are safe and the environment is protected, French told the Tri-City Herald on Wednesday. The agency is looking at the circumstances surrounding the tritium contamination, she said. "While this is tough work, worker safety is the department's priority and any action or process breakdown that calls that into question is simply unacceptable," she said. "That's what we'll be looking at as we continue to gather facts and examine the causes." Information from: Tri-City Herald, http://www.tri-cityherald.com -------- asia Vietnam to upgrade sole nuclear reactor Source: SGGP – Translated by The Vinh Thursday, January 18, 2007 http://www.thanhniennews.com/education/?catid=4&newsid=24371 Vietnam’s sole nuclear reactor has been shut down for a major upgrade of its control system which will finish in May. The 500kW nuclear reactor in the central highlands city of Da Lat is used for training and research and managed by the Nuclear Study Institute. The institute staff had shut down the control system for replacement of some of their components, the Ministry of Science and Technology’s Department for Radiation Control and Safety Department said. Together with some foreign experts they would carry out test runs of the system in March. After assessments, the reactor would resume operations. The Da Lat nuclear reactor was built in 1984 and will need to be replaced in 2015. Its control system underwent an earlier upgrade in 1993. The Vietnam Atomic Energy Commission said last year the country would need a new, 5-10 MW nuclear reactor for scientific training and research purposes after the Da Lat reactor was closed. Vietnam plans to build its first nuclear power plant with a capacity of 1,000-2,000 MW between 2015 and 2020. The International Atomic Energy Agency agreed last year to provide nearly $1.5 million for Vietnam’s nuclear projects. -------- britain Tories want to go nuclear with new green clean energy plan The Canadian Press DENNIS BUECKERT January 18, 2007 http://www.topix.net/content/cp/2298154804397455193640006570001640070679 'There is nothing clean about radioactive waste' (CP) - The Conservative government launched its green rebranding effort Wednesday with a controversial boost for nuclear power. In the first big announcement since Rona Ambrose was shuffled from the environment portfolio two weeks ago, Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn promised $230 million over four years for research into clean energy. But he gave no specifics on how the money will be spent it hasn't been allocated yet leading to criticism that the government is making more vague promises like those that scuppered Ambrose. "Until we have real regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, none of the things they announced today will set Canada on the path to Kyoto," said John Bennett of the Climate Action Network. The new research program, dubbed the ecoEnergy Technology Initiative, is similar to a Liberal research program now terminated, although annual funding will rise somewhat. The government is trying to restore credibility on the environment which has emerged as a top issue for voters, and an election could come soon. Lunn said one target area for the research money is "next generation nuclear." "Nuclear energy is emission-free, there's no greenhouse gases, there's no pollutants going out (with) the energy," he told a news conference. "There's a great opportunity to pursue nuclear energy, something I am very keen on." Although it is often touted as an alternative to fossil fuels because it doesn't directly produce greenhouse emissions, nuclear power is still anathema to most environmentalists. "There is nothing clean about radioactive waste," said Emilie Moorhouse of the Sierra Club of Canada. "There is no storage system that can keep this waste isolated for the millions of years it remains active." Lunn suggested nuclear energy could be an ideal source of power for the massive oil sands project in Alberta. But Moorhouse said that would be problematic because nuclear plants need water for cooling, and high demand for water is already one of the biggest problems in Alberta. Liberal Leader Stephane Dion has said he will not support the expansion of nuclear energy until the problem of waste is resolved. Dion's position seems to put him at odds not just with the Tories but also with Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, a fellow Liberal who sees nuclear as a solution to the province's energy woes. Lunn promised that the government will soon announce short-term emissions-cutting targets for industry, but did not say whether those will include a firm cap on total emissions. Nor would he give his view on whether the government should stop generous tax breaks for the petroleum industry, saying that's a matter for Finance Minister John Flaherty. Environment Minister John Baird, who also attended Wednesday's news conference, offered no defence for the tax breaks for the oil sands, saying he did not know why they were introduced. He gave no indication of how he plans to proceed in the environment portfolio. Lunn is expected to make news with further clean energy announcements this week in Victoria and Toronto. Keith Stewart of the World Wildlife Fund said new technology alone is not the answer, there must also be incentives for its adoption. "This announcement would be much more impressive if they had a mandatory greenhouse gas cap on large polluters that would really drive the technology," he said. "It worked for the acid rain program and getting lead out of gasoline, it can work here as well." Lunn got a cautious thumbs up from Pierre Alvarez, president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, who said improved technology is the only way to improve the situation. But Alvarez warned that change will take time and a lot more money than Ottawa is willing to allocate. "There are no silver bullet solutions right now. We're going to need more. But what's encouraging to us is that we're now having the debate on energy technologies that for the last 20 years nobody has wanted to talk about. "We need new partnerships: federal government, provincial government, industry to look at these things. We need to look at it is. We need to look at teaming up with the U.S. on some of the things they're doing on emissions management." -------- business Navy Puts Newest Warship on Hold David Axe | January 18, 2007 http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,122313,00.html Secretary of the Navy Donald Winter on Jan. 12 ordered Lockheed Martin to suspend construction of the third Littoral Combat Ship owing to a sudden spike in cost, the Navy announced. The work stoppage, in effect for 90 days, gives the Navy time to understand why the cost of the speedy 3,000-ton warship’s price tag has risen to more than $400 million. The service has set a target of around $200 million apiece for as many as 60 of the new ships. That does not count the cost of plug-and-play sensor and weapons modules. It’s not unusual for the first few vessels of a new class to exceed cost estimates. Still, Winter said in a statement, "I determined that at this point in time it was critical to stop work on LCS-3 to assess the LCS program and ensure we understand the program's cost and management processes before we move forward.” The stoppage does not affect the imminent completion of the first of the class, named Freedom, which was launched in September and is now fitting out. Freedom will enter service at San Diego this year. Also unaffected is a parallel line of similar vessels designed and built by General Dynamics. The General Dynamics version of LCS is a triple-hull trimaran -- similar in appearance to a massive, high-tech houseboat -- while the Lockheed Martin design sports a conventional hull. In an unusual move, the Navy is buying equal numbers of the competing designs for testing while it works out tactics for the future LCS force. Missions planned for the 40-knot vessels include near-shore minesweeping, hunting and killing super-quiet diesel submarines and launching Special Forces boats into inland waterways. Cost growth aside, LCS has been at the heart of an ongoing controversy over rising shipbuilding costs and a shrinking U.S. fleet. Robert Work, an analyst with the independent Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, says that LCS was conceived of, in part, to boost ship numbers at a time when the Navy was shrinking to fewer than 300 major vessels. “All this time, the Navy is saying, ‘We’ve got to have more ships.’ But it has lost cost control of these [new] ships.” Besides LCS, the stealthy DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyer has seriously exceeded cost estimates. Once pegged at around a billion dollars apiece, each of the 14,000-ton warships might cost as much as $3 billion. Changes to the services resulting from operations in Iraq are further squeezing the Navy budget. “Everybody says we’re going to build up the Army, Special Force and the Marine Corps,” Work says. “The chance of us doing all that plus having a big increase in shipbuilding is extremely remote, especially if we can’t build LCS -- the cheapest and easiest ship to build -- for less than the $300 [million] or $400 million it looks like it might cost.” But Work is optimistic. He says the work stoppage is evidence of the Navy’s increasing discipline when it comes to keeping down costs. Even so, LCS might not be best for the fleet, according to one critic. In a recent article in the U.S. Naval Institute’s Proceedings magazine, retired Rear Admiral W. J. Holland, Jr., pointed out that larger vessels, such as the Navy’s 9,000-ton Burke-class destroyers, boast more firepower per dollar than smaller ships, which are vulnerable to enemy missiles and are prone to structural damage in rough seas. -------- depleted uranium Depleted Uranium, Diabetes, Cancer And You by Dr. Alan Cantwell Global Research, January 18, 2007 Rense.com http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CAN20070118&articleId=4508 Recently, I received an intriguing email claiming that the rapidly increasing worldwide epidemic of diabetes was caused by depleted uranium (DU). As a medical doctor I never heard of such an idea. Every physician knows that radiation can lead to cancer, but the DU and diabetes connection seemed ludicrous. Nevertheless, I thought it would be interesting to check it out on the Internet. The best tool for medical research on the Net is the PubMed website sponsored by the US National Library of Medicine. I typed in the keywords: depleted uranium and diabetes. No citations to scientific papers in the medical journals appeared on my computer screen, which further assured me there was no scientific connection. Even when I used key words - depleted uranium and human disease - only a mere 16 papers were cited on the subject from 1994 to 2005; and only half these papers addressed the medical problems of soldiers exposed to DU in the Gulf War. What was revealed is that DU accumulates in lymph nodes, brain, testicles, and other organs, and the short term and long term effects of DU were not known. There was a definite increase of birth defects in the offspring of persons exposed to DU; and Gulf War vets who inhaled DU were still excreting abnormal amounts of uranium in the urine 10 years later. Why was there so little written about DU and its effects on the human body? Having written extensively on the man-made epidemic of AIDS and its cover-up for two decades, I was not surprised. I strongly suspected research into the health effects of DU on Gulf War veterans was "politically incorrect." On the other hand, a quick Google Internet search of - "side effects" + "depleted uranium" - referred me to 71,000 English pages on the web. When I added the key word "diabetes" there were 22,000 pages. I also discovered that articles about the health dangers of DU rarely, if ever, appear in the major media. In a January 2001 press release FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting) accused the media of "depleted coverage of depleted uranium weapons." Nevertheless, a great deal of information on DU can be found on the Internet. DU was first used by the US in the 1991 Gulf War, then in the Balkans in the late 1990s, in Kosovo in 2000, in the war against Afghanistan, in Iraq in 2003, and also by the Israelis in the 2006 war with Lebanon. Needless to say, US military and government officials totally deny any health danger from DU. A reassuring New York Times article of 9 January 2001 entitled "1999 U.S. document warned of depleted uranium in Kosovo" by Marlise Simons, noted "while acknowledging the hazards, both the Pentagon and NATO, pointing to medical experts, have denied any links could exist between exposure to depleted uranium and the illness and deaths of veterans." DU weapons were developed by the US Navy in 1968, and were first given to Israel by the US in the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. Since then, the US has tested, manufactured and sold DU weapons systems to 29 countries. Vieques Island, a testing site in Puerto Rico, was repeatedly bombarded with DU in 1999 prior to its use in Kosovo. DU is a byproduct of the enriching of natural uranium for use in nuclear reactors. As nuclear waste, DU is costly to keep but relatively inexpensive to obtain. Due to their tank armour-piercing capabilities, DU weapons are extremely effective and the reason why the military is so enthralled with them. Depleted Uranium Whistleblowers Major Doug Rokke is a leading DU expert who has become a whistleblower against its use. He claims each tank round is composed of 10 pounds of solid uranium-238 contaminated with plutonium, neptunium, and americium. The round is pyrophoric, meaning it generates intense heat on impact, easily penetrating a tank because of the heavy weight of the metal. When DU munitions hit, they produce a firestorm inside any vehicle or structure, resulting in devastating burns and injuries to those who escape immediate death and incineration. On impact, DU produces uranium oxide dust and pieces of uranium explode all over the place. Once inside the body the tiny nanoparticles enter the lungs and blood stream and are carried throughout the body. When Rokke and his team were assigned to "clean up" the DU after the first Gulf War, all his men got ill within 72 hours with respiratory problems, rashes, bleeding, and open sores. In an Australian interview with Gay Alcorn in 2003, Rokke admitted: "After everything I've seen, everything I've done, it became very clear to me that you can't take radioactive wastes from one nation and just throw it into another nation. It's wrong. It's simply wrong." According to Asaf Durakovic MD of the Uranium Medical Research Centre in Washington DC, the term "depleted uranium" is a misnomer. Both "depleted" and "natural" uranium are over 99% composed of uranium 238. DU is almost as highly concentrated as pure uranium and may contain plutonium (a deadly element) in trace amounts. Leuren Moret is an independent American scientist who works on radiation and health issues with communities around the world. At age 61, she is the leading activist against the use of DU, having worked in two nuclear weapons labs, including the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Berkeley, California, run by the US Department of Energy. She is the ultimate antigovernment whistleblower on DU, along with Rokke and Durakovic, and all three have personally suffered (including death threats) for their anti-DU views. In her article "Depleted uranium: The Trojan Horse of nuclear war," which appeared in the June 2004 World Affairs Journal, Moret claims: "The use of DU weaponry by the US, defying all international treaties, will slowly annihilate all species on Earth including the human species, and yet this country continues to do so with full knowledge of its destructive potential." DU travels. DU radioactive particles are picked up by the atmosphere and are transferred by wind storms and air currents. They permanently contaminate vast regions and slowly destroy the genetic future of populations living in those areas. As the Trojan Horse of nuclear war, Moret calls DU "the weapon that keeps on killing." There is no way to turn it off - and no way to clean it up. It meets the US government's own definition of "weapons of mass destruction." Depleted Uranium over the United Kingdom DU has a very high affinity for cellular DNA and permanently damages it. DU is the "fourth generation" of nuclear weapons. First came the atomic bomb, then the hydrogen bomb, then neutron bombs, and now DU. Moret claims the contaminated DU-dust from the Middle East gets absorbed into the atmosphere. Via dust storms and air currents it ends up in Europe and Britain. Eventually it spreads and get absorbed into the atmosphere globally. There is no safe place; no possible way to escape it. Moret's concerns are confirmed by a 2006 report from England by Chris Busby and Saoirse Morgan, appearing in European Biology and Bioelectromagnetics and titled "Did the use of Uranium weapons in Gulf War 2 result in contamination of Europe?" Data (obtained with the help of the Freedom of Information Act) from the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston, Berkshire, UK, revealed that after nine days of the "shock and awe" start of the Iraq war on 19 March 2003, much higher levels of uranium were picked up on five sites in Berkshire. On two occasions, levels exceeded the threshold at which the Environment Agency must be informed, though still within safety limits. These levels were the highest levels of depleted uranium ever measured in the atmosphere in Britain. The report also confirmed weather conditions over this war period, which showed a consistent flow of air from Iraq northwards. Not surprisingly this research was vigorously denied as "uranium of natural origin" by various government officials. However, Busby and Morgan insist the findings are the first evidence that DU particles were able to travel thousands of miles from Baghdad to England. Their report can be found on the Internet. Gulf War Syndrome About 300 tons of DU were dispersed over Iraq in 1991. Yet the US Department of Defense (DoD) has found little health risk to soldiers who inhaled DU and continues to claim exposure to DU is safe. Nearly 580,000 soldiers were deployed in the war. 294 soldiers died and 400 were wounded or became ill. As of year 2000, there were 325,000 on permanent medical disability, and over 11,000 have died. Obviously something serious happened to the health of these men and women who served in the Gulf. DU is known to be neurotoxic. Gulf War vets are twice as likely to come down with ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease) than vets who did not serve in Iraq. ALS, a fatal neuromuscular disease, is now considered a "service-connected" disease and vets can get disability. Gulf War vets have nearly twice the prevalence of "chronic multi-system disease" than soldiers who served elsewhere at the same time. But so called "Gulf War Syndrome" continues to be denied as a specific illness. The Department of Defense's evaluation does not consider GWS as a unique syndrome, unique illness, or unique symptom complex in deployed Gulf War vets. The Worldwide Diabetes Epidemic A half century ago, during the early years of the Cold War when I went to medical school, diabetes was not a common disease. Now in the 21st century it is common to hear of diabetes as an impending epidemic. Certainly the statistics bear this out. Currently, 7% of Americans have diabetes (17 million). In addition, a Los Angeles Times front-page report on 16 September 2006, claims that there are more than 41 million Americans with abnormal blood glucose abnormalities, "that indicate they may soon develop diabetes." In Puerto Rico (where DU was tested) 10% of the population has diabetes. The Centres of Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta declares that "unless Americans change their ways," 33% of the babies born this year will be diabetic by the year 2050. Also by 2050 there are expected to be 45 million diabetics in the US. A vet support group, Veterans with Diabetes International, says there are 143 million people worldwide with the disease, and 300 million people are expected to have diabetes in 2025. Type 1 diabetes, most often seen in children and young adults, comprises 5-10% of the cases. Type 2, a metabolic disorder resulting from the body's inability to make enough or properly use insulin, frequently strikes adults, especially obese adults. This group comprises 90% or more of diabetics. The CDC predicts that Type 2 diabetes will increase 165% by 2050. People with Type 2 diabetes are also twice as likely to get pancreatic cancer. Thirty-four years after the Vietnam war ended, the DoD finally presented the "strongest evidence" that Type 2 diabetes can be connected to Agent Orange. Eighteen million gallons of this plant defoliant and poison was sprayed over Vietnam by the US military. It is now known to cause cancer and birth defects. Starting in the year 2002 diabetes is now recognised as a "service-connected" disease for all Vietnam vets. At present, diabetes is not service-connected for Gulf War vets. Nine percent of Vietnam vets have Type 2 diabetes. There is no current evidence that Gulf War vets have a heightened incidence of diabetes, but I could find no solid research to confirm or deny this. Perhaps in one or two more decades government scientists will discover a connection to DU. The common causes of diabetes are thought to be obesity, poor diet and lack of exercise. Leuren Moret believes the cause of the new epidemic is more sinister: namely the increasing levels worldwide of depleted uranium in the atmosphere, combined with emissions from the proliferation of nuclear power plants. Unlike government scientists, Moret says DU is very, very, very nasty stuff; and that diabetes is an immediate response to DU, in contrast to the decades it can take for uranium to produce radiation-induced cancer. Although she cannot prove it, she is the first scientist to strongly suggest a connection between the new worldwide diabetes epidemic and DU. Moret insists the medical profession has been active in the cover-up of low level radiation from atmospheric testing and nuclear power plants. I have been unable to verify this, but it is consistent with the passive role the health profession took during the Cold War nuclear testing in the US (more later). She has also spoken about medical professionals in hospitals who were threatened by government officials with $10,000 fines and jail time if they talked openly about the returning Iraq war soldiers and their medical problems. This could explain the paucity of reports in the scientific literature regarding vets exposed to DU and their war-associated illnesses. Moret also says reporters have been prevented access to more than 14,000 medically evacuated soldiers from the current Iraq War, brought back to Walter Reed Hospital near Washington, DC. To learn more about Leuren Moret and her research, Google: Leuren Moret + videos. In addition, she appears in the recent documentary film Beyond Treason, detailing the horrific effects of depleted uranium exposure on American troops and Iraqi civilians in the Gulf region in 1991. Is Depleted Uranium Safe? Ronald L. Kathren is Professor Emeritus at Washington State University and a leading authority vouching for the safety of DU. Unlike Major Rokke, he does not appear to have ever served in the military or to have come in contact with DU on a battlefield. Nevertheless, his opinions carry a lot of weight in the scientific world. Kathren does not dispute the fact that military personnel who may have had contact with DU are suffering from various illnesses, but he believes that exposure to uranium is very unlikely to be the cause. Writing for the Portland Independent Media Centre on 3 July 2005, he declares: "Health physicists are deeply concerned with the public health and welfare, and as experts in radiation and its effects on people and the environment, are quite aware that something other than exposure to uranium is the cause of the illnesses suffered by those who have had contact with depleted uranium from munitions. A truly enormous body of scientific data shows that it is virtually impossible for uranium to be the cause of their illnesses. Despite this body of scientific data to the contrary, misguided or unknowing people continue to allege that the depleted uranium, and specifically the radioactivity associated with the depleted uranium is the cause of these illness. This is indeed unfortunate, for health physicists and other scientists and physicians already know that depleted uranium is not the cause of these illnesses and thus any investigations into the cause of these illnesses should focus on other possible causes. If we are to offer any measure of relief or solace to these suffering people, and to gain some important additional knowledge of the cause of their illness, we should not waste our valuable and limited energies, resources and time attempting to point the finger at depleted uranium as the culprit, when it is already known that uranium is almost certainly not the cause of the problem." (http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/07/320739.shtml) "No Level of Radiation is Safe for Humans" As a physician it is inconceivable to me that government-approved experts like Kathren can so quickly dismiss DU as safe and harmless, particularly when on 29 June 2005, a National Academy of Sciences panel in Washington DC has found that no level of radiation is safe for humans. The panel concluded that "any dose of radiation, no matter how small, can induce cancer. Exposure to radiation is becoming more and more likely for most people because of the growing use of radiation in medicine. The new findings could lead to changes in medical practices and the levels of radiation allowed at former nuclear sites." The panel also contradicted the often heard dictum of some government pro-nuclear scientists that "a little radiation is good for you." The idea that low doses of radiation are safe is the myth that allowed extensive nuclear testing during the Cold War without a huge protest from every member of the human race. It is this myth that still allows DU weapons to be used on battlefields against "terrorists." Historically, the proof of the danger of nuclear warfare was provided a decade ago by the publication of a US Congressional committee report authorised by President Bill Clinton and entitled, The Human Radiation Experiments. The report showed clearly that government scientists and physicians could not be trusted in their pronouncements regarding the safety of nuclear weapons. Even worse was the documentation of countless covert and secret radiation experiments conducted on unsuspecting citizens during the Cold War "in the name of science." Unfortunately, this horrific 1996 report did not deter Clinton from allowing DU weapons in Kosovo in 1999, nor did it deter President George W. Bush, who authorised their use again in Afghanistan and Iraq. Anyone with Internet access can simply Google "the human radiation experiments" for details of the shameful science surrounding nuclear testing and the disastrous health effects on unsuspecting American citizens. In 2001, a half century after extensive nuclear weapons testing in the American West, the US National Cancer Institute was finally forced to reveal its finding that bomb testing in Nevada, which spread radioactive fallout across every state of the Union, has caused at least 15,000 cancer deaths and up to 212,000 non-fatal thyroid cancers. John LaForge of Nukewatch.com reminds us that "the 67 bomb tests blown off between 1946 and 1958 were said at the time to be safe." Money, Power and Depleted Uranium Who is profiting from this global uranium nightmare? In The Enemy Within (1996) Jay Gould reveals that the British Royal family privately owns investments in uranium holdings worth over $6 billion through Rio Tinto Mines, an Anglo-Australian company, which is the world's largest mining company with more than 60 operations in 40 countries. Africa and Australia are two of the main sources of uranium in the world; and the Rothschilds control uranium supplies and prices globally. Gould notes that nuclear radiation has brought dramatic increases in breast cancer mortality, especially in communities 50 to 100 miles downwind from nuclear reactors. Book reviewer Donna Lee writes: "The Enemy Within has enough scientific data to address those bureaucrats who deny that living near a nuclear reactor is a hazard to one's health. It also includes enough direct, clear prose to convince me, a breast cancer survivor, that I grew up during the Cold War as an unknowing guinea pig, further victimised by the politics of suppression and denial." Lee continues: "After reading the book, however, I am bothered by one persistent question. I was born and raised and continue to live in San Francisco, California, which has the highest incidence of breast cancer in the world. The Enemy Within concerns itself with breast cancer mortality rates, which are highest in the communities around New York City. San Francisco isn't within 100 miles of a nuclear reactor and it isn't even mentioned in the book. If low level radiation explains clusters of breast cancer throughout the US, what explains us?" Actually there was a nuclear power plant located in Sacramento, less than 100 miles from San Francisco, which became active in 1975. Gould probably did not include this in his 1996 book because the Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Plant was forced to shut down its operations in 1989, due to a public outcry and a referendum. David Bradbury says child cancer rates on Vieques Island have soared 250% above the Puerto Rican national average in the last thirty years. In his 2005 documentary film, Blowin' in the Wind, the provocative Australian filmmaker and two-time Academy Award nominee also provides some answers regarding the huge financial interests involved in uranium production and DU weapons. Australia provides one-third of the world's uranium supply, and Bradbury reveals a secret treaty that allows the US military to train and test its DU weaponry on Australian soil. He exposes plans to extract over $36 billion from uranium mines over the next six years, and shows the finished construction of a 1,000 mile railway from the mining area to a port on the north coast of Australia to transport the ore. The railway project was built by Texas-based Halliburton Company. In 1995 US Vice President Dick Cheney was CEO of that company. The film maker says, "The Queen's favourite American buccaneers, Cheney, Halliburton, and the Bush family, are tied to her through uranium mining and the shared use of illegal depleted uranium munitions in the Middle East, Central Asia and Kosovo/Bosnia. The major roles that such diverse individuals and groups as the Carlyle Group, George Herbert Walker Bush, former Carlyle CEO Frank Calucci, the University of California managed nuclear weapons labs at Los Alamos and Livermore, and US and international pension fund investments have played in proliferating depleted uranium weapons is not well known or in most instances even recognised, inside or outside Australia. God Save The Queen from the guilt of her complicity in turning Planet Earth into a 'Death Star'." Depleted Uranium and the War on Terror There is nothing more terrifying than the thought of exposing all life forms on the planet to DNA-altering radiation in order to provide us with "safety" and "democracy." It is truly diabolic to think that the destruction of the planet is now occurring with so few people comprehending what is going on - and still fewer people taking an active stand against this tragedy. It is apparent that most of the world's political and spiritual leaders, as well as scientists, physicians, lawyers, and health professionals do not care about the dangers of DU weapons and other forms of nuclear energy. If they cared we would certainly be hearing and reading about it on television and in the major media. As a researcher and writer over the part few decades, I have focused on the man-made origin of AIDS and the little-known bacterial cause of cancer, paying little attention to nuclear radiation. However, in 2001 I wrote an article entitled "The Human Radiation Experiments: How Scientists Secretly Used US Citizens as Guinea Pigs During the Cold War", which was published in the September-October 2001 issue of New Dawn, and is posted on several websites. But I must admit I was unaware of the serious planetary problems posed by DU. I simply assumed that no civilised and peace-loving country would ever be reckless and heartless enough to use these radioactive weapons. How wrong I was! What I find most pathetic and inconceivable is that we have learned nothing from the detrimental health effects unleashed by the atomic bombing of Japan - and nothing from the nuclear testing horrors of the last half of the 20th century. Instead we continue to contaminate vast areas of the world with radiation we don't know how to get rid of. I remember as an eleven year-old boy how jubilant everyone was by the atomic attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, which brought the war to a rapid end. A half century later my Caucasian niece married a Japanese-American man. Shortly after the wedding she noticed a lump in his neck, which proved to be thyroid cancer. His mother was a child when she lived 50 miles outside of Hiroshima when the bomb was dropped. Decades later, in her forties, she was diagnosed with thyroid cancer, undoubtedly due to the radiation fallout. The doctors considered the possibility that my niece's husband might have developed thyroid cancer because of radiation-altered and thyroid cancer-causing genes passed on to him by his mother. Of course the family wonders if their two young children will eventually also get thyroid cancer. Who would have thought that the atomic bombing of Japan in 1945 would have a cancerous effect five decades later on my family living in California? A few years ago I developed a thyroid nodule, which was biopsied and proved non-cancerous. As a teenager in the 1950s I received "superficial" radiation treatments for acne at the recommendation of a well-known New York dermatologist, a treatment that was later banned because of its potential to cause thyroid cancer. It is almost a cliché to remind people that "all of us are connected." The fallout from DU and nuclear energy now binds us all together in an increasingly radioactive planet. No one is immune from the deleterious effects of radiation, and no one knows how to clean it up. What can we do about it? The only thing we can do is to stop the madness immediately. However, power and greed and politics and religion make that highly unlikely. We have met the perpetrators of the new radiation-induced "war on terror." And, sadly, it is us. Dr. Alan Cantwell is a retired dermatologist and author of five books on the man-made origin of AIDS and the infectious origin of cancer, published by Aries Rising Press, PO Box 29532, Los Angeles, CA 90029, USA ( ). His book, Queer Blood: The Secret AIDS Genocide Plot, is available in Australia through New Dawn Book Service. His latest book is Four Women Against Cancer: Bacteria, Cancer and the Origin of Life. His books are also available on www.amazon.com and in the US through Book Clearing House @ 1-800-431-1579. Email: alancantwell@sbcglobal.net. Alan Cantwell M.D.alancantwell@sbcglobal.net http://www.ariesrisingpress.com FOUR WOMEN AGAINST CANCER: Bacteria, Cancer and the Origin of Life -------- europe EU won't let Lithuania delay closing Soviet-era atomic reactor 18 Jan 2007 bbj.hu http://www.bbj.hu/main/news_21473_eu%2Bwont%2Blet%2Blithuania%2Bdelay%2Bclosing%2Bsoviet-era%2Batomic%2Breactor.html The European Union said it won't allow Lithuania to operate a Soviet-era nuclear reactor beyond its scheduled shutdown in 2009, potentially crimping power supplies to the Baltic nation and surrounding countries. „They have to close the plant by the agreed date,” EU energy spokesman Ferran Tarradellas Espuny said in a phone interview today. „This is not subject to discussion. The Lithuanian parliament is undeterred. Today it plans to approve a request to the EU for permission to delay closing the Ignalina plant, going back on one of the pledges Lithuania made to join the European community in 2004. The ex-Soviet state is lobbying for a delay that would help it cope with scarce domestic energy sources. A new nuclear plant to replace Ignalina won't be operating before 2015, meaning energy supplies will be strained. Lithuania relies on the 1,500-megawatt reactor to generate enough power for the nation and to export it to neighboring countries. The planned reactor will be built by Lithuania, Poland and Baltic neighbors Latvia and Estonia to diversify their energy sources and trim dependence on imported natural gas from Russia. The 19-year-old generator uses the same reactor as the Chernobyl nuclear station did in Ukraine. It was upgraded with new safety technology in the wake of the Chernobyl accident in 1986, the world's worst nuclear-reactor disaster, which contaminated parts of Europe with radiation. The plant's 1,500 megawatt-capacity is enough to supply about 3 million average European homes, though the EU wants potentially unsafe reactors closed. „Lithuania signed an agreement that has been ratified by all member states” to close Ignalina, Tarradellas Espuny said. Ignalina, named for the nearby city of the same name, closed one of its two reactors two years ago. Lithuanian Prime Minister Gediminas Kirkilas criticized the parliament's plans to renegotiate the closing, saying Lithuania should concentrate on building a new nuclear plant instead, in an interview broadcast January 16. (Bloomberg) -------- iran Iran’s President Criticized Over Nuclear Issue By NAZILA FATHI and MICHAEL SLACKMAN New York Times January 18, 2007 http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/nyt814.html TEHRAN, Jan. 18 — Iran’s outspoken president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, appears to be under pressure from the highest authorities in Iran to end his involvement in the country’s nuclear program, a sign that his political capital is declining as his country comes under increasing international pressure. Less than a month after the United Nations Security Council imposed sanctions on Iran to curb its nuclear program, two hard-line newspapers, including one owned by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called on the president to stay out of all matters nuclear. In the hazy world of Iranian politics, such a public rebuke was seen as a sign that the Supreme Leader himself — who has final say on all matters of state —may no longer support the president as the public face of defiance to the West. It is the first sign that the president has lost any degree of confidence from the leader, a potentially damaging reality for a president who has rallied his nation and defined his administration by declaring nuclear power to be Iran’s “inalienable right.” It was unclear, however, whether this was merely an effort to improve Iran’s public image by lowering Mr. Ahmadinejad’s public profile or signaled any change in policy. The Iranian presidency is a relatively weak position with no official authority over foreign policy, the domain of the supreme leader. But Mr. Ahmadinejad has used the bully pulpit to insert himself into the nuclear debate, and as long as he appeared to enjoy Mr. Khamenei’s support, he could continue. While Iran remains publicly defiant, insisting it will move ahead with its nuclear ambitions, it is under increasing strain as political and economic pressures grow. And the message that Iran’s most senior officials seem to be sending is that the president, with his harsh approach and caustic comments, is undermining Iran’s cause and its standing. Mr. Ahmadinejad dismissed the Security Council resolution as “a piece of torn paper.“ But the daily newspaper Jomhouri-Elsami, which belongs to Ayatollah Khamenei, said, “The resolution is certainly harmful for the country,” adding that it is “too much to call it a piece of torn paper.” The newspaper said the nuclear case requires its own diplomacy, “sometimes toughness and sometimes flexibility.”“ In another sign of pressure on the president to distance himself from the nuclear issue, a second newspaper run by an aide to the country’s chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, also pressed him to end his involvement with the nuclear program. Mr. Larijani also ran for president and was selected for his post by the supreme leader. “They want to minimize the consequences of sanctions now that they have been imposed,” said Mohammad Atrianfar, the former head of the daily Shargh and a reformist politician. “But they don’t have clear strategy and they are taking one step at a time.” Iran’s president entered office more than a year ago as an outsider. He was mayor of Tehran and promised to challenge the status quo, to equally distribute Iran’s oil wealth and to restore what he saw as the lost values of the Islamic revolution. His was a populist message, centered on a socialist economic model and Islamic values. And from the start he found opposition from the right and left, in the Iranian parliament and among those who viewed themselves as being more pragmatic. That pressure has continued — and seems now to have gained more credibility in the face of the sanctions and Iran’s troubled economic standing. The United States’ increased pressure on Iran in Iraq has also raised concerns in Tehran and may be behind efforts to restrain the president, political analysts in Tehran said. “The resolution has decreased Iran’s political credibility in the international community and so other countries cannot defend Iran,” Ahmad Shirzad, a former member of parliament and reformist politician said. Although the sanctions imposed by the Security Council on Dec. 23 were limited to Iran’s nuclear program, they have started to cause disruptions in the economy. About 50 members of parliament signed a letter this week calling on the president to appear before parliament to answer questions about the nuclear case. The signatories need at least another 22 members to sign before it can be enforced. In another letter 150 lawmakers criticized the president for his economic policies, which have led to a surge in inflation, and for his failure to submit his annual budget for next year in time. The stock market, which was already in a slump, continued to decline more rapidly in the past month as buyers stayed away. The daily Kargozaran reported last week the number of traders decreased by 46 percent since the Security Council resolution was passed. “The resolution has had a psychological effect on people,” said Ali Hagh, an economist in Tehran. “It does not make sense for investors not to consider political events when they want to invest their money.” The daily Kargozaran reported that a group of powerful businessmen, the Islamic Coalition Party, met with Mohammad Nahavandian, a senior official at the Supreme National Security Council, and called for moderation in the country’s nuclear policies to prevent further damage to the economy. Eight major European banks have severed their business ties with Iran. Economists say that move by the banks will also lead to a further increase in the inflation because importers must turn to complicated ways to finance purchases. “The nuclear issue has paved the way for other forms of pressures on Iran,” said Ahmad Shirzad, a reformist politician and former member of parliament. Despite Mr. Ahmadinejad’s harsh language since the resolution was passed, Mr. Khamenei has not referred to the resolution directly and only once said that Iran will not give up its right to develop nuclear power. Mr. Larijani has said that Iran will not quit the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty or bar International Atomic Energy Inspectors despite earlier threats. Nazila Fathi reported from Tehran, and Michael Slackman from Cairo. ---- IAEA Suspends Some Technical Aid To Iran by Staff Writers Vienna (AFP) Jan 18, 2007 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/IAEA_Suspends_Some_Technical_Aid_To_Iran_999.html The International Atomic Energy Agency has halted some of its technical aid to Iran following the United Nations' sanctions against Tehran's nuclear programme, the chairman of the agency's board of governors said Thursday. "The (IAEA) secretariat has put on hold, suspended, some projects which are prima facie under the sanctions" imposed in December by the UN Security Council, Slovenian ambassador Ernest Petric, who this year heads the agency's 35-member board of governors, told AFP. IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei will submit a report on technical cooperation with Iran "at the beginning of February", before handing in a comprehensive report, requested by the Security Council, on Tehran's uranium enrichment, Petric and other diplomatic sources said in Vienna. The Security Council passed a resolution on December 23 imposing sanctions on Iran following Tehran's refusal to suspend uranium enrichment. Highly-enriched uranium can be used to build an atom bomb and the West fears that Tehran could use its civilian programme to acquire a nuclear weapon. ElBaradei sent a letter on December 27 to the Slovenian chairman of the IAEA board to say his secretariat "will evaluate all IAEA technical cooperation projects for Iran in light of resolution 1737 and will prepare a report including a list of the projects which could, in the Secretariat's judgement, continue to be implemented." The number of projects to be suspended was not stated but they involve cooperation measures, including regional cooperation, that could have military implications, diplomatic sources said. The Security Council directed all states in its December 23 resolution "to prevent the supply, sale or transfer... of all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology which could contribute to Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs." No extraordinary reunion is expected ahead of the board of governors' regular meeting on March 5, where they will discuss technical cooperation among other issues, Petric said. At this time, the board's members will examine the list of technical cooperation projects and decide which of them should be put on hold, he added. "Neither I nor any board members wants to meddle at this point in the secretariat's work," he said, adding that some projects will be suspended, but others such as humanitarian or water projects may be continued. In November 2006, the IAEA rejected Tehran's request for technical help in building a heavy-water reactor in Arak that the West fears could provide weapons grade material. But Iran has said it is determined to maintain its nuclear programme and announced Monday that it was aiming to install at least 3,000 centrifuges to enrich uranium at a key nuclear plant in defiance of Western warnings to freeze the sensitive activity. IAEA inspections are however still underway at the Natanz enrichment plant, a diplomat close to the agency said. Another added that to start 3,000 centrifuges could take months and the machines seemed to be "relatively primitive." ElBaradei warned Thursday in Paris that the UN's limited sanctions against Iran -- a result of differences between the United States, the European Union, China and Russia -- were not a solution and could instead "lead to escalation" between Tehran and the West. He voiced support for French plans to send a special envoy to Tehran, saying he "would support any effort by any side to engage Iran into comprehensive negotiation." earlier related report Sanctions could escalate Iran standoff: UN's ElBaradei Paris (AFP) Jan 18 - The UN's nuclear chief Mohammed ElBaradei warned Thursday that international sanctions imposed last month over Iran's atomic programme could escalate the standoff between Tehran and the West. "I don't think sanctions will resolve the issue," the International Atomic Energy Agency's director general told reporters in Paris. "I think sanctions could lead to escalation." The UN Security Council in December imposed its first ever sanctions against Iran over its failure to suspend uranium enrichment, which Western powers fear could be used to make a nuclear weapon. Iran insists that its nuclear drive is solely aimed at generating energy for a growing population. Asked whether he supported French plans to send a special envoy to Tehran, ElBaradei said he "would support any effort by any side to engage Iran into comprehensive negotiation." "My worry right now is that each side is sticking to its guns," ElBaradei said. "We need someone to reach out." France's foreign ministry said this week it was discussing plans to send an envoy to Tehran to discuss "regional issues" including Lebanon and Israel -- but that he "would not attempt to tackle the nuclear question." On Thursday the ministry said it had yet to reach a firm decision on sending an envoy, a proposal which has drawn hostile reactions from both Israel and the United States. ElBaradei said he would discuss the best way to engage Tehran during talks later Thursday French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy. "We obviously share the same objective that nobody wants to see Iran developing a nuclear weapon. "It's a question of tactic, how you go about that, and I think it's what we are going to discuss today and see how we can move forward." "My priority is to make sure that Iran will not go industrial (with the enrichment of uranium), that Iran will not stop inspections" by the UN's nuclear watchdog, ElBaradei said. "We need to find a way to create the conditions to restart negotiations," he said, adding that "the idea that dialogue is a reward for a good behaviour is wrong for me." Repeating his view that "the world is a less secure place than 15 years ago," ElBaradei also argued that the current nuclear status quo was "absolutely unjustified". He said the refusal of nuclear-armed countries to disarm encourages a "domino phenomenon", pushing other countries such as Japan to seek nuclear arms as the guarantee of their big power status. Israel calls for tougher sanctions on Iran Tokyo (AFP) Jan 18, 2007 - Israel's foreign minister called here Thursday for tougher sanctions against Iran to stop its nuclear ambitions, saying the Islamic republic was trying to win time through talks. Tzipi Livni said sanctions imposed on Iran in a unanimous UN Security Council resolution last month were watered down to secure the support of Russia and China. "To begin with, there is a need for stronger sanctions, and the sanctions that the international community adopted were soft sanctions," Livni told reporters on a visit to Tokyo. Her remarks came after France said it was discussing plans to send an envoy to Iran to discuss "regional issues" -- a plan indirectly criticised by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The Iranians are "trying to discuss with the world to send messages in order to get more time. But time is working against the world," said Livni, who expressed concern Iran would use the delay to develop its nuclear capacity. "We're not talking about the day of the bomb, we're talking about the day in which they muster the technology," she said. "Israel supports any kind of initiative that the international community will promote in order to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon." Livni, who met earlier in the day with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, welcomed Japan's support for the UN resolution, which came despite Tokyo's close economic ties with oil-exporting Iran. The West fears Iran is seeking to develop atomic weapons under cover of a civilian nuclear programme. Tehran denies the charge, saying it wants to enrich uranium to provide energy. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a sworn foe of Israel who has pledged to destroy the Jewish state and has denied the Holocaust. -------- korea US General Wants Restructure Of UN Command In South Korea by Staff Writers Seoul (AFP) Jan 18, 2007 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_General_Wants_Restructure_Of_UN_Command_In_South_Korea_999.html A top US general on Thursday called for restructuring the US-led UN Command in place here since the Korean War due to changes in the US-South Korean military alliance. The Seoul government plans to regain wartime control over its forces by 2012, citing national pride and a new US military global strategy. The United States has proposed an earlier date of 2009. But General B.B. Bell, the head of US forces here and the multinational UN Command (UNC), warned the changes could raise questions about the future role of the UNC if the reorganization was not addressed properly. "The UNC must continue to be a vital component of our deterrence and war-fighting capability in the Republic of Korea," Bell told a news conference. But he said the dismantling of the joint command over South Korean forces and the transfer of operational control to Seoul would "create a military authority to responsibility mismatch for the UNC". "Furthermore, the United Nations Command must maintain the capability to support the ROK-US alliance with the UN forces, equipment and supplies to repel any future aggression on the Korean peninsula," he said. Bell explained that the UNC would no longer be able to get immediate and effective access to South Korean troops, possibly compromising its main commitment to maintain the armistice in place here since 1953. Some 29,500 US troops are stationed here to help 650,000 South Korean forces face up to North Korea's 1.2-million-strong army. In times of war, the US general currently controls both South Korean and American troops. The UNC was launched shortly after the Korean War broke out in 1950. North Korea has demanded it be dismantled. The two Koreas remain technically at war since the conflict ended in a fragile armistice, not a permanent peace treaty. Raising tensions, North Korea conducted a nuclear test on October 9 last year. "Until a lasting peace is achieved on the peninsula, there will continue to be a major role for the UN Command," Bell said. He called for discussions on new UNC roles under a changed US-South Korean military alliance to get started. "Unless addressed, this situation will make it impossible to credibly maintain the armistice," he said. "There could be no time to make changes in our command structure while crisis escalates." -------- space Space programme no threat: China Sunday, February 18, 2007 Pakistan International http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=39598 BEIJING: Like its cheap exports, rising military budget and quest for oil, China insists its space programme is of no threat to the rest of the world — but many do not agree. The United States, Japan, Australia and a host of other countries voiced concern on Friday after Washington said China last week had shot down one of its own satellites for the first time in a test exercise. If confirmed, China would become the third country after the United States and the former Soviet Union to shoot down anything in space, indicating the Asian power could target satellites operated by other nations. China refused to either publicly confirm or deny the US claims on Friday, although Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso said the Chinese had sought to reassure Japan its intentions in space were of no threat to anyone. “China consistently uses space only for peaceful purposes,” Aso quoted the Chinese foreign ministry as saying. The comments fit with the ruling Communist Party’s mantra in recent years that the nation’s rise as a world superpower should not be feared. China joined the exclusive club of top space nations in 2003 when it sent up its first manned mission, joining the United States and Russia. In 2005 China launched a second orbiting mission with two astronauts. It is aiming for a Chinese astronaut to perform a spacewalk as early as next year and hopes to send an unmanned probe to the Moon by 2010. China spends $500 million a year on its space programmes, according to official figures, while Nasa’s proposed budget for 2007 is nearly $17 billion. But the United States has consistently deflected Chinese advances for closer cooperation on the two nations’ space programmes because of concerns about the involvement of China’s military. A Chinese government defence paper released last month said that its defence expenditure had grown by more than 15 per cent every year since 1990. In an article last year in the Communist Party’s mouthpiece, the People’s Daily, researchers at the National Defence University wrote that outer space was emerging as a possible theatre of operations for China’s armed forces. The analysis, which raised eyebrows around the world, listed space as an area where the People’s Liberation Army must be equipped and prepared to defend the nation’s interests. “Our military should not only protect China’s national sovereignty and territorial integrity, but should also protect the oceans and transport routes and other economic interests as well as ... the security of space,” it said. But a government white paper released late last year on China’s space aims mentioned them in vague, less threatening terms. -------- treaties Exception to India may weaken NPT regime: Japan From correspondents in Delhi, India, January 18, 2007 India eNews http://www.indiaenews.com/india/20070118/36247.htm While India is hopeful of winning Japan's support for civil nuclear cooperation, Japanese envoy Yasukuni Enoki Thursday said that Tokyo continues to have concerns about granting singular exception to India that 'may weaken the NPT regime'. The issue of civilian nuclear cooperation between India and Japan will figure prominently during discussions with Japanese leaders when External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee visits Tokyo sometime early this year. It will be an important issue during the visit of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to India in the later half of this year. 'We appreciate explanations from the Indian side. But we can't rule out the suspicion that making India exception to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty regime may weaken the NPT regime,' Enoki told reporters here. 'Our position hasn't changed in the last one month,' he said when asked whether Tokyo's ambivalent stance on civil nuclear cooperation has changed since Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visited Japan over a month ago. Manmohan Singh raised the issue of civilian nuclear cooperation with Abe last month and sought his support for the India-US civil nuclear deal in the Nuclear Suppliers Group of which Tokyo is an influential member. Abe stressed on Japanese sensitivities on the nuclear issue saying that Japan was the only country to be attacked by nuclear bombs and therefore it was not easy for it to make up its mind on this issue. Abe had, however, held out hope for backing at the NSG saying that Japan would wait for India's negotiations with the International Atomic Energy Agency on a safeguards agreement before taking a clear position on the issue. Alluding to the visit of Shyam Saran, prime minister's special envoy on the India-US civil nuclear deal, to Tokyo last week, Enoki said that the discussions were 'very productive and fruitful'. 'Japan's position is under consideration,' he said. The joint statement issued at the end of talks between Manmohan Singh and Abe last month struck a positive note, acknowledging the need 'to enhance international civilian nuclear cooperation through appropriate IAEA safeguards'. Although the dates for Mukherjee's visit have not finalised, Japan is hoping that he visits Tokyo before the SAARC summit here in April at which Japan has been invited has an observer. Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso is likely to represent Japan at the SAARC summit. 'Since this will be Aso's fifth consecutive visit to India without a return visit from his Indian counterpart, we are pressing that Mukherjee visits Japan before April,' Enoki said. The ambassador also unveiled a busy calendar of bilateral meetings and events this year with the joint task force of the two sides launching their negotiations on a landmark Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CEPA) at the end of the month. The decision to launch CEPA negotiations and to conclude it in two years was taken during Manmohan Singh's recent visit to Tokyo. Other important diplomatic and cultural events lined up for this year include the launch of Japan Year in India next month and Japan India tourism exchange year in mid-April. A memorandum of understanding on increasing seven flights to 21 flights per week between the two countries is also likely to be signed this year. -------- u.s. nuc facilities NRC seeks to terror-proof nuclear plants By Bonnie Pfister PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW Thursday, January 18, 2007 http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/business/s_489073.html While federal regulators say the nation's nuclear power plants could probably withstand a Sept. 11th-style attack, future reactors will be specifically designed to survive a crash by a large aircraft. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Eliot Brenner said Wednesday that such an incident is considered highly unlikely. But with dozens of domestic nuclear power plants on utilities' drawing boards for the first time since the 1970s, the commission will reach out to reactor engineers to discuss ways to enhance reactor durability. "We believe that (existing plants) are very strong, very robust and would perform well if there were a deliberate attack," Brenner said. "We are looking at ways that (new) designs can be tweaked in some fashion that would further improve their survivability." Among the nuclear engineering firms that could be affected is Westinghouse Electric Co. In 2004, the NRC certified the Monroeville-based firm's AP1000 reactor, which can provide power to 880,000 homes. Some 19 U.S. utilities and consortiums have announced plans to build 30 nuclear power plants, several using the AP1000 design. Westinghouse says its AP1000 -- 10 years in the making -- is smaller, safer and less expensive to build than previous nuclear power reactors. While company spokesman Scott Shaw said the company could not guarantee that the AP1000 would be impervious to such an attack, he expressed confidence in the design's durability. The reactor is housed inside a containment vessel with 13/4-inch-thick steel walls. That's surrounded by a cylindrical, steel-reinforced concrete "shield building" with three-foot-thick concrete walls. That building is designed as a Seismic Category 1 structure, capable of withstanding the impact of earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes and floods. "However, when the NRC gives new guidance about the design of nuclear reactors to withstand an impact from a large aircraft, Westinghouse will evaluate the AP1000 design against the new guidelines and, if necessary, modify the existing AP1000 design to comply with the new federal guidelines," Shaw said. This "nuclear renaissance" comes amid heightened awareness of the role coal-burning power plants play in global warming, and the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which offers tax credits and other incentives to builders of nuclear plants. A year after terrorists killed more than 3,000 people by flying jet planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Nuclear Energy Institute released a report, based on $1 million in computer modeling analyses of such an attack against the nation's 103 nuclear reactors. It found that while electricity generation capability would likely be damaged, radiation releases would be unlikely. Bonnie Pfister can be reached at bpfister@tribweb.com. ---- Nuclear Regulatory Workforce Challenged January 18, 2007 Associated Press http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=AP&Date=20070118&ID=6356722 WASHINGTON (AP) - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's ability to hire enough workers to manage the expected onslaught of new nuclear reactor applications will be crippled without increased funding, a report by the investigative arm of Congress says. NRC Chairman Dale Klein said he, too, was concerned about the agency's ability to handle the license requests unless it receives more money from Congress. Without a new budget, the agency will be $95 million, or 12 percent, short. "It will slow (the licensing) down," he said in an interview. A Government Accountability Office report released Wednesday examined his agency's workforce challenges. "The funding and full-time equivalent restrictions ... would have a crippling impact on our ability to manage human capital," Klein wrote in a response included in the GAO report released Wednesday. Electric power companies, including Southern Co., Entergy Corp., Constellation Energy Group Inc., Exelon Corp., Dominion Resources Inc. and Duke Energy Corp., intend to apply for 20 licenses to build and operate at least 29 new nuclear power reactors in fiscal years 2008 and 2009 with project costs between $1.5 billion and $4 billion, according to the GAO report. French state-owned nuclear power company Areva, through its UniStar Nuclear joint venture with Constellation, is competing with General Electric Co., Westinghouse -- now owned by Toshiba Corp. -- and others to develop the new reactors. To deal with the application demands and its other duties, NRC projects that its workforce will need to grow from about 3,100 employees in early fiscal 2006 to nearly 4,000 workers by 2010, which will require between 300 and 400 new hires annually during that time, according to the report. NRC exceeded its fiscal year 2006 hiring target by hiring 371 new employees, but sustaining that performance could be difficult because the agency has not completed its hiring and training enhancement plans, the GAO said. Reviewing the applications and conducting its other work could hinder NRC's ability to ensure a safe and secure nuclear power industry. Substantial delays in the application process also could hurt investor confidence, decrease the cost effectiveness of nuclear energy, and possibly reduce the amount of electricity available in the U.S., the report concluded. GAO recommended the NRC complete an overall workforce plan and provide appropriate resources to implement its knowledge management and training efforts. There are currently 103 nuclear plants operating in the United States, producing about 20 percent of the nation's electricity, and the new applications will be the first since the 1970s before the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in 1979. Shares of Southern dipped 3 cents to $36.68 in afternoon trading, while Duke added 11 cents to $18.70, Entergy slid 2 cents to $90.73, Constellation rose 34 cents to $71.21, Exelon gained 6 cents to $59.91, Dominion added 15 cents to $80.25, and GE fell 41 cents to $37.57, all on the New York Stock Exchange. ---- GAO Report: NRC Needs Increased Funding to Handle Heavier Workload Thursday, January 18, 2007 NEI Nuclear Notes http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2007/01/gao-report-nrc-needs-increased-funding.html From the AP: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's ability to hire enough workers to manage the expected onslaught of new nuclear reactor applications will be crippled without increased funding, a report by the investigative arm of Congress says. NRC Chairman Dale Klein said he, too, was concerned about the agency's ability to handle the license requests unless it receives more money from Congress. Without a new budget, the agency will be $95 million, or 12 percent, short. "It will slow (the licensing) down," he said in an interview. A Government Accountability Office report released Wednesday examined his agency's workforce challenges. "The funding and full-time equivalent restrictions ... would have a crippling impact on our ability to manage human capital," Klein wrote in a response included in the GAO report released Wednesday. To read a plain text copy of the report, click here. http://www.gao.gov/htext/d07105.html Late last week, in a letter to the Senate Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Senators Tom Carper and George Voinovich warned that if the NRC was held to FY 2006 funding levels in the FY 2007 budget... [W]e believe the NRC will be unable to fulfill critical regulatory responsibilities not just in FY 07, but for several subsequent fiscal years. http://www.nei.org/documents/NRC_JAN12_07.pdf -------- michigan Palisades' license renewed for 20 years Tuesday, January 18, 2007 By Lynn Turner lturner@kalamazoogazette.com 388-8564 http://www.mlive.com/news/kzgazette/index.ssf?/base/news-21/1169137261301840.xml&coll=7 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's decision Wednesday to renew the Palisades Nuclear Power Plant's operating license for another 20 years drew sharp reaction from activists who opposed the extension. ``We now know that NRC actually stands for Nuclear Rubberstamp Commission,'' Kevin Kamps, of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service in Washington, D.C., said in a written press release Wednesday. Kamps and other anti-nuclear activists campaigned against the licensing renewal for the plant in Van Buren County's Covert Township beyond its 2011 expiration. They questioned the safety of the plant, which sits at the edge of Lake Michigan about 35 miles west of Kalamazoo, pointing to various problems that have prompted temporary shutdowns and government fines since it opened in 1971. U.S. Rep. Fred Upton, R-St. Joseph, however, lauded the NRC's decision. ``It's important not only for the jobs and continued economic vitality of the area, which is No. 1, but we continue to be concerned about energy,'' said Upton, a new member of the House Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee. ``(This is) safe, and it gives us alternatives.'' Nuclear Management Co. of Hudson, Wis., which manages the 789-megawatt power plant for owner CMS Energy Corp., of Jackson, began the license-renewal process in March 2005. The NRC, after finding no environmental or safety concerns that would preclude renewal, extended the license through March 2031, officials said. The New Orleans-based Entergy Corp. last year announced plans to buy the plant for $380 million in a deal expected to close early this year. The Palisades plant provides electricity to a large part of southwestern Michigan. It is one of the largest property-tax payers in Van Buren County. -------- new mexico Hot waste one step closer to WIPP Thursday, January 18th, 2007 SF New Mexican: Rob Galbraith http://www.topix.net/r/04cYFSNgzWhGlDOKuEPUCbW=2BAzQzUdMGTH6EWeh=2B6Nujf1K0Q9n6UEX3y93i4tlxSivhdV=2FiGZlE7Z2ozCUy=2BUQ=3D=3D As one commenter notes, when WIPP was passed, we were promised “no hot waste.” The slippery slope, warned about, predicted by many, expected by most, is most accurately used in association with every instance of our country’s continuing irresponsibility with nuclear weapons technology. Nevertheless, this should not be allowed to go forward. Indeed, WIPP should not have been allowed to be completed, without one particular modification: the trucks pass by a community without an escape route. Eldorado, where I live, east of Santa Fe, is a huge loop road off of 285 (like a backwards “D”). One radioactive truck spill would trap and possibly irradiate thousands of residents. There should be a relief route at the back of the development for escape westwards (against the predominant westerly winds). The WIPP route gave us a four-lane 285; surely there’s enough cash to make a simple two-lane out of the back of Eldorado. I also want to know if they moved forward with the single-wall containers, over the more safe double-wall containers. This is an additional risk that some, perhaps, may not know about. -------- MILITARY -------- arms Pakistan buying 700 missiles from US Thursday, January 18, 2007 Pakistan International News http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=5300 TUCSON, United States: Pakistan is buying 700 air-to-air missiles made by the US defence group Raytheon for $284 million. Pakistan is purchasing 500 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM), the largest international order for this weapon, and 200 short-range AIM-9M Sidewinder missiles, Raytheon said in a statement on Monday. -------- prisoners of war Manual to allow executions based on hearsay Pentagon plan for detainee trials could spark fresh bipartisan debate MSNBC Jan 18, 2007 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16691101/ WASHINGTON - The Pentagon has drafted a manual for upcoming detainee trials that would allow suspected terrorists to be convicted on hearsay evidence and coerced testimony and imprisoned or put to death. According to a copy of the manual obtained by The Associated Press, a terror suspect's defense lawyer cannot reveal classified evidence in the person's defense until the government has a chance to review it. The manual, sent to Capitol Hill on Thursday and scheduled to be released later by the Pentagon, is intended to track a law passed last fall by Congress restoring President Bush's plans to have special military commissions try terror-war prisoners. Those commissions had been struck down earlier in the year by the Supreme Court. The Pentagon manual could spark a fresh confrontation between the Bush administration and Congress — now led by Democrats — over the treatment of the nation’s terrorism suspects. Last September, Congress — then led by Republicans — sent Bush a bill granting wide latitude in interrogating and detaining captured enemy combatants. The legislation also prohibited some of the worst abuses of detainees like mutilation and rape, but granted the president leeway to decide which other interrogation techniques are permissible. Long road to bill's passage Passage of the bill, which was backed by the White House, followed more than three months of debate that included angry rebukes by Democrats of the administration's interrogation policies, and a short-lived rebellion by some Republican senators. The Detainee Treatment Act, separate legislation championed in 2005 by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., prohibited the use of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of military and CIA prisoners. It was approved overwhelmingly by Congress despite a veto threat by Bush, who eventually signed it into law. Gonzales quizzed on domestic spying The Pentagon manual is aimed at ensuring that enemy combatants — the Bush administration's term for many of the terrorism suspects captured on the battlefield — "are prosecuted before regularly constituted courts affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized by civilized people," according to the document. As required by law, the manual prohibits statements obtained by torture and "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" as prohibited by the Constitution. However, the law does allow statements obtained through coercive interrogation techniques if obtained before Dec. 30, 2005, and deemed reliable by a judge. Nearly 400 detainees suspected of links to al-Qaida and the Taliban are still being held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, while about 380 others have been transferred or released. The Defense Department is currently planning trials for at least 10 suspects. Geneva Conventions violated? Democrats have said they would like to revisit detainee legislation and address concerns that the bill gives the president too much latitude interpreting standards set by the Geneva Conventions on prisoner treatment — and may deny detainees legal rights. Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said he planned to scrutinize the manual to ensure that it does not “run afoul” of the Constitution. “I have not yet seen evidence that the process by which these rules were built or their substance addresses all the questions left open by the legislation. This committee will fulfill its oversight responsibility to make sure this is the case,” Skelton said in a written statement. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and some Democrats have said the legislation will be shot down by the courts as unconstitutional because it bars detainees from protesting their detentions. Under the law, only individuals selected for military trial are given access to a lawyer and judge; other military detainees can be held until hostilities cease. -------- us Retired Generals Slam Bush's Iraq Plan (CBS News) Jan 18, 2007 http://cbs11tv.com/national/topstories_story_018175215.html WASHINGTON The President's troop build-up -- already taking political fire from both Democrats and Republicans -- came under withering attack on Thursday from a panel of retired generals on Capitol Hill, CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports. "The proposed solution is to send more troops and it won't work. The addition of 21,000 troops is too little and too late," former Marine Gen. Joseph Hoar said. Hoar once commanded all American forces in the Middle East and has nothing good to say about the war. "This administration's handling of the war has been characterized by deceit, mismanagement and a shocking failure to understand the social and political forces that influence events in the Middle East," Hoar said. Retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who commanded a division in the first Gulf War and was consulted by the president in drawing up the new Iraq strategy said, "They're going to try to muscle this thing out in the next 24 months with an urban counterinsurgency plan that I personally believe, with all due respect, is a fool's errand." It will take political compromise to end Iraq's sectarian violence, and retired Lt. Gen William Odom, who once headed Army intelligence, doubts it will happen. "The Sunnis certainly are not committed to it, and I don't think the Shiites have ever been committed to it," Odom said. Even the build-up's lone supporter, former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Jack Keane, acknowledged that success depends on an unknown quantity — the performance of Iraqi Prime Minister al-Malaki and his government. "Who is Maliki and who is the Maliki government? And I don't believe our government, I don't pretend to speak for them, but I don't believe our government truly knows that answer," Keane said. At another hearing, reports Martin, the head of the CIA was asked if his analysts think the Maliki government can deliver. He replied, "It's an unknown." Meanwhile, opposition to the president's plan is also growing on Capitol Hill. Speaker Nancy Pelosi pledged the support of House Democrats for legislation declaring that Mr. Bush's decision to send additional troops to Iraq is "not in the national interest of the United States." Pelosi's commitment came as Senate Democrats said they intend to begin advancing a nonbinding measure next week that criticizes the White House's new strategy. Democrats sought to bring public pressure to bear on the president's new policy as Mr. Bush and senior administration officials worked to limit Republican defections. "He said, 'If you can help us out, I really appreciate your help,'" Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., said after a White House meeting with the commander in chief. Even a Republican senator who won't speak out against the president for fear it will hurt the war effort told CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer there is virtually no enthusiasm among Senate Republicans for the plan. With the exception of Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, the senator said almost no one among Republican senators is enthusiastic about enlarging the force. Senate Democrats, backed by two Republicans, unveiled legislation Wednesday that criticized Mr. Bush's decision to increase troop levels by 21,500. "It is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating the United States military force presence in Iraq," the nonbinding Senate measure states. At a news conference, Pelosi read those words aloud approvingly, and said, "That resolution will be supported by Democrats in the House." At the same time, Pelosi offered no indication that Congress will be able to prevent Mr. Bush from carrying out his plan. She did not directly address the issue when asked, and Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., the House majority leader, said, "As a practical matter, we know that the president has the constitutional authority ... to increase the troops." Democratic leaders in both houses have said repeatedly they will not support any attempt to cut off funds for troops who already have been deployed. Democratic leaders have not said when they intend to seek votes on their legislation, and Senate Republicans have maneuvered successfully to avoid the spectacle of a repudiation of the president before he delivers his annual State of the Union address next Tuesday. Sen. Joseph Biden, the Delaware Democrat who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the panel will debate the measure criticizing Mr. Bush's troop escalation on Wednesday. Republicans in both houses are expected to draft alternative legislation, in part to give members of their rank-and-file a measure to support rather than merely oppose what Democrats draft. Officials said one possibility under discussion is an alternative that supports the troop increase as long as the Iraqi government meets certain conditions, although no final decisions have been made. Whenever the votes occur, administration supporters have expressed fears that the president faces a bipartisan repudiation of significant proportions. So far, Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia Snowe of Maine are the only Republicans to announce their backing for the Senate measure. A third lawmaker, Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., signaled during the day he is giving serious consideration to joining them. "Senator Smith is opposed to a troop surge," said his spokesman, R.C. Hammond. "He is very open to serious ways that Congress can influence the president's Iraq strategy." Another Republican critic of Mr. Bush's policy, Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota, said: "I don't support the surge in Baghdad, but there are some things in the resolution I don't agree with, and so we're kind of looking at language." Mr. Bush's meeting with lawmakers was his third session in as many days as he struggles to build support for an increase in troops for a war that is opposed by the public and played a role in the Republican setbacks in last fall's elections. In addition, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley traveled to the Capitol to meet with House Republicans. Complicating Mr. Bush's political predicament is al-Maliki, who has said in recent days that the United States is not providing enough training and equipment for Iraqi forces. "He's been constantly asking for an upgrade of troops as well as equipment, and we're providing that," Mr. Bush told Belo Corp. television in an interview. "We may not be providing as quickly as he wants. But nevertheless it's a good sign when the prime minister says just give us the capabilities, and that's precisely what my new strategy and new plan is attempting to do." The president defended al-Maliki against skeptics by saying that Iraqi forces now are going after all people "who are fomenting the violence." Democrats have grown increasing critical of Mr. Bush's Iraq policy. "This president has taken the nation through a failed war," said Sen. Robert C. Byrd in remarks on the Senate floor. Hagel, long a critic of the war, said the administration's plans are doomed. "We are in a box, and putting our soldiers and Marines in more of a box and asking them to do things they cannot do," he said. Presidential politics is also part of the equation, CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante reports. Many of those who spoke against the troop surge have ambitions for '08: Hagel; Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.; Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.; and Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. The committee's senior Republican, Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, said the Democratic-inspired legislation was unlikely to have any impact on Mr. Bush. Describing the environment as politically charged, Lugar said, "We risk having reasoned debate descend into simplistic sloganeering." ---- Pentagon sees U.S. war cost in Iraq rising Thu 18 Jan 2007 (Reuters) By Richard Cowan http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=N18181226&WTmodLoc=World-R5-Alertnet-2 WASHINGTON, Jan 18 - The steadily rising Iraq war price tag will reach about $8.4 billion a month this year, Pentagon spokesmen said on Thursday, as heavy replacement costs for lost, destroyed and aging equipment mount. The Pentagon has been estimating last year's costs for the increasingly unpopular war at about $8 billion a month, having increased from a monthly "burn rate" of around $4.4 billion during the first year of fighting in fiscal 2003. During testimony at a House Budget Committee hearing, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England said that nearly four years into the war, the Pentagon's war costs were rising because it was having to replace big-ticket items such as helicopters, airplanes and armored vehicles that are wearing out or were lost in combat. "We have a backlog and are seeing an increase," England told the panel. When factoring in U.S. combat costs in Afghanistan, the Pentagon will spend about $9.7 billion a month during the fiscal year that ends on Sept. 30, according to Pentagon spokesmen. Early next month, the administration is expected to ask Congress for a further $100 billion in "emergency" war money, on top of the $70 billion already approved for this year. The request comes as President George W. Bush has sketched out an increase of 21,500 U.S. troops in Iraq that could cost about $5.6 billion. House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt, a South Carolina Democrat, said he hoped Congress could avoid recurring emergency funding bills for the war. "We would like to get a better grasp of the cost of the Iraq war and the global war on terrorism -- a way of accounting of costs to date and projecting costs to come." Since fiscal 2001, Congress has approved $503 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and other aspects of the U.S. "global war on terrorism," according to Congressional Budget Office testimony. Of that, $344 billion has gone for military, diplomatic and other security costs in Iraq, the CBO said. Most of the funds have been provided on an emergency basis, outside regular budget procedures. Critics say that obscures the true cost of the war and results in less congressional oversight. 'RESIDUAL TALE' Democrats won control of Congress in elections last November due largely to the Iraq war's unpopularity. England said the financial burden of the conflict would persist for some time. He said even after the war ends, and he did not estimate when that would be, there would be two years of a "residual tail" of costs for rebuilding the military. Democrats and Republicans on the budget panel grilled England on whether the Pentagon was slipping money for expensive, nonemergency projects into the emergency war funds requests. Specifically, they inquired about reports Bush would ask for money to pay for two "Joint Strike Fighter" airplanes that are several years from being ready for combat, along with money for ballistic missiles and Navy aircraft repairs and procurement that is unrelated to Iraq combat. England would not comment specifically on the upcoming request for emergency war money. But he said that when equipment was lost in Iraq, it was not replaced with "something old," but with new equipment. Democrats have promised tougher oversight of defense spending, while challenging Bush's plans to broaden the American war effort in Iraq. ---- Lawmakers criticize Pentagon for underestimating war costs By James Rosen McClatchy Newspapers Thu, Jan. 18, 2007 http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16492821.htm WASHINGTON - Lawmakers from both parties criticized senior Pentagon officials Thursday for using emergency spending bills to fund the Iraq war, which they said should have predictable costs by now. Democrats and Republicans at a House Budget Committee hearing also questioned the Iraq war's rising price tag, saying they face increased pressure from constituents to justify congressional support for the conflict. The bipartisan grilling at the budget panel's first session in the new Congress underscored the difficulty that President Bush faces as he seeks legislative approval for sending 21,500 more U.S. troops to Iraq. Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., the budget panel's new chairman, displayed a chart depicting the Iraq war's annual costs since the U.S. invasion in March 2003. Another chart put the total cost of the conflict at $379 billion, with fighting in Afghanistan adding $98 billion. "How do you account for the fact that the cost of the war keeps going up and up and up?" Spratt asked a panel of three Defense Department officials, led by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England. England said costs have risen the last two years - from $108 billion in 2005 to a projected $170 billion this year - partly because the wear and tear is requiring the Pentagon to replace planes, tanks and other costly weapons. England didn't cite the unexpected strength of the Iraqi insurgency and the spreading sectarian violence. But he alluded to it, telling one exasperated lawmaker: "War is dynamic. Turns out that the people we fight have a say." The last Congress provided $70 billion for the two wars in the Pentagon appropriations bill for the current fiscal year. England said Bush will send the new Congress a supplemental funding measure next month; he didn't deny lawmakers' claims that it will seek an additional $100 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush will send Congress his overall budget proposal on Feb. 5, but lawmakers said his recent budgets have provided few details of future spending for the wars. In a series of testy exchanges, England defended using emergency appropriations bills - called "supplementals" on Capitol Hill - to fund the bulk of the war since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. With most of the attention on Iraq, one committee member after another asked England why after nearly four years the Pentagon can't accurately project the cost of a war in the annual budgets and appropriations requests it sends to Congress. "I hope you can sense that there's a growing angst about these supplementals that keep coming in," said Rep. Gresham Barrett of South Carolina, the No. 2 Republican on the committee. At a separate hearing of the House Armed Services Committee, David Walker, the U.S. comptroller general, urged the Defense Department to rely less on emergency funding measures. "Moving more funding into baseline budgets, particularly for the Department of Defense, would enable decision-makers to better weigh priorities and assess trade-offs," he said. Lawmakers and analysts beyond Capitol Hill say the supplemental war measures carry few details and give Congress little time to evaluate them. England said that budget projections and appropriations bills contain only rough estimates of war costs because they move through Congress months before the time periods they fund. Emergency supplementals, by contrast, "pretty much capture the reality of actual warfare," he said. That answer wasn't good enough for some lawmakers. "Supplementals are supposed to be for those war costs that are unanticipated," said Rep. John Campbell, R-Calif. "I think a lot of us are worried about abuse." Campbell and other lawmakers accused the Pentagon of using the emergency funding measures to get money for expensive equipment and other needs with few ties to Iraq or Afghanistan. Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., pressed England about reports that the forthcoming emergency spending bill will seek money for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a new-generation jet fighter now in production. Becerra said the F-35s won't be available for several years, which he said won't help the 140,000 soldiers already in Iraq. "Our troops aren't interested in knowing what's going to be on the horizon five years from now," Becerra said. "They want to know what's going to be in the air and on the ground helping them today." England responded that it would be foolish for the Pentagon to replace old aircraft with similar planes. "When we lose two airplanes in Iraq, we recover the cost of those airplanes," he said. "We don't go back and buy old-model airplanes. It would make no sense to do that." England said U.S. military budgets shrank during the post-Cold War lull in the 1990s, creating a backlog of aging equipment that the stress of war has exposed. Spratt, though, said the Pentagon should be able to get a better handle on its war costs and to estimate them with reasonable reliability. The bipartisan Iraq Study Group recommended incorporating those costs in the regular budget and appropriations process, Spratt said, and Congress passed legislation requiring it to start next year. Not doing so, he said, makes it difficult to eliminate federal deficits, which totaled $248 billion last year. "If the president's budget purports to bring the budget to long-term balance, it has to include realistic cost projections of our enormous military efforts abroad," Spratt said. ---- A Grim Milestone: 500 Amputees TIME, Thursday, Jan. 18, 2007 By MICHAEL WEISSKOPF/WASHINGTON http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1580531,00.html?cnn=yes The giant transport planes unload their sad cargo at Andrews Air Force Base near Washington, the first stop home for the most seriously injured Americans of the Iraq war. Arriving virtually every Tuesday, Friday and Sunday nights for the past four years, the parade of wounded warriors may be one of the most predictable events in an otherwise unruly conflict. Last Tuesday marked another grim milestone: the arrival of the 500th amputee. Army officials said the victim, a 24-year-old corporal, lost both legs in a roadside bomb explosion on January 12. He was treated at the military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany, before landing at Andrews and being taken to Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The corporal became the newest resident of Ward 57, the hospital's renowned amputee center that has swelled with casualties since 2003. Limb-loss has occurred twice as often in Iraq as in any conflict of the past century, except for Vietnam, for which there are no good statistics. The 500 major amputations — toes and fingers aren't counted — represent 2.2% of the 22,700 U.S. troops wounded in action. But the number rises to 5% in the category of soldiers whose wounds prevent them returning to duty. Despite the devastating loss, amputation is actually a blessing for many Ward 57 patients. That's because they wouldn't have survived in past wars without today's body armor to protect vital organs and better-equipped medics to quickly stop hemorrhaging and deliver the wounded to hospitals. The extraordinary rates of survival in this war — 9 of every 10 soldiers wounded make it, compared to 7.5 of 10 in Vietnam — explains the larger number of casualties who survive with severe and lasting disabilities, including loss of limbs. The roadside bomb that wounded the 500th amputee is the signature weapon of the Iraq war, racking up the kind of body count caused by heavy artillery in past conflicts. Usually hidden in the road and detonated by remote control, these so-called improvised explosive devices release powerful blasts and shrapnel as Humvees pass by, carrying soldiers well-protected in all but their dangling limbs. "What takes the brunt of it are the arms and legs," said John Greenwood, historian of the Army Surgeon General's office. As the U.S. military has upgraded the armor of its Humvees, the annual number of amputees has decreased since a record high of 156 in 2004. But Iraqi insurgents have responded with bigger bombs that cause greater devastation. Experts say this has contributed to the increase in multiple amputees. Last year, nearly a quarter of the 128 amputees lost more than one limb, compared with about 13% in the first full year of the conflict. This war will produce the first generation of veterans in bionic arms and legs, a legacy that may seem most pronounced for upper extremity amputees. It is relatively rare to see Americans missing hands or arms; they represent only 5% of civilian amputees in the U.S. But nearly a quarter of those who lost limbs in Iraq have come home in that condition. -------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE -------- courts / tribunals Judge lets charges against Army officer stand Trial to proceed on refusal to deploy, criticism of Bush Bob Egelko, San Francisco Chronicle Staff Writer Thursday, January 18, 2007 http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/18/MNGRMNKF4I1.DTL An Army officer who refused to go to Iraq can be prosecuted not only for missing a troop movement but also for conduct unbecoming an officer because he publicly criticized President Bush and questioned the war's legality, a military judge has ruled. Such a challenge to the war could "prevent the orderly accomplishment of the mission or present a clear danger to loyalty, discipline, mission or morale of the troops,'' Army Lt. Col. John Head said Tuesday in refusing to dismiss charges against 1st Lt. Ehren Watada. Head noted that "contemptuous speech by an officer directed at the president'' is grounds for prosecution under military law. He said it would be up to the jury at Watada's court-martial to decide whether his statements fell into those categories. Head also said Watada was not entitled to a hearing on the legality of the Iraq war and had no right to defend his actions by arguing that they were motivated by his opposition to an illegal war. Those are political questions that a military court has no authority to consider, he said. "What he's saying is that people in the military are not allowed to criticize their leaders, not allowed to criticize policy,'' Watada's lawyer, Eric Seitz, said Wednesday. He said the ruling was much more restrictive than past military court decisions on troops' right to voice dissent during wartime. Watada's court-martial, with Head presiding, is scheduled to start Feb. 5 at Fort Lewis, Wash., where Watada is based. Seitz said the ruling guaranteed a conviction on the charge of missing a troop movement and would make it hard to defend Watada against four charges of conduct unbecoming an officer, based on the officer's public statements. Watada faces up to six years in prison if convicted of all charges. "I don't want my client sitting in jail while we litigate in civilian courts, all the way up to the Supreme Court, but that may be what we have to do,'' Seitz said. In a statement released Wednesday by organizers of a "citizens' tribunal'' on the legality of the war, scheduled for this weekend in Tacoma, Wash., Watada said he stood by his belief that "this war is illegal and immoral. Everything I've done since I announced publicly why I'm refusing to go to this war is an attempt to appeal to the American people to fulfill their civic obligations.'' The Army did not comment on the ruling, issuing only a general statement that the military justice system "affords soldiers extensive rights to ensure fair and impartial investigations and trials, just as in the civil system.'' Watada, 28, a Hawaiian who enlisted in the Army in 2003, refused to accompany his armored infantry unit to Iraq in June. He was the first commissioned U.S. officer to take such a stance. The Army rejected his offers to fight in Afghanistan instead or resign his commission, and has also turned down an offer of a six-month sentence and a dishonorable discharge for missing a troop movement, Seitz said. The charges of conduct unbecoming an officer are based on Watada's public statements and press interviews. In an interview with Oakland reporter Sarah Olson, published by the Web site www.truthout.org in June, Watada spoke of the "deception the Bush administration used to initiate and process this war,'' which he said made him "ashamed of wearing the uniform.'' The Army has subpoenaed Olson and another reporter, Gregg Kakesako of the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, to testify at the court-martial that they had quoted Watada accurately. Olson has said she is reluctant to testify against someone she interviewed, particularly in a case involving freedom of speech. But Head's refusal to dismiss the speech-related charges means the reporters may have to decide whether to comply with the subpoenas or face imprisonment. E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com. -------- POLITICS -------- investigations Killing the Golden Goose A Look at The Iraq Study Group Report by Ed Kinane www.dissidentvoice.org January 18, 2007 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan07/Kinane18.htm “The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating.” With these terse yet understated words the Iraq Study Group begins its Report. The Group is a ten-person consensus committee headed by former Congressman Lee H. Hamilton and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III. Its Report was released to the world on December 6. The Report is a quick read -- its 79 recommendations are introduced and presented in about 100 pages. If Mr. Bush were to read it, he'd find little new information about Iraq. Rather he would find a counter-assessment of the war -- one he wouldn't hear from the yes men and chickenhawks and ideologues with whom he surrounds himself. The Report would reveal the thinking and anxieties of the US foreign policy establishment. It would reflect their disenchantment with the President's Iraq "strategy." Although convened in June 2006 under the auspices of the United States Institute of Peace, the Iraq Study Group is no gaggle of pacifists or humanitarians; check out the 18 pages -- about one sixth of the entire text -- devoted to their respective curricula vitae. The Group, while on a different page than Mr. Bush, is in the same chapter: it perpetuates the denial and the imperial mindset behind the US invasion and protracted occupation of Iraq. If Mr. Bush were winning in Iraq -- that is, if he somehow were imposing his will on that unruly region and handing over control of its vast oil reserves to US corporations -- this Group would feel no need to speak out. The Group does acknowledge certain needs and realities. It notes the plight of Iraq's millions of internal and external refugees. Departing from the Bush blackball, it calls for diplomatic relations with Syria and Iran. It emphasizes that the Iraq issue is "inextricably linked" to a range of other Middle East crises -- including Israel-Palestine. The Group recommends -- though perfunctorily -- that the President declare that the US doesn't covet Iraq's oil and that the President also declare that the US doesn't seek permanent bases in Iraq. [p.61] While the Report's maps do pinpoint oil fields, they neglect to show the many US bases established in Iraq and throughout the region's oil lands. Nor do its maps give us any idea of what Iraq territory the US military, after nearly four years of squandering hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of US lives, can claim to control. The Group says, "US forces seem to be caught in a mission that has no foreseeable end." [p.12] While it provides no timetable for the withdrawal of US forces, the Group does provide a table of timed "Milestones for Iraq" permitting, as they are achieved, some downsizing. [pp.62-63] Although the Group looks into possible, if not likely, near futures, it has scant historical perspective. It notes Britain's longtime involvement with Iraq in the days before Saddam Hussein, but the Group says nothing about British colonialism, its exploiting Iraqi oil, its role in cobbling together that artificial entity called Iraq, or its inability to quell nationalist resistance. The Group says nothing about US financial and military support for Saddam in the eighties, especially during his years-long war with Iran. It says nothing of the 13 years of US/UN sanctions preceding the 2003 invasion -- sanctions that led to the premature death of, among others, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. These aren't "merely" matters of justice and reparation; they bear directly on how Iraqis might view the US and hence might help explain the Iraqis' fierce resistance to having US forces in their land. The Group never cites international law, much less acknowledges that the invasion violated that law. It fails to acknowledge that the invasion and occupation have made a shambles of Iraq's sovereignty. The Group barely mentions the false premises and false intelligence (9/11, al Qaeda, WMD) on which the invasion was sold. It treats Mr. Bush with kid gloves: it avoids recalling that Bush Inc. repeatedly and systematically lied to us all. The Group's grasp of the present is no more based in reality than its wishful forays into the future. The Group fails to acknowledge that the US is occupying Iraq. The Group is so allergic to the "O" word that in those few places where it's used, it's in quotation marks. By glossing over that overriding reality, the Group can't see that in resisting the invaders, Iraqis, whether Sunni or Shia, may see themselves as patriots defending their homeland. And, imagining how we might react if the US were invaded, how can we say they aren 't patriots? If there is no occupation, then the US has no obligation -- required of occupiers by the Geneva Conventions -- to provide law and order and to provide for the welfare of the people. Not only does the Group not mention the Geneva Conventions and this obligation, it repeatedly faults the current and "sovereign" Iraqi government for not providing law and order. As for welfare of the people, the Group could care less. Devotees of tough love, they describe the essential government food subsidies as a "burden." [p.22] The health issues -- products of the sanctions and the war -- now plaguing the Iraqi people are ignored. There's no mention of the carcinogenic and radioactive depleted uranium, used in US weaponry that now contaminates Iraq's soil and water. When listing (on p. 3) the multiple sources of violence in Iraq, the Group specifies the "Sunni Arab insurgency, al Qaeda and affiliated jihadist groups, Shiite militias and death squads, and organized criminality." Unaccountably excluded from this list is the US Similarly, neighboring nations are cited for undercutting Iraq's stability, but not the US It is as if the US had never invaded Iraq. It is as if the US had never killed tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. The Group never mentions the role of the thousands of armed US mercenaries -- the so-called "civilian contractors"; these rogue operators are accountable to no official chain of command. The phrase "war crime" is never mentioned. The Group -- like most US media -- gives no hint of the untold numbers of Iraqis civilians who have been killed by the US Air Force. In fact while "air support" is mentioned once, there is only a single oblique reference to the massive US Air Force in the Middle East. The Group keeps calling for the recently installed Iraq government to step up to the plate and do what the US -- with all its staggering might -- has been unable to do: quell the Sunni insurgents and the Shia militias. In the unlikely event the Iraq government is able to impose order, the Group suggests US ground forces could then withdraw. But here's the rub: many of our soldiers wouldn't come home. They'd be re-deployed nearby (especially to Afghanistan). Nor would the Air Force vacate Iraqi skies. The Group proposes, as the way out for a US military bogged down in an admittedly unwinnable guerilla war in Iraq, a strategy similar to the "Vietnamization" of another era. With its lack of historical perspective, the Report ignores the painful and costly lessons of "Vietnamization" -- that spectacularly failed US policy of the invaders recruiting and training locals as proxy cannon fodder. The Group calls for US trainers being "embedded" in Iraqi units on an ongoing basis. The Group refuses to face the implications of such units being heavily infiltrated by men hostile to their alien trainers. It forgets about the fragging -- the killing of officers by soldiers under their charge -- that flourished in Viet Nam. The Group frequently invokes "terrorism" and "democracy." Yet it never defines these spongy terms. (As the bumper sticker puts it, war is terrorism with a bigger budget.) From its very first paragraph and often thereafter the Group invokes "our interests and values." But it never spells these out. It assumes that of course its readers all understand the code . . . and share the imperialist dream. Thanks to their Iraq war-related contracts, the industrial-military complex is laughing all the way to the bank. But the Study Group ignores the profiteering that helps perpetuate the occupation. Its key message -- its dominating anxiety -- is that, with the US bogged down in Iraq, the US lacks the wherewithal to impose its will elsewhere: "The American military has little reserve force to call on if it needs ground forces to respond to other crises around the world." [p.7] Or again, "First, and most importantly, the United States faces other security dangers in the world, and a continuing Iraqi commitment of ground forces at present levels will leave no reserve available to meet other contingencies." [p.73, italics added] The Study Group, unlike Mr. Bush, grasps that the Iraq war is killing the golden goose, the imperial scheme. With the US now stretched so thin, it can no longer intimidate rivals, other nationalists or anti-imperialists. It's having a harder time extorting its customary highly profitable trade terms. This is true whether in Afghanistan, elsewhere in the Middle East . . . or in Latin America. Hugo Chavez and the resurgent populists south of the Rio Grande are probably well aware they owe an enormous debt to the tireless resisters and the bloodied people of Iraq. Ed Kinane is a long-time peace and justice activist based in Syracuse. He spent five months in Iraq in 2003 with Voices in the Wilderness. He can be reached at: edkinane@verizon.net. -------- propaganda wars Report: Cheney rejected Iran concessions Thu Jan 18, 2007 Associated Press http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070118/ap_on_go_pr_wh/britain_us_iran LONDON - An Iranian offer to help the United States stabilize Iraq and end its military support for Hezbollah and Hamas was rejected by Vice President Dick Cheney in 2003, a former top State Department official told the British Broadcasting Corp. The U.S. State Department was open to the offer, which came in an unsigned letter sent shortly after the American invasion of Iraq, Lawrence Wilkerson, former Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff, told BBC's Newsnight in a program broadcast Wednesday night. But, Wilkerson said, Cheney vetoed the deal. "We thought it was a very propitious moment" to strike a deal, Wilkerson said. "But as soon as it got to the White House, and as soon as it got to the vice president's office, the old mantra of 'We don't talk to evil' ... reasserted itself." A spokesman for the State Department said Thursday he wasn't aware of any letter from the Iranians to the U.S. government in 2003. "Far as I know, there's never been an offer from the Iranian Government on those kinds of concerns," said Tom Casey, the state department's deputy spokesman. Wilkerson said that, in return for its cooperation, Tehran asked Washington to lift sanctions and to dismantle the Mujahedeen Khalq, an Iranian opposition group which has bases in Iraq. Iran also offered to increase the transparency of its nuclear program, according to Wilkerson. Wilkerson has been a frequent critic of the Bush administration in general and Cheney in particular, holding the vice president responsible for the mistreatment of detainees and the failure of Iraq's postwar planning. ---- U.S. officials say rumor of Iran strike not true 18 Jan 2007 Reuters http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N18450915.htm WASHINGTON, Jan 18 (Reuters) - U.S. defense officials on Thursday said a rumored Iranian missile strike on a U.S. naval vessel in the Gulf was not true. "No such event took place," said one of the officials on condition of anonymity. The bond market briefly pared losses on talk of possible military engagement between the United States and Iran, but turned back down after the Defense Department said the incident did not occur. Tensions are high between Washington and Tehran. The United States accuses Iran of supporting insurgents in Iraq and charges that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian energy program. The Pentagon has increased the U.S. military presence in the Gulf in recent weeks, a move widely seen as a warning against provocative actions by Iran. -------- us politics Bush Admin Backs Down on Illegal Wiretapping Thursday, January 18th, 2007 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/18/1623234 The Bush administration has reversed its policy to eavesdrop on US citizens without court-approved warrants. On Wednesday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales announced wiretaps will now be approved by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as required by law. But questions remain over the extent of the reversal. [includes rush transcript] The Bush administration has reversed its policy to eavesdrop on US citizens without court-approved warrants. On Wednesday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales announced wiretaps will now be approved by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as required by law. But questions remain over the extent of the reversal. * Glenn Greenwald. Constitutional law attorney specializing in presidential power and First Amendment issues. He is the author of the new book "How Would a Patriot Act?" and runs the blog Unclaimed Territory. RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: We're joined on the telephone right now by Glenn Greenwald. He is a constitutional attorney. Can you talk about the significance of this, in the last minute we have? GLENN GREENWALD: Well, I think it's unclear exactly what the administration has agreed to do with its secret agreement with the FISA court, but the significance is that the administration has been claiming for the last year that it was impossible to defend the country while eavesdropping in compliance with FISA, and obviously, as it turns out, that was false all along, because they are now agreeing to eavesdrop only within the framework of FISA. AMY GOODMAN: And can you explain what now will happen? GLENN GREENWALD: Well, the administration is saying that all of their eavesdropping in the future will be done only with approval of the FISA court and within the parameters of a FISA judge, which means there will be no more eavesdropping in secret. But it still remains for us to learn how they've been using that eavesdropping power over the past year in secret and what other measures are being justified by the theory that the President has the right to act outside the law. They have not rescinded those theories. They’re continuing to claim that they had the power to do this all along. AMY GOODMAN: Do you think that this has to do with just the Democratic congress that is now in power? GLENN GREENWALD: Well, the administration has a history of, whenever there is about to be a court ruling or some other confrontation about their lawlessness or their radical theories of power, they end up abandoning it and finding some other way to do it. There was already a court ruling saying that they broke the law and violated the Constitution, and the appeals court was about to hold oral argument on that. And Alberto Gonzales was to appear today, and is going to appear today shortly, before the Judiciary Committee that’s now chaired by Pat Leahy rather than Arlen Specter, and so there was going to be a lot of pressure brought to bear to force them to comply with the law. So this was certainly -- the fact that there were finally going to be consequences from their behavior motivated their decision. AMY GOODMAN: Glenn Greenwald, thanks for joining us, constitutional law attorney, wrote the book How Would a Patriot Act? His blog is called “Unclaimed Territory.” ---- New Resolutions Lay Ground for Iraq War Showdown on Capitol Hill Thursday, January 18th, 2007 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/18/1622241 Democratic Congressmembers Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey and Maxine Waters of California have introduced a bill calling for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops and military contractors within six months. The measure is one several new resolutions showing increased opposition to the White House plan to escalate the war in Iraq. We play an excerpt of Rep. Woolsey’s speech introducing her bill on the House floor. [includes rush transcript] On Capitol Hill, President Bush is facing increasing opposition to his plan to escalate the war in Iraq. A group of Republican and Democratic Senators have introduced a non-binding resolution opposing Bush’s plan to send over 20,000 more troops. The resolution was introduced by Democratic Senators Carl Levin and Joseph Biden as well as Republican Chuck Hagel. Meanwhile in the House, Democratic Congressmembers Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey and Maxine Waters introduced a bill calling for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops and military contractors within six months. A number of grassroots groups are also presenting plans to Congress. A group of 50 active-duty service members visited Capitol Hill on Tuesday to call for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. The soldiers presented a petition – known as an appeal for redress. It was signed by over 1,000 troops – mostly enlisted service members. Today over 100 members of the Granny Peace Brigade plan to visit the offices of every Senator to urge Congress to cut off funding for the war. This is California Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey outlining her bill, known as the Bring Our Troops Home and Sovereignty of Iraq Restoration Act. * Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA). RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: This is California Congressmember Lynn Woolsey. She was speaking last night on the House floor, outlining her bill known as the Bring Our Troops Home and Sovereignty of Iraq Restoration Act. REP. LYNN WOOLSEY: The Congress has already appropriated funding that will support our troops and keep this occupation going for at least another six months, possibly longer. That funding instead should be used to finance an aggressive withdrawal plan that brings our troops home to their families, and our bill would do exactly that. Our plan will also withdraw all US troops and military contractors from Iraq within six months from date of enactment. It will prohibit any further funding to deploy or continue to deploy US troops in Iraq. The bill does, however, allow for funding to be used, as needed, to ensure a safe withdrawal of all US military personnel and contractors. Funding may also be used for the increased training and equipping of Iraqi and international security forces. Thirdly, it accelerates, during the six month transition, training of a permanent Iraqi security force; and fourth, authorize, if requested by the Iraqi government, US support for an international stabilization force. Such a force would be funded for no longer than two years, and be combined with economic and humanitarian assistance. It guarantees full healthcare funding, including mental health, for US veterans of military operations in Iraq and other conflicts. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the bill would rescind the 2002 Congressional Authorization for the War in Iraq; prohibit the construction of permanent US military bases in the country; and finally, ensure that the US has no long-term control over Iraqi oil. We believe that the oil in Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people. And we believe that when this oil goes into the world marketplace, the international marketplace, the US will certainly have access to our share. Mr. Speaker, excluding the veterans’ benefits, our plan will cost the American people pennies on the dollar, compared to continuing the occupation of two more years in Iraq. It will save lives, bodies and minds, and it will give Iraq back to the Iraqis. The Bring Our Troops Home and Sovereignty of Iraq Act is an important step in regaining our country’s credibility in the region and throughout the world, and it provides the President and Congress with a comprehensive strategy for responding to the majority of Americans who want our troops to come home. AMY GOODMAN: California Congressmember Lynn Woolsey, speaking on the floor of the House last evening. ---- US Lawmakers Demand Bush Ask Congress Before Invading Iran by Staff Writers Washington (AFP) Jan 18, 2007 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_Lawmakers_Demand_Bush_Ask_Congress_Before_Invading_Iran_999.html A resolution introduced Thursday in the US House of Representatives calls on President George W. Bush to obtain approval from Congress before using military force against Iran. The bill, introduced by longtime Iraq war critic Walter Jones, a Republican, and five other US lawmakers calls on the president obtain authorization for an attack on Iran, unless the United States or US interests are attacked first. Supporters said the legislation would prevent the United States from becoming embroiled in another intractable war like the one raging in Iraq. "Congress will not stand by idly -- it won't be railroaded into another war that will only make America and the world less safe," Democratic Representative Martin Meehan said at a press conference Thursday. He said recent administration statements and military maneuvers point to an imminent attack on Iran. "The indications of the initial saber-rattling are everywhere," Meehan said. "I'm not here to tell you that I trust Iran, but I am here to say that I don't trust the administration," Meehan said. Bush announced last week he had ordered a second US aircraft carrier battle group to the Gulf and announced the deployment of a Patriot missile defense battalion to the region to protect allies against potential Iranian missile strikes. And in a speech unveiling his new strategy for Iraq, the US president also vowed to "seek out and destroy" any networks funneling weapons or fighters from Syria or Iran into Iraq. Those moves have fed speculation that a US attack might be imminent, despite the administration's repeated denials. "There is a growing concern -- justified or not -- that some US officials are contemplating military action against Iran," Jones said, adding that an invasion of Iran would flout the US Constitution. "If the President is contemplating committing our blood and treasure in another war, then he and his administration must make the case to Congress and the American people why it would be in the national security interests of the United States to engage militarily in Iran," Jones said. -------- ENERGY House Revokes Oil Industry Subsidies and Tax Breaks By J.R. Pegg WASHINGTON, DC, January 18, 2007 (ENS)- http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2007/2007-01-18-10.asp Legislation eliminating some $14 billion in federal subsidies and tax breaks for oil and gas companies was approved today by the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill, which includes language to funnel the money to renewable energy projects, passed by a vote of 264-163. The bill was the final piece of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s "100-hour agenda" and the California Democrat promised it is only the start of an aggressive effort to tackle the nation’s energy needs and to address climate change. Pelosi told reporters today that she is creating a new Select Committee to develop a package of legislation focused on energy independence and global warming, with the goal of passing the bills by July 4. "Today is a start," Pelosi said. "It's just a beginning. I promise to do everything in my power to achieve energy independence ... and to stop global warming," "By investing in American ingenuity, Democrats will accelerate the implementation of existing clean, energy-efficient technologies," Pelosi said. "We will promote homegrown alternatives, creating good paying jobs while bolstering our national security, sending our energy dollars to the Midwest, not the Middle East." The legislation has a long way to go before it becomes law and its prospects in the Senate are uncertain. Some Democrats are keen to see a larger effort to revamp royalty payments for the oil and gas industry, while some Republicans and the Bush administration oppose several key parts of the bill. The measure would raise more than $7.5 billion over the next 10 years by closing tax breaks for oil and gas producers as well as more than $6 billion over the same time period by repealing and restructuring royalty payments. That money would be used to create a research and development fund for renewable energy, alternative fuels and energy conservation programs. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, said the legislation is "but a first down payment on the promise of a new energy future for our country." "At last Congress is putting its money where its mouth is and increasing our investment in renewable energy," said Representative James McGovern, a Massachusetts Democrat. "We are not just talking the talking, we are walking the walking. We are not promising any quick fixes … but the bill before us today will put us on the path to energy independence." Opponents argued the measure will hurt the economy, costing jobs and raising energy costs, while doing little to spark increased development of renewable energy and alternative fuels. "There is nothing in the bill that would guarantee the money is spent on renewable energy," said Representative Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican. "While a new reserve is created, it does not have one single enforcement mechanism." Representative Don Young, an Alaska Republican, labeled the bill "communist Red" and said it illustrated that the "road to hell is paved with good intentions." "It will increase the competitive edge of foreign oil imported to this country," Young said. "If the problem is foreign oil and it is, why increase taxes and make it harder to produce American oil and gas? That makes no sense to me." Specific criticism of the legislation centers on two provisions - one that eliminates a major corporate tax break and a second designed to recoup lost royalty payments from drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. The tax break, created in 2004 to protect domestic manufacturers from foreign competition, gives oil and gas companies a reduction in the corporate tax rate on profits from domestically produced products. Rescinding the tax break, which critics argue never should have been extended to the oil and gas industry, will bring in more than $7 billion over 10 years. "This is an ill-gotten windfall amounting to $700 million a year and it is time it be withdrawn," said Representative Earl Pomeroy, a North Dakota Democrat. "We pay once at the pump for gasoline already," added Representative Jay Inslee, a Washington Democrat. "We shouldn’t have to pay again on April 15 to line the pockets of the oil and gas industry. It is common sense." But the White House argues the provision is in effect a tax increase, singling out the oil and gas industry for punitive tax treatment. Industry groups, including the National Association of Manufacturers, warn revoking the tax break will increase energy costs for consumers and businesses - a position voiced by opponents during debate in the House. Representative Phil English, a Pennsylvania Republican said eliminating the tax break "will further erode the U.S. comparative advantage, forcing more and more of our good-paying manufacturing jobs overseas." "This legislation is bad energy policy and bad tax policy," English told colleagues. The royalty provision aims to alter about 1,000 deep water drilling leases for the Gulf of Mexico issued in 1998 and 1999 by the U.S. Interior Department's Mineral Management Service. The agency failed to include language triggering royalty payments once oil prices reached a threshold of about $34 a barrel, an error that has already cost the government some $1 billion in lost royalties and could cost more than $10 billion over 25 years. The legislation requires companies to either renegotiate the flawed leases or pay fees on production from those leases or be banned from purchasing new leases in the gulf. The Bush administration favors voluntary negotiations to revise the leases and has completed negotiations with five companies. But at least 50 other affected companies argue the government has no right to force them to pay additional royalties. Several House Republicans voiced support for the position that the contracts are valid and warned that the bill sets up a potential legal quagmire over leasing in the deep waters of the gulf. "It opens up the floodgates for takings litigation," said Representative Mary Fallin, an Oklahoma Republican. "This is a trial lawyer’s dream bill." -------- alternative energy BP to Build Five U.S. Wind Farms This Year HOUSTON, Texas, January 18, 2007 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2007/2007-01-18-09.asp#anchor3 BP Alternative Energy North America Inc. today announced that it expects to begin construction on five wind power generation projects in the United States in 2007. Located in four states - California, Colorado, North Dakota and Texas - the projects are expected to deliver a combined generation capacity of some 550 megawatts, MW. When complete, the projects will exceed the company’s previously announced target to build 450 MW by end of 2008. BP’s U.S. wind portfolio includes the opportunity to develop almost 100 projects with a potential total generating capacity of some 15,000 MW. These projects are the result of several agreements and acquisitions the company made in 2006. In July, BP announced a strategic alliance with Clipper Windpower to supply up to 4,250 MW of wind turbines over the next five years. Later in the year, BP acquired two U.S. wind development companies - Greenlight Energy Inc. and Orion Energy LLC. “Today’s announcement marks an important step in delivering BP’s commitment to producing low and zero-carbon electricity,” said Robert Lukefahr, president of BP Alternative Energy North America Inc. Construction is already under way on the Cedar Creek project in Weld County, Colorado, a development venture between BP Alternative Energy North America Inc., and Babcock & Brown Operating Partners LP. This 300 MW wind power generation project will be comprised of 274 wind turbines. Initial operation is expected in the second half of 2007 and when fully commercial, the project will generate enough carbon-free electricity to power 120,000 homes. The four other projects are smaller. In California, the Yaponcha wind power generation project is the re-powering of an existing wind energy facility in San Gorgonio Pass which expects to have a capacity of 20 MW. A 65 MW wind power generation project is planned for North Dakota, a 60 MW joint project with Clipper Windpower is going up in Central Texas, and in West Texas a project in excess of 100 MW is in the works. ---- Solar Power Eliminates Utility Bills in US Home Story by Jon Hurdle REUTERS US: January 18, 2007 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/39873/newsDate/18-Jan-2007/story.htm EAST AMWELL, New Jersey - Michael Strizki heats and cools his house year-round and runs a full range of appliances including such power-guzzlers as a hot tub and a wide-screen TV without paying a penny in utility bills. His conventional-looking family home in the pinewoods of western New Jersey is the first in the United States to show that a combination of solar and hydrogen power can generate all the electricity needed for a home. The Hopewell Project, named for a nearby town, comes at a time of increasing concern over US energy security and worries over the effects of burning fossil fuels on the climate. "People understand that climate change is a big concern but they don't know what they can do about it," said Gian-Paolo Caminiti of Renewable Energy International, the commercial arm of the project. "There's a psychological dividend in doing the right thing," he said. Strizki runs the 3,000-square-foot house with electricity generated by a 1,000-square-foot roof full of photovoltaic cells on a nearby building, an electrolyzer that uses the solar power to generate hydrogen from water, and a number of hydrogen tanks that store the gas until it is needed by the fuel cell. In the summer, the solar panels generate 60 percent more electricity than the super-insulated house needs. The excess is stored in the form of hydrogen which is used in the winter -- when the solar panels can't meet all the domestic demand -- to make electricity in the fuel cell. Strizki also uses the hydrogen to power his fuel-cell driven car, which, like the domestic power plant, is pollution-free. Solar power currently contributes only 0.1 percent of US energy needs but the number of photovoltaic installations grew by 20 percent in 2006, and the cost of making solar panels is dropping by about 7 percent annually, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association. As costs decline and the search accelerates for clean alternatives to expensive and dirty fossil fuels, some analysts predict solar is poised for a significant expansion in the next five to 10 years. STATE SUPPORT The New Jersey project, which opened in October 2006 after four years of planning and building, cost around US$500,000, some US$225,000 of which was provided by the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities. The state, a leading supporter of renewable energy, aims to have 20 percent of its energy coming from renewables by 2020, and currently has the largest number of solar-power installations of any US state except California. New Jersey's utility regulator supported the project because it helps achieve the state's renewable-energy goals, said Doyal Siddell a spokesman for the agency. "The solar-hydrogen residence project provides a tremendous opportunity to reduce greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming," he said. The project also got equipment and expertise from a number of commercial sponsors including Exide, which donated some US$50,000 worth of batteries, and Swageloc, an Ohio company that provided stainless steel piping costing around US$28,000. Strizki kicked in about US$100,000 of his own money. While the cost may deter all but wealthy environmentalists from converting their homes, Strizki and his associates stress the project is designed to be replicated and that the price tag on the prototype is a lot higher than imitators would pay. Now that first-time costs of research and design have been met, the price would be about US$100,000, Strizki said. But that's still too high for the project to be widely replicated, said Marchant Wentworth of the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental group in Washington. To be commonly adopted, such installations would have to be able to sell excess power to the grid, generating a revenue stream that could be used to attract capital, he said. "You need to make the financing within reach of real people," Wentworth said. Caminiti argues that the cost of the hydrogen/solar setup works out at about US$4,000 a year when its US$100,000 cost is spread over the anticipated 25-year lifespan of the equipment. That's still a lot higher than the US$1,500 a year the average US homeowner spends on energy, according to the federal government. Even if gasoline costs averaging about US$1,000 per car annually are included in the energy mix, the renewables option is still more expensive than the grid/gasoline combination. But for Strizki and his colleagues, the house is about a lot more than the bottom line. It's about energy security at a time when the federal government is seeking to reduce dependence on fossil fuels from the Middle East, and it's about sustaining a lifestyle without emitting greenhouse gases. For the 51-year-old Strizki, the project is his life's work. "I have dedicated my life to making the planet a better place," he said. ---- New Mexico Gov. Wants Tax Cuts, Renewable Energy Story by Jim Christie REUTERS US: January 18, 2007 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/39875/newsDate/18-Jan-2007/story.htm SAN FRANCISCO - New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson urged lawmakers Tuesday to back his plans for the state's surplus, cutting taxes, raising the minimum wage, exporting power from renewable sources and imposing tough carbon emission standards for new cars and trucks. The Democrat also pressed for expanding state health-care programs and for a focus on his Southwestern's state's water issues. His far-ranging state-of-the-state address was delivered in Santa Fe, New Mexico and monitored in San Francisco. Often mentioned as a potential presidential candidate from his party's moderate wing, Richardson urged lawmakers to resist the urge to spend too much of the state's surplus of more than US$700 million, fueled by royalties from natural resources, though he called for an additional US$293 million for schools. "We must maintain fiscal discipline," he said in his speech, reminding lawmakers he won an easy reelection last year. "We must continue to cuts taxes, protect our high bond rating, and balance the budget," Richardson added. "At the same time, I am insisting that we put aside at least 10 percent of the budget in reserve. I will accept nothing less." Richardson called on lawmakers to approve four initiatives in the first 30 days of their 60-day session: raising the state's minimum wage to US$7.50 an hour, creating an energy authority that would transmit power from solar, wind and other renewable sources, improving roads and supporting more than US$123 million in tax cuts. "When we are blessed with additional resources, I believe we have responsibility to return some of those resources to the people," he said. "Through targeted tax cuts, I believe we can help working families, support our military and continue to create high-wage jobs. "Let's go a step further," he added. "Let's eliminate the state's income tax for active duty members of the military." For New Mexico to recruit new industries, Richardson called for a tax cut for investment management firms and a tax credit to encourage investment in the state's high-tech companies. As part of his energy plan, the former US Secretary of Energy said he wants to require utility companies to produce 15 percent of their power through renewable resources by 2015 and 25 percent by 2020. "We can, and should become the first state in the country to use 100 percent renewable energy in government buildings," he added. "We should also provide tax credits to promote green offices and homes, create an energy innovation fund to develop clean energy projects and give consumers a one-month tax holiday to purchase energy-efficient appliances." He also urged regulations to slash pollution from motor vehicles: "Rather than wait for Washington, I propose adopting tough carbon emission standards for new cars and trucks sold in New Mexico. Tough standards will cut vehicle emissions by 30 percent within the next 10 years." He proposed "an advanced coal-tax incentive. This will help ensure that any new coal-fired power plant built in New Mexico will install state-of-the-art pollution controls and achieve significant carbon dioxide reductions." Richardson also called for a focus on his state's water needs and for expanding health-care insurance to some of the more than 400,000 uninsured residents in his state. He suggested extending state health insurance to those with incomes of 100 percent of the federal poverty level and expanding a state health program for middle-class adults. He also urged support for stem-cell research at the University of New Mexico. -------- -------- energy -------- -------- OTHER -------- environment -------- -------- genetics -------- -------- health -------- -------- imf / world bank / wto (economics) -------- poverty -------- ACTIVISTS -------- --------