NucNews January 29, 2007 -------- NUCLEAR -------- britain No to development on nuclear site Oldbury Power Station is set to be decommission in 2008 Monday, 29 January 2007 (BBC) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/bristol/somerset/6311435.stm Residents near Oldbury Nuclear Power station in south Gloucestershire want the site left to nature when it is closed down next year. Over 1,000 people who live within a five mile radius of the plant responded to a public consultation on what should happen to the site. The survey showed people do not want the site left in full control of the nuclear industry or redeveloped. It is scheduled to close as part of a national decommissioning programme. The Site Stakeholder Group (SSG), which is made up of local representatives, commissioned the study which was carried out in November 2006 to discover public knowledge and opinions about the site and its future. It found 60% placed a high importance on what the state of the land would be once it is decommissioned. Wind power The survey revealed almost half of the people spoken to were unaware the station was due to cease generation at the end of 2008, and would move to a period of defuelling and decommissioning. It also highlighted that 20% of respondents knew that fuel rods would be removed from the site's reactors once power generation stops, resulting in 99% of the total radioactivity being removed from the site within two years. Mike Hawkins, chairman of the SSG's End State Sub-Group, said: "We know that this is a very complicated issue and that respondents were only given a simplified view of the site on which to base their decisions, but we may now follow-up on these results with a more detailed consultation." Alan Pinder, SSG member and local Friends of the Earth representative said: "We are very pleased to be consulted on this important matter. "Decommissioning Oldbury will be a huge task, so it is vital to get it right, both for local people and for the environment. "There are some very interesting options for the site when the nuclear power station has gone, including tidal or wind power." -------- depleted uranium Smoothbore Discarding Sabot Sniper Rifle January 29, 2007 http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/articles/20070129.aspx When the Barrett company introduced the .50 caliber (12.7mm) sniper rifle in the 1980s, it was not the only company working on the concept. The Steyr-Mannlicher company, of Austria, was also developing on a large caliber "anti-material" sniper rifle. Barrett quickly took most of the market, but Steyr continued to work on their weapon. Along the way, they upped the caliber to 15.2mm, and focused on discarding sabot ammo fired from a smoothbore barrel. The discarding sabot technique was first used with anti-tank guns. Most modern 120mm tank guns fire a shell that uses a smaller 25mm "penetrator". The 25mm rod of tungsten (or depleted uranium) is surrounded by a "sabot" that falls away once the shell clears the barrel. This gives the penetrator higher velocity, and penetrating power. Each round weighs 5.25 ounces and is eight inches long. The Stery 15.2mm delivers a .7 ounce (20 gram) tungsten "dart", that moves at 4700 feet per second, and can go through 40mm (1.5 inches) of armor at 1,000 meters. The weapon is called the IWS (Infantry Weapon System) 2000, has a 48 inch smoothbore barrel and weighs 40 pounds. It uses a five round box magazine. The weapon breaks down into two loads, so a two man sniper team can easily carry it. It's a bullpup design (with the magazine behind the trigger) that is 5.6 feet in length overall. Steyr is uncertain if there is much of a market for the weapon. The 12.7mm sniper rifles have about the same sniping performance as the IWS 2000, and Barrett introduced a 25mm rifle back in 2004. However, the dependence on discarding sabot ammo only may prove interesting. Discarding sabot rounds have been around in infantry weapons for some years. They are available for 7.62mm and 12.7mm weapons, and are interchangeable with standard ammo. The 7.62mm discarding sabot has a 5.56mm penetrator, and the 12.7mm round uses a 7.62mm penetrator. However, using a discarding sabot in a rifled weapon does not give you as much speed as a smoothbore. But that's not much of an edge. Then again, it may be enough for the Steyr 15.2mm rifle to catch on. -------- europe Sweden Files Nuclear Plant Complaint Monday January 29, 2007 (AP) http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070129/sweden_nuclear_incident.html?.v=1 STOCKHOLM, Sweden -- Sweden's nuclear authority on Monday asked prosecutors to investigate whether the operator of a nuclear power plant broke the law in its response to a malfunction last year. Two reactors at the Forsmark plant, 60 miles north of Stockholm, were shut down in July after two backup generators malfunctioned during a power failure. They went back on the grid two months later after security upgrades. In its complaint to prosecutors, the Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate said plant managers acted too slowly in cooling down one of the reactors after the incident. Such a decision was not made until one day after the July 25 incident, the inspectorate said. Prosecutors will now review the complaint and decide whether to press charges against the operator, Forsmarks Kraftgrupp AB, for nuclear safety violations. The company is controlled by state-owned energy group Vattenfall AB. -------- india Sonia Gandhi Says India Still Wants Global Nuclear Disarmament by Staff Writers New Delhi (AFP) Jan 29, 2007 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Sonia_Gandhi_Says_India_Still_Wants_Global_Nuclear_Disarmament_999.html India's ruling Congress party chief Sonia Gandhi said Monday the country's nuclear arsenal was borne out of its "strategic compulsion" but renewed New Delhi's call for global disarmament. Her comments came during a conference celebrating the legacy of India's freedom champion Mahatma Gandhi, who chose non-violence as his tool to campaign against 300 years of British colonial rule. "Nuclear weapons became a strategic compulsion for India, born out of its failure to persuade the world to abolish them," she told international delegates in New Delhi. "They (nuclear weapons) have become the very currency of power," Gandhi said. "But the commitment (of India) to comprehensive, universal nuclear disarmament remains our profound conviction which we intend to carry forward," the Italian-born widow said. India, which refuses to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty or the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty, conducted a series of nuclear weapons tests in May 1998 and then declared an unilateral moratorium on further testing. -------- security NRC APPROVES FINAL RULE AMENDING SECURITY REQUIREMENTS January 29, 2007 NRC http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2007/07-012.html The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission today approved a final rule that enhances its security regulations governing the design basis threat (DBT) – the latest in a series of actions addressing security at nuclear power plants. This rule, the first of several planned rules related to security, imposes generic security requirements similar to those previously imposed on operating nuclear power plants by the Commission’s April 29, 2003, DBT Orders. The new rule modifies and enhances the DBT based on experience and insights gained by the Commission during implementation of the Orders, and extensive consideration of the 12 factors specified in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. “This rule is an important piece, but only one piece, of a broader effort to enhance nuclear power plant security,” said NRC Chairman Dale Klein. “Overall we are taking a multi-faceted approach to security enhancements in this post 9/11 threat environment, and looking at how best to secure existing nuclear power plants and how to incorporate security enhancements into design features of new reactors that may be built in coming years.” The final rule approved today is the first of several planned security-related rules that will enhance protection of nuclear power plants. Other rules being developed include proposals that would add security assessment requirements for new power reactor designs; proposals to revise and update requirements for physical protection at existing and new reactors; and proposals to establish how technical requirements, including those related to security, are to be examined in applications for NRC review of new reactor designs and operations. Today’s final rule describes the design basis threat. This rule provides a general description of the attributes of potential adversaries who might attempt to commit radiological sabotage or theft or diversion against which licensees’ physical protection systems must defend with high assurance. Although the guidance documents related to this rule are protected from public disclosure for security reasons, the final rule provides a general description of the modes of attack, weaponry and capabilities and intentions of the adversary. For example, the final rule contains provisions related to multiple, coordinated groups of attackers, suicide attacks and cyber threats. The rule does not incorporate the “beamhenge” concept proposed in 2004 in a Petition for Rulemaking by the Committee to Bridge the Gap and does not require protection against a deliberate hit by a large aircraft. The NRC has already required its licensees to take steps to mitigate the effects of large fires and explosions from any type of initiating event. The active protection against airborne threats is addressed by other federal organizations, including the military. In addition, the NRC remains an active partner with other federal and state/local authorities in constant surveillance of the threat environment and will adjust regulatory actions or requirements if necessary. The NRC asked the public to comment on a proposed revision of the DBT rule (10 CFR 73.1) in November 2005. These comments are thoroughly addressed in the final rule. The rule will become effective 30 days after issuance. More information about the DBT, this rulemaking and security requirements for NRC licensees can be found at: http://www.nrc.gov/security/post-911.html#faqs. ---- Agency: Nuclear plants secure enough if attacked by air January 29, 2007 (CNN) http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/29/reactor.security/index.html?section=cnn_latest WASHINGTON -- Nuclear power plants will not be required to put up defenses against terrorist attacks from the air, according to a rule enacted Monday by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The commission specifically rejected ordering plants to erect so-called "beamhenge shields" -- steel I-beams and cabling -- that are designed to keep planes from hitting nuclear facilities. Critics slammed the commission's decision, saying it "jeopardizes the safety of millions." Dale Klein, chairman of the NRC, said that nuclear plants are already adequately defended against such attacks. "Nuclear power plants are inherently robust structures that our studies show provide adequate protection in a hypothetical attack by an airplane," he said in a written statement. "The NRC has also taken actions that require nuclear power plant operators to be able to manage large fires or explosions -- no matter what has caused them." The NRC says the military and other agencies are able to protect the facility from airborne attacks. "The NRC is actively involved with other federal agencies, including the military, to protect all this nation's infrastructure against such attacks," Klein said Critics say decision 'sacrifices security' A coalition of public interest groups and some members of Congress slammed the decision. Democratic Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts said the rule "reflects an inadequate, industry-influenced approach that sacrifices security in favor of corporate profits." Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, chairman of the Senate committee with jurisdiction over the NRC, said that her "initial reaction" to the NRC decision "is that the commission did not follow the direction of Congress to ensure that our nuclear power plants are protected from air or land-based terrorist threats." "I am reviewing the final rule in detail, and will be prepared to hold the NRC's feet to the fire to ensure that our communities are adequately protected," she said. An NRC spokesman said the commission has not ruled out considering the design of future reactors to protect against terrorist attacks, airborne as well, or industrial accidents. The commission has also researched plans to mitigate damage from such events. The NRC's security plan, however, is for the most part classified, so details are unavailable. But critics of the decision say it is far better to prevent an attack than clean up after a nuclear disaster. Public interest groups say the decision "jeopardizes the safety of millions" and "reaffirms the woefully inadequate security measures already in place at the nation's reactors." The NRC had been petitioned by a group called the Committee to Bridge the Gap to protect against attacks that would be equal to September 11 in numbers of terrorists; their capacity, ruthlessness, dedication, skills, planning abilities and willingness to die. The NRC said that the rule approved Monday contains provisions relating to multiple coordinated groups of attackers, suicide attacks and cyber threats. ---- The search for a magic fuel Former Cold War rivals face scientific riddle in race to spare world from nuclear peril. Last of a two-part series. By Sam Roe Chicago Tribune staff reporter Published January 29, 2007 http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/chi-061209atoms-day2-story,1,5401825.htmlstory?coll=chi-news-hed After the Sept. 11 attacks, nuclear terrorism suddenly seemed plausible--the new worst-case scenario. Americans wondered whether Osama bin Laden could get his hands on the bomb and whether the U.S. was doing enough to stop him. Suitcase bombs, yellowcake and WMD entered the nation's lexicon. Quietly, though, the U.S. government was trying to defuse a ticking threat of its own making. At Argonne National Laboratory, scientists worked feverishly to eliminate terrorists' easiest route to a nuclear device: the highly enriched uranium used in dozens of research reactors that the U.S. and Soviet Union had scattered around the world during the Cold War. A small team of scientists, working out of aging labs near Lemont, hoped to invent a new fuel that could be used in reactors but be useless for bombs. If they succeeded, the U.S. might finally be able to secure tons of weapons-grade material. If they failed, it would set back by many years the heart of U.S. efforts to deny terrorists access to such material--keeping the nation, and the world, vulnerable to nuclear nightmare. The search for a magic fuel After 25 years, tens of millions of dollars and dozens of classified missions, America's quest to retrieve the world's most potent nuclear fuel had come down to this: a secret meeting in the heart of Moscow. At one end of a conference room sat Russia's top nuclear scientists and bureaucrats. At the other were the Americans, led by Argonne National Laboratory's Armando Travelli, who had traveled to the Russian capital in the winter of 2003 to hear the results of a scientific test with grave implications for U.S. national security. The unlikely research partnership of former Cold War rivals hoped to create a nuclear fuel that would persuade nations with highly enriched uranium to trade it in for something better and safer. If the test was a success, Travelli might finally retrieve tons of the bomb-grade material that America and Russia had provided over decades. If the test failed, it would set back U.S. non-proliferation efforts for years. The Russians told Travelli's team that there were some minor problems but nothing to worry about. They would do additional work and get back to the Americans. "May I see the pictures of the test?" Travelli asked. "I'm sorry," the head of the Russian team replied. "There are no pictures available." The Russian, Travelli recalled, then abruptly stood up and walked out, followed by his colleagues. Travelli approached the last Russian packing his belongings, a low-level scientist who had been quiet at the meeting. "I'd like to see the pictures," Travelli said. "When might there be pictures?" The man leaned down and pulled three 8-by-10, black-and-white photographs from his briefcase, then put them on the table. Travelli picked them up. One by one, he studied them, knowing that America's future--and his own--was at stake. A top nuclear physicist, Travelli had spent the last quarter-century trying to bring home weapons-grade uranium America had supplied to dozens of nations in an ill-conceived program launched by President Dwight Eisenhower called Atoms for Peace. Toiling in the twilight zone where hard science and clandestine missions intersect, Travelli had weathered congressional indifference to his project, research budgets set at zero and, by some accounts, his own missteps. A persuasive scientist-diplomat, he had even managed to patch together a promising solution with the scant resources at his disposal. The question was whether it would work. Or was he banking too much on unproven science and his own ability to charm the Russians, other foreigners--even his own bosses? Photo: Enriched uranium. Turning to science for a solution Nuclear research reactors are like sports cars: They run faster with a high-octane fuel--in this case, highly enriched uranium. A powerfully fueled reactor can conduct an experiment in a week; a poorly fueled one could take a month. For private reactor operators producing and selling radioisotopes for medical uses, such as cancer radiation, that gap can mean the difference between profit and loss. The challenge facing Travelli and his team of Argonne scientists was to invent a fuel strong enough to satisfy reactor operators, but weak enough to be useless to terrorists trying to build a nuclear weapon. By the early 1990s, Travelli's team had solved this riddle for many reactors around the globe. He carefully noted each success story by replacing a green triangular magnet with a red one on a large metallic world map in his office. But dozens of other reactors still would not operate on anything but bomb-grade fuel. And because none of these reactors were precisely the same, the Argonne scientists faced the overwhelming task of inventing a special fuel for each one. Plus, dozens of reactors worldwide used bomb-grade fuel supplied by Russia, and no one was addressing those. So in 1993 Travelli traveled to Moscow and eventually helped cut a groundbreaking deal: U.S. and Russian scientists would team together to craft a single, all-purpose fuel that would work in all the reactors, regardless of make, model or country of origin. Photo: Examining results of prototype-fuel experiments at Argonne. To do that, they had to make a fuel with a low percentage of uranium-235, the potent isotope behind the atomic chain reaction that causes nuclear explosions. U-235 is unsteady, so the trick was to find some way to stabilize it while packing it densely enough to give the fuel the necessary power. Travelli's team knew that adding certain elements could calm the uranium; his team tested more than 20 before deciding to stake their work on molybdenum, a hard, gray metal used to strengthen steel. Officially, this exotic, experimental mixture was called "uranium-molybdenum dispersion fuel." For the cause of disarming the threat of nuclear terrorism, Travelli's team hoped it would be the magic fuel. Unlike race cars, reactors run on solid fuels; that meant Argonne scientists were using metals, powders and plates. They knew the tiniest mistake in making a nuclear fuel invited failure. "It's not a blacksmith's job, that's for sure," said Jim Snelgrove, a fuel specialist at Argonne. Photo: Testing fuel cells at a reactor at Idaho National Laboratory. Work began in earnest. Argonne scientists melted together chunks of uranium and molybdenum, machined the mixture into powder, added aluminum, then pressed and rolled the metal into thin, shiny plates the size of credit cards. These miniature fuel plates were placed in a research reactor in Idaho for a full year of testing. The radioactive plates then returned to Argonne in special casks inside a hazmat truck. Workers wearing protective bodysuits and using mechanical arms cut the plates with fine instruments and photographed the pieces under an electron microscope. The early results were encouraging: no evidence of cracks, swelling or bubbling. But the same couldn't be said of the U.S.-Russian partnership. Read: Armando Travelli's letter to the Russians regarding lack of cooperation. It quickly began splintering. The Russian scientists, still suspicious from the recent Soviet past, were hesitant to share information, turning in lab reports that offered scant detail. Later, they accused Travelli's team of trying to steal their technology. Further complicating matters, the U.S. in 1999 placed economic sanctions on Travelli's partner in Russia, a nuclear contractor called NIKIET, for allegedly providing "sensitive missile or nuclear assistance" to Iran. Travelli struggled to find a new lab, at one point appealing to his influential friend in the Russian nuclear bureaucracy, Nikolay Arkhangelsky. But Arkhangelsky demurred, upset like his colleagues at the U.S. sanctions. After nearly two years and three more trips to Moscow, Travelli finally found a new laboratory. Work on the magic fuel picked up dramatically. One night, after reviewing the Russians' progress at a Moscow lab, Travelli was walking down the hallway of his hotel when Gerard Hofman, a fuel development specialist at Argonne, called him into his room. "I think you'd better see this," he said. Travelli's eyes locked on the TV as the World Trade Center towers crashed to the ground. U.S. misses wake-up call In the tense weeks that followed Sept. 11, many wondered whether terrorists could obtain an atomic weapon, whether a bomb could fit into a suitcase, whether the U.S. was doing enough to prevent a nuclear catastrophe. But the American government didn't intensify efforts to retrieve uranium. U.S. officials didn't call emergency meetings. Congress didn't hold hearings on the issue. President Bush and Capitol Hill didn't even provide more money for the effort. The program's budget stayed flat at $5.6 million. The lack of action exasperated those who knew that the highly enriched uranium scattered around the globe was the quickest way for Al Qaeda or other terrorists to build a crude nuclear device. Jack Edlow, whose company, Edlow International, ships nuclear fuel back to the U.S., was in his Washington office on Sept. 11. He looked out his back window and saw smoke rising from the Pentagon. "I thought they would get themselves a couple of hundred million dollars, and we would get the whole thing cleaned up in a couple of years," Edlow recalled. "I thought everybody would say, `Let's go get this stuff before it comes back to haunt us.'" Photo: Inspectors with the IAEA in the Vinca research reactor in Serbia. Eleven months after the terrorist attacks, the U.S. did manage to remove two nuclear bomb's worth of uranium from Serbia and ship it back to Russia. But to pay for the mission, the State Department asked the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a non-profit group founded by Ted Turner and former Georgia Sen. Sam Nunn, to donate $5 million; that was more money than the government contributed to the mission. Even after Sept. 11, America was relying on funding from a non-profit for critical national security work. "It was embarrassing," recalled Allan Krass, a State Department official involved in the operation. But officials, he said, had no choice: "We needed the money." Cracks begin to surface After the terrorist attacks, Travelli felt more pressure than ever to succeed. That feeling intensified when he learned a competing team of French scientists was trying to invent a nearly identical magic fuel. Photo: A "fresh" fuel element. Throughout 2002, the French and the U.S.-Russian teams both reported great progress with their fuels, predicting the material would be ready for reactors in three years. They were so confident they began planning training seminars so other nations could learn about the fuel and place orders. At an international conference in Aix-en-Provence, France, in 2003, Travelli's team and the French scientists told colleagues and the trade press that their separate fuel programs were right on track. But privately, the French were telling a far different story, Travelli recalled. They pulled Travelli's team aside at the convention center and laid out pictures of their latest tests. The often-unstable uranium particles looked fine. But there were bizarre, meandering cracks--like the hairline fractures of a bone--in the aluminum portion of the fuel in which the uranium particles were embedded. Travelli had never seen anything like it. The French fuel was failing. Alarmed, Travelli and his team flew back to Chicago and immediately began sifting through dozens of photos of their own tests. Was it possible their fuel had the same problems, but they had somehow missed it? Sure enough, they began to recognize tiny little bubbles--almost imperceptible--inside the fuel plates. They were aligned in such a way that if the Americans were to jump ahead with advanced testing as the French had, the tiny bubbles would likely multiply and connect, forming the same cracks seen in France. Travelli's Russian partners hadn't run any tests yet. But his former partners had. Video: Interview with Armando Travelli. NIKIET, the Russian nuclear contractor still under U.S. sanctions, was quietly developing its own reactor fuel. Travelli had heard NIKIET was experiencing similar failures as seen in France. Aware of the dire implications, Travelli's team flew to Moscow in December 2003 to see if it could learn of NIKIET's results. The crucial meeting was held at the Bochvar Institute, the lab working with Travelli. His Russian allies from the lab and the government were on hand. NIKIET, barred from contact with the Americans, was represented at the meeting by subcontractors. After the Russians assured Travelli that there were only minor problems with the NIKIET fuel, they walked out of the meeting. But the last one to leave pulled out detailed pictures of the tests from his briefcase and gave them to Travelli. He studied each of the three photographs carefully. He could see the small meandering lines in the aluminum portion of the fuel, just as he had seen in France. The evidence now was overwhelming: The magic fuel was a bust. Feeling as though his life's work had collapsed, Travelli returned to his hotel. A few minutes later, the phone rang. It was a State Department official. He wanted an update. Photo: Travelli at Argonne. Back in America, a bitter fallout After his dream fuel failed, everything changed for Travelli. In the summer of 2004, Energy Department officials began taking firmer control of America's effort to retrieve bomb fuel. They wanted it run out of Washington, not Chicago. They wanted the fuel work managed out of a federal lab in Idaho, not Argonne. They wanted new scientists involved, not the same group that had been leading it the last 26 years. And three years after the Sept. 11 attacks, they finally asked to double the budget. Travelli heard about these changes piecemeal. Then one day, an Argonne administrator, Phillip Finck, called him into his office. Finck told the longtime scientist that energy officials wanted him out. He could stay on as a scientific adviser, but an Argonne colleague would replace him. Moreover, energy officials wanted Travelli to make this announcement that weekend at a conference in Vienna--one that Travelli himself had organized. Travelli was stunned. He had fought to keep the effort alive for nearly three decades, often in the face of little support. Now that Sept. 11 had finally moved his work to the top of the national security agenda, he was supposed to step down? Travelli balked. But Finck, Travelli recalled, told him he didn't really have a choice; funding from the Energy Department was at stake. Five days later in Vienna, at a jammed conference with dozens of familiar faces, Travelli announced the leadership changes. Later, an energy official read a proclamation in his honor. When she finished, the crowd gave Travelli a standing ovation. People chanted for him to speak. But he declined, afraid of what he might say. Read: Armando Travelli's proclamation of management changes at RERTR. Many experts were surprised that such an eminent scientist would be removed during America's war on terror. "I had never come across anyone in public service who had accomplished so much for national security with so few resources provided by the government," said Alan Kuperman, a non-proliferation expert and professor at the University of Texas at Austin. Read: Alan Kuperman's letter protesting Travelli's removal. But Edlow, the owner of the nuclear shipping firm, thought Travelli had it coming. "He was looking for the perfect fuel," Edlow recalled, "and always looking and always looking and always looking." Krass, the retired State Department official, offered a pragmatic assessment. In his view, Travelli was treated unfairly. "But," he said, "somebody has got to walk the plank." Energy officials deny that the magic-fuel bust prompted Travelli's removal. They said they simply wanted the program run out of Washington, where it could get the attention it deserved. After Travelli was removed, he stayed at Argonne for eight months as an adviser, earning the same $172,000 salary. At one point, an energy official overseeing the effort to retrieve bomb fuel sent Travelli an e-mail demanding that he address a pressing financial mess. An arm of the State Department had withdrawn $500,000 related to work on the magic fuel in Russia--the first time it had ever asked for money back. It had not gotten regular reports, and the program had stretched far beyond the original plan. Feeling as though he was being unduly blamed for the failure of the magic fuel--a failure that occurred independently in three countries--Travelli submitted his resignation, effective July 2005. Read: Armando Travelli's resignation letter. The man who had been charged with retrieving America's scattered uranium, partly because of his diplomatic skills, submitted a blunt, angry letter. "Fear of being fired has replaced the pursuit of excellence as a motivator for our work," he wrote in resigning, "and the main concern today is to satisfy every wish of frequently incompetent and unpredictable bureaucrats in Washington." Photo: The shuttered Vinca research reactor in Serbia. Threats left unchecked In the last year, energy officials say they have made great progress. Six more reactors have given up using weapons-grade fuel--a far faster success rate, the officials said, than Travelli had accomplished. And in December, the U.S. helped relocate nearly 600 pounds of uranium from a former East German lab to a specially secured Russian facility. The U.S. also has spent tens of millions to bolster security at some overseas reactors, providing fences, cameras, heavy-duty doors and vaults. But there are other signs that efforts actually have gone backward. For instance, in the most difficult cases of securing bomb fuel--particularly in Russia, where officials are reluctant to cooperate--the U.S. has simply quit trying. Video: Nikolay Arkhangelsky on the U.S./Russian legacy with enriched uranium. Travelli has not given up. He was hired by Ted Turner's non-profit group to work as a consultant on addressing the fuel issue in Russia. Last spring, Travelli traveled to Moscow, once again teaming up with Arkhangelsky, the once-mysterious Russian who served by turns as his rival and partner over Travelli's quarter-century quest. But Turner's group has struggled to raise enough money to keep the effort alive. So the 72-year-old Travelli spends most of his time visiting with his three grown sons and puttering around his suburban Hinsdale home, a three-bedroom split-level with a large back-yard garden. Over 26 years, Travelli and his team helped 22 nations stop using bomb-grade fuel in 33 reactors, eliminating the use of 3.3 tons and ridding the world of 120 potential nuclear weapons. But more than 100 reactors still use the dangerous fuel, with an estimated 40 tons out of U.S. control. Travelli also spent eight years trying to develop a magic fuel. In the end, it failed. His successors continue that mission, but they are at least several years away from a solution. The metallic world map Travelli had used to carefully chart his work still hangs on the wall of a small, rarely used office on Argonne's campus. No one tends to the map anymore. How we reported this series To chronicle America's failed quest to retrieve uranium, Tribune staff reporter Sam Roe obtained exclusive access to the government archive of the effort. This archive, provided by scientist Armando Travelli, contained thousands of records never before publicly reviewed, including scientific trip reports, internal memorandums and e-mails, and government correspondence. Roe also reviewed congressional testimony, previously classified records, foreign and U.S. research papers, and reports by government agencies and the International Atomic Energy Agency. He conducted extensive interviews with Travelli, who led the uranium retrieval effort for a quarter of a century. Roe also interviewed dozens of U.S. and foreign scientists, nuclear reactor operators, and top energy officials here and in Russia. He can be reached at sroe@tribune.com -------- ukraine Russian and Ukrainian nuclear companies ink deal RBC, 29.01.2007, Moscow http://www.rbcnews.com/free/20070129172314.shtml Russia's Rosenergoatom and Ukraine's National Nuclear Energy Generating Company (NNEGC) Energoatom have singed a cooperation agreement for 2007. According to Rosenergoatom's press office, the document was signed following the 14th meeting of the two companies' coordination committee. The agreement provides for cooperation in various spheres, including nuclear power station security, handling spent nuclear fuel, among other things. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- tennessee Fire started during Y-12 operation in December Officials say blaze sparked during dismantlement task, no one hurt By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com January 29, 2007, Knoxville News http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/local_news/article/0,1406,KNS_347_5312573,00.html OAK RIDGE - A small fire occurred Dec. 15 during a dismantlement operation at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant, but officials here refused to release many details in response to questions last week. Steven Wyatt, a federal spokesman at the high-security complex, said there were no injuries during the incident and no damage to facilities. A Dec. 22 report by staff of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board said an "alcohol-moistened cloth ignited during a spark-producing task to separate parts." The safety board's report became publicly accessible last week after passing through a classification review. Wyatt confirmed that the dismantlement operation involved "a uranium component manufactured at Y-12," although he would not specifically state if the component was part of a nuclear warhead or bomb. "What we said is what we're going to say," said Wyatt, a spokesman for the National Nuclear Security Administration. "I don't think I can provide any further clarification." Because of the highly classified nature of Y-12's work, virtually all of the official responses to news media are screened before release. The Y-12 spokesman did not immediately respond to questions about where the fire occurred within Y-12 or what weapon system was involved in the dismantlement operation. The Oak Ridge plant historically has produced parts for every nuclear weapon in the U.S. arsenal, and one of its primary missions is to dismantle those same parts after they have been taken out of deployment. Usable materials are recycled. Y-12 specializes in the secondary stage of nuclear bombs, fabricating parts from highly enriched uranium and other materials. The plant reportedly has a large backlog of canned subassemblies and other weapon components, and officials earlier confirmed that the pace of dismantlement at Y-12 was accelerated in 2006. The Dec. 15 fire occurred as an operator, "using standard industrial hand tools," was performing a disassembly task, Wyatt said. The defense board's report said the fire was quickly extinguished with coke, another term for powdered graphite, which is typically used to put out uranium fires. Wyatt indicated that the uranium itself did not catch on fire. "Please remember that what ignited was a cloth moistened with alcohol," he said in a statement. He did not respond to a question about why coke was used. Although the fire was put out quickly, workers failed to immediately notify the Y-12 fire department - as required at a nuclear facility, the defense board's report states. "The fire department was notified about two hours after the fire was extinguished after prompting by engineering personnel," the DNFSB report states. A similar failure occurred at Y-12 in 2004 when there was a small fire in a laboratory microwave oven, the report states. Uranium by its nature is pyrophoric, and small fires are not uncommon. Based on the report descriptions, it appears that sparking was an expected part of the dismantlement operation. The board's report indicated that fire had been identified as a potential hazard for the operation, but it wasn't clear if preventive controls had been put into place. "This appears to be the first such fire for this particular dismantlement program," the report states. Y-12 is the nation's repository for highly enriched uranium, and fires have been a long-standing concern because of the nuclear materials and the age of the plant's facilities, some of which date back to the World War II Manhattan Project. The Project On Government Oversight last year issued an alert about a Sept. 22 fire at a Y-12 warehouse. The watchdog group said the old warehouse was constructed of wood and particularly vulnerable to fires. In that situation, some of the plastic packaging and masking tape caught fire when workers were unwrapping a "legacy" piece of highly enriched uranium that had been stored at Y-12 for decades. Bob Alvarez, a former U.S. Department of Energy adviser, released a report last year that states Y-12 had accumulated a large backlog of unstable uranium products, and he cited numerous problems, calling fire a dominant concern. "None of the storage areas at the Y-12 complex comply with modern DOE design requirements," he said. Alvarez noted that between 1992 and 2006, there had been at least 23 fires and explosions at Y-12 involving nuclear and nonnuclear materials. He said that's probably more than any other nuclear facility in the post-Cold War era. Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329. -------- MILITARY -------- israel / palestine Israel to buy US bomb kits for $100M By STEVE WEIZMAN BW Exclusives Associated Press January 29, 2007 http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8MV20IO0.htm JERUSALEM - The Israeli air force has decided to buy smart munitions kits from the Chicago-based Boeing aerospace company for an estimated $100 million, Israeli defense officials said Monday. The Jerusalem Post daily said the planned purchase was for the Joint Direct Attack Munition, or JDAM, which converts conventional 2,000 pound bombs into satellite-guided, precision weapons. Defense officials said the acquisition was meant to replenish stores used up in last summer's monthlong war against the Hezbollah militia in Lebanon and increase future stock levels. The Jerusalem Post said the purchase would not require Congressional approval, as it was the exercise of a previously approved purchase option. Congress is expected on Monday to receive a preliminary State Department report on whether Israel misused American-made cluster bombs in civilian areas of Lebanon. The New York Times reported over the weekend that the report would say Israel may have violated agreements with the United States by its use of American-supplied cluster munitions during last year's war. The paper described disagreement among midlevel officials at the Defense Department and the State Department, with some in both departments arguing that Israel violated U.S. prohibitions on using cluster munitions in populated areas. Others in both departments argued that the weapons were used in self-defense to stop Hezbollah rocket attacks and that, at worst, only a technical violation may have occurred. The Israeli army has said all weapons it uses "are legal under international law and their use conforms with international standards." Cluster bombs are typically used against tanks and explode upon impact with steel. In the conflict in Lebanon, the shells were fired into urban and rural areas where Israel thought Hezbollah guerrillas might be hiding. Many hit the ground or pavement and did not explode. Since the war ended, several people have been killed by exploding bomblets. Israel said it was forced to hit civilian targets in Lebanon because Hezbollah fighters were using villages as bases for rocket launchers aimed at Israel. More than 1,000 Lebanese, including at least 250 Hezbollah guerrillas, were killed in the war, while 120 Israeli soldiers and 39 civilians were killed. -------- ENERGY -------- alternative energy Clean Energy Seen 50 Pct of Supply by 2050 - Report Story by Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent REUTERS NORWAY: January 29, 2007 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/40042/story.htm OSLO - Clean energies could surge to supply half of world demand by 2050 if governments crack down on use of fossil fuels, said a study by the renewable energy industry and an environmental group on Thursday. The European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) and Greenpeace said renewable energies -- including wind, hydro, solar, tidal power and biomass -- could leap from 13.2 percent of world supply if governments step up a fight against global warming. "Renewable energy, combined with the smart use of energy, can deliver half of the world's energy needs by 2050," EREC and Greenpeace said in a report entitled "Energy (R)evolution". "The bad news is that time is running out." The forecast is far more optimistic for renewable energies than a 2006 report by the International Energy Agency (IEA), which predicted that the share of renewables would gain fractionally by 2030 to 13.7 percent of world energy demand. The IEA, which advises governments, predicted that oil, coal and natural gas would continue to dominate world energy supply in coming decades. The EREC and Greenpeace study makes sharply different assumptions from the IEA, including that oil prices will reach US$100 a barrel by 2050, promoting a shift to energy efficiency and to clean energies. The IEA projects that oil prices, now at about $55 a barrel, will dip and then rise back to US$55 a barrel by 2030. "The days of 'cheap oil and gas' are coming to an end," the EREC and Greenpeace study said. EREC groups European organisations representing companies making everything from solar panels to wind turbines. "By contrast, the reserves of renewable energy that are technically accessible globally are large enough to provide about six times more power than the world currently consumes -- forever," it said. The report also projects that overall world energy demand could fall by about 6 percent by 2050, mainly thanks to greater efficiency and despite a growing world population. The IEA projected last year that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent by 2030. Sven Teske of Greenpeace, an author of the report, said the forecasts were realistic if governments take far tougher action to offset global warming. "This can happen," he told Reuters. "A problem is that governments are now giving subsidies for renewable energies to compete against subsidised fossil fuels. It doesn't make sense." The report also assumes that governments will impose a global price on emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas released mainly by burning fossil fuels. The study estimated a carbon price of US$50 per tonne by 2050. -------- OTHER -------- environment FACTBOX - World's 10 Most Polluted Places REUTERS INTERNATIONAL: January 29, 2007 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/40043/story.htm Below are the world's 10 most polluted places listed, according to the Blacksmith Institute, a New York-based nonprofit group. Blacksmith did not rank them, as complete health records from some developing countries were not available. The list, which Blacksmith said it plans to issue annually, was compiled with help from specialists at Harvard University, Johns Hopkins University, Hunter College, India's ITT, University of Idaho, Mt. Sinai Hospital and environmental remediation companies. Chernobyl, Ukraine Dzerzhinsk, Russia Haina, Dominican Republic Kabwe, Zambia La Oroya, Peru Linfen, China Mailuu-Suu, Kyrgyzstan Norilsk, Russia Ranipet, India Rudnaya Pristan, Russia (Compiled by Paul Grant in Washington) -------- ACTIVISTS Antiwar Groups Rally in Washington Monday, January 29th, 2007 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/29/1453224 Anti-war protests were held around the country on Saturday to call for the end of the U.S. war and occupation in Iraq. In Washington speakers included Congressman and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich. * Rep. Dennis Kucinich: "The president has been saying there is no plan. But I've offered a 12-point plan and elements of it have been out there for three full years. Our plan is peace. Our plan is to end the occupation. Our plan is to bring the troops home." United For Peace and Justice estimated 500,000 took part in the demonstration in Washington. The police gave no official estimate. Thousands also protested in other cities. In Los Angeles, speakers included Marine Sergeant Jason LeMieux who has served three deployments in Iraq. * Marine Sgt. Jason LeMieux: "It's over. We lost and it's time to bring the troops home before more are killed in a pointless unwinnable bloodbath.' And, you're the ones who are going to make that happen. Thank you." Another anti-war march is scheduled in Washington on March 17 to mark the 4th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. ---- Rep. Maxine Waters, Rep. John Conyers, Rep. Lynn Woolsey, Navy Seaman Jonathan Hutto, Bob Watada & Others Call for End to Iraq War at Anti-War Rally in Washington Monday, January 29th, 2007 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/29/1453230 Anti-war protesters filled the streets of Washington on Saturday in one of the largest protests since the invasion of Iraq. Veterans and military families joined lawmakers, peace groups and celebrities to urge Congress and President Bush to bring the troops home now. Protest organizers United For Peace and Justice estimated 500,000 took part in the demonstration. In California, smaller rallies were held in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Sacramento. In Washington, marchers converged on the National Mall for a two-hour rally. The crowd included people who came on 300 buses from 40 states. [includes rush transcript - partial] * Voices of protesters from around the country * Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), co-founder of the Out of Iraq caucus * Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), co-founder of the Out of Iraq caucus. In January 2005, she became the first member of Congress to call for a withdrawal from Iraq. * Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), chair of House Judiciary Committee * Garrett Reppenhagen, Iraq Veterans Against the War * Navy Seaman Jonathan Hutto, co-founder of the Appeal for Redress * Brenda Hervey, Military Families Speak Out * Bob Watada, father of 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, the first commissioned officer to refuse deployment to Iraq. * Jesselyn Radack, former Justice Department Official RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: In D.C., marchers converged on the National Mall for a two-hour rally. The crowd included people who came on 300 buses from 40 states. PROTESTER 1: My name is Sean, and I’m from New York. I represent the Ya-Ya Youth Activist Youth Allies Network. I’m here to support everyone trying to stop the war and to bring the soldiers home. PROTESTER 2: Hi. My name's Olivia, and I’m from Maryland, and I’m here to support the people in Iraq. PROTESTER 3: My name’s Matt Carson from Toledo, Ohio, here to protest the war. Bring the troops home now. PROTESTER 4: I’m Teddy Fishwin [phon.]. I am from South Carolina. And when South Carolina is against the war, you know that it's gone too far. PROTESTER 5: My name is Ali Sadr [phon.]. I’m from Iran. Tehran, Iran. I was born in US. I was raised in Iran, and I left Iran after revolution. And I’m here to protest. PROTESTER 6: Amanda. I am a Spanish people. And then, I’m not agree with this war, so I want to say just one thing: Bush, he can send his kids. His two girls, he has, right? I want to see how he will feel when they send over there to Iraq, and then I will see how he feel like a parent. PROTESTER 7: My name is Pam Canine [phon.]. I’m from Yellow Springs, Ohio, home of Antioch College, and I’m here because I am sick of the lives wasted, the money squandered. It is time to bring our troops home and get down to sensible domestic and foreign policy. PROTESTER 8: Yes, my name is Kwali Abdul Mohammed [phon.]. I’m here from Philly. I’m here to represent my family. Two of my fathers -- my grandfather and my father both died in a war. I have a nephew that's there now. I’m giving support to let Bush know that it’s no more war, no more war, no more war. AMY GOODMAN: Among those protesting were a number of lawmakers who opposed President Bush's escalation of the war, calling on the President to bring the troops home. Democratic Congressmember Maxine Waters of California was among them. She had sent a letter to every other member of the House, urging them to participate in the antiwar march. Congressmember Waters is a co-founder of the Out of Iraq Caucus. She addressed the crowd on the National Mall. REP. MAXINE WATERS: You have come here today to save your country, to change the direction of this country and to tell George Bush, “Hell, no, we won't go!” I stand firmly with you. My name is Maxine Waters, and I’m not afraid of George W. Bush. My name is Maxine Waters, and I’m not intimidated by Dick Cheney. My name is Maxine Waters, and I I helped to get rid of Rumsfeld. My name is Maxine Waters, and Condi Rice is nothing but another neocon, and she doesn't represent me! George W. Bush led us into this immoral war. He tricked the American people, and he told us there were weapons of mass destruction. He did not tell the truth. He came out on the battleship and said, “Mission accomplished.” He misled us again. He said we were working with the coalition of the willing. It was only a figment of his imagination. He said that we were moving forward with training the Iraqi soldiers who would take over the security. Where are they? They are nowhere. As a matter of fact, they're undermining our soldiers in this civil war. He said we were going to get proceeds from the oil that would be pumped back into Iraq so that it could be reconstructed. As a matter of fact, he told us he made these decisions; he said he is the decider. But you know what? He's not the decider. He is the liar! Thank you for being here today. I want you to come to Capitol Hill and lobby on Monday and put some starch in the backs of the members of Congress and give them the courage that they need to do the right thing. It is alright to have some resolutions that are not binding, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and that will come when it's time to decide whether or not we're going to fund this immoral war. I will not vote one dime for this war! And when you come up here to lobby, you ask these members, “Are you going to support an appropriation to continue this war, to expand this war?” And you can tell the difference between those who are ready to bring our soldiers home and those who are only paying lip service. Don't forget, he is not the decider. He is the -- AUDIENCE: Liar! REP. MAXINE WATERS: He is not the decider, he is the -- AUDIENCE: Liar! REP. MAXINE WATERS: Bring our troops home! AMY GOODMAN: California Congressmember Maxine Waters was joined by another founder of the Out of Iraq Caucus, Lynn Woolsey. In January 2005, Congressmember Woolsey became the first member of Congress to call for withdrawal from Iraq. She called for an end to the US occupation of Iraq. REP. LYNN WOOLSEY: Thank all of you. Your very presence, your passion has taken us this far, and we are not going to stop until we end George Bush's immoral Iraq war. Americans don't want to send our young men and women into the middle of a civil war, a war we shouldn't have been in in the first place. We've injured -- over the last four years that we've endured bloodshed and mayhem, more than 3,000 American lives lost, countless physically and mentally wounded, tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens killed, hundreds of billions of dollars wasted, our global credibility shattered, terrorists emboldened rather than defeated. We all know it’s not about winning or losing. It's about doing the right thing. Everybody knows this. Everybody knows this, except the President. He asks us to sacrifice more of our tax dollars so he can win in Iraq. You know what they say. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. Fortunately, we have an antidote to this insanity. It's not another Iraq Study Group. It's not a new committee to debate what to do next. It is what you sent us to do last November. It's called HR 508. It's long title is the Bring Our Troops Home and Iraq Sovereignty Restoration Act, and it would end the US occupation in Iraq within six months, saving lives and limbs and money and America's standing in the world. HR 508 is the only comprehensive legislation that puts us on the fast track to a fully funded military withdrawal from Iraq. Congresswomen Maxine Waters and Barbara Lee and I have introduced HR 508 in the Congress, but you are the true authors of this legislation. It is your will that HR 508 carries out. So when you go to the Capitol on Monday, when you go to Capitol Hill, and when you contact members of Congress in the coming weeks and months, and they ask you, “Well, what is your plan?” tell them, “Pass HR 508!” When they tell you they are against the war but don't know how to leave, tell them, “Pass HR 508!” When they tell you they would like to help you out, but, you know, the President has all the power, you tell them, “Pass HR 508!” Your voices have not gone unheard. They have life in HR 508, and I pledge all of my heart and all of my soul to this cause. In the name of national security, fiscal sanity and calm and decency, together we will bring our troops home. Thank you. AMY GOODMAN: Congressmember Lynn Woolsey. Coming up: Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Jane Fonda at the national march on Washington. Stay with us. ---- "Silence Is No Longer An Option": Jane Fonda, Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins Speak Out Monday, January 29th, 2007 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/29/1453235 On Saturday Jane Fonda took part in her first anti-war protest since the Vietnam War. "I haven't spoken at an anti-war rally for 34 years," Fonda said. "But silence is no longer an option." Meanwhile actor Tim Robbins called for the impeachment of President Bush. [includes rush transcript] * Sean Penn * Jane Fonda * Susan Sarondon * Tim Robbins RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: As we return to the march in Washington, Hollywood was represented. Actors Jane Fonda, Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon spoke. First, Sean Penn. SEAN PENN: What’s Hollywood doing here today? We're here, because it’s our job, just like it’s yours. We’re Americans, and our fellow Americans are dying as we're standing here today. We are dependent on our congress, but our congress is dependent on us, and we're going to come out here in these numbers and in doubled numbers, and we're going to send our congress this message. We've heard the excuse, “if I had known then what I know now.” Well, we're here to tell them now what they have to know in 2008. And if they don't stand up and make a resolution as binding as the death toll, we're not going to be behind those politicians. We're here, and we’re going to be in local districts, and we’re going to push this until this resolution is binding, the money stops and the troops come home. JANE FONDA: I’m really here because I want to thank you all. I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for being here today. So many of you, so many of today's speakers, including my fellow actors up here, were here at the beginning, before we went into Iraq, because you knew and they knew what was in store. Thank you so much for the courage to stand up against this mean-spirited, vengeful administration. Your actions are proof that the most precious part of this country, its soul, is alive and well. So thank you. Your ongoing commitment to ending this war allows people in other parts of the world to remain hopeful that America has the stuff to become again a country that they can love and respect. Thank you. I especially want to thank and acknowledge the servicemen and women and the military families and Gold Star mothers that are here. A lot of press people have been asking me today, “What's the difference between now and during the Vietnam war?” And I’ll tell you one huge crucial difference: it took six years for Vietnam veterans, active-duty servicemen, Gold Star mothers and military families to come out against the war. It has happened now within three years of the war. Their presence here is critical, and we should acknowledge their courage. I haven't spoken at an antiwar rally in 34 years, because I’ve been afraid that because of the lies that have been and continue to be spread about me and that war, that they would be used to hurt this new antiwar movement, but silence is no longer an option. My daughter, who is here with me today -- come here -- she was a little girl when she would come with me to the anti-Vietnam War protests. She's here today with her two little children, my grandchildren. I’m very proud that they're here, but I’m so sad that we still have to do this; that we did not learn the lessons from the Vietnam War; that we've made the same mistakes, blindness to the realities on the ground, hubris and arrogance in dealing with a people and culture far older than we are; and that we understand so little, carelessness and thoughtlessness in our approach to rebuilding a country we've destroyed, allowing billions of dollars to be stolen, squandered at the hands of private contractors, just as this administration has done in our own gulf in the post-Katrina era. So, thank you. Thank you for being here, and we'll continue to be here for as long as necessary. God bless. AMY GOODMAN: Susan Sarandon. SUSAN SARANDON: ”Imagine you are in constant danger from hidden roadside bombs and exposed to ambushes and sniper fire. Imagine that your home is constantly harassed with mortar explosions and rocket attacks while you try to sleep. Imagine you witness your closest friend being torn apart by enemy fire. Imagine you discover that the person you thought was an insurgent that you killed turns out to be an innocent child or someone who looks similar to your mother. Now imagine you lost a limb, you lost your eyesight, you lost a friend, you lost your sanity and you lost your innocence for an unappreciative society and an unconcerned elected government.” This is the testimony of Garrett Reppenhagen, who spoke earlier, cavalry scout and sniper in the US Army First Division from 2004 to 2005. He continues. “I didn't expect to come home to find there's no plan for addressing the needs of veterans like myself. I don't understand how, despite being in the middle of not one but two wars, our government is actually scaling back on services that are critical for men and women trying to re-enter civilian society.” Here are some staggering facts. One in three homeless Americans are military vets, and that is rising. One in four vets with PTSD sought medical care from the VA, where they experienced a two to three month wait to see a doctor. Over 53,000 are wounded. The ratio of doctors to patients is one doctor for every 500 patients. Veteran males aged 20 to 24 have twice the unemployment rate. 40% of troops currently being rotated are National Guard or reservists. 95% of them are experiencing problems getting their pay. Many are being sent back are on potent anti-depressants, anti-anxiety drugs with little or no counseling or supervision or screening. Over 200 have committed suicide. There's a 70% divorce rate for returning soldiers. The GOP plan for 2007 drops $65 billion in benefits over the next five years. There was not a mention of this crisis in the State of the Union address, as if the war only exists over there and not here. And there was not an ounce of criticism from any of our presidential hopefuls. I say to those who tell me that we are fighting this war over there so that it doesn't come here: listen to the sons and daughters who are returning and their families, and you will know that the war is being fought here in the hearts and minds and bodies of those that are returning and have already sacrificed so much. Shame on you! We are here today to say it is time to remove the burden of the political crisis of the Iraq war from our soldiers and commit to caring for a new generation of Americans who are grieving, severely wounded and mentally troubled. Thank you. AMY GOODMAN: Susan Sarandon. Then, Tim Robbins. TIM ROBBINS: I don’t know if you heard the most recent news, just came over the wire: Karl Rove has been subpoenaed. Some have said recently that impeachment is off the table. AUDIENCE: No! TIM ROBBINS: What was that? AUDIENCE: No! TIM ROBBINS: On the train coming down here today, I talked to a young woman whose brother has just been deployed. Due to the recent Bush escalation, her brother is being rushed into action. Instead of the proper twelve-week training period, this young 20-year-old serviceman will hit the ground in a hostile land with two weeks’ training. Is impeachment still off the table? AUDIENCE: No! TIM ROBBINS: This past November, the American people sent a resounding message to Washington, D.C. and the world: we want change. We want this war to end. And how did Bush respond? 21,500 more will risk their lives for his misguided war. Is impeachment still off the table? AUDIENCE: No! TIM ROBBINS: Let's get him out of office! Let's get him out of office before -- AUDIENCE: Impeach Bush! Impeach Bush! Impeach Bush! Impeach Bush! Impeach Bush! Impeach Bush! TIM ROBBINS: Let's get hem out of office before he starts ruling from a bunker. Let's get him out of office before the only one on his side is his dog Barney. Nixon, Richard Nixon, talked to the walls. Bush is talking to God. But it's not a god I recognize. This god seems to be giving George a pass on some of his major commandments. This god seems to be OK with lying or bearing witness, as he puts it, against the US Congress, against the United States people, against the world, bearing false witness on weapons of mass destruction, bearing false witness on nuclear capability, bearing false witness on the imminent threat of Saddam, bearing false witness on the links between al-Qaeda and Iraq. This god seems to be giving George a pass on stealing, stealing the resources of the Iraqi people, on squandering the hard-earned tax dollars of United States citizens for an unnecessary war! Money that could be used to intelligently fight against terrorism is squandered in a way and in a war that creates more terrorists. Money that could be helping the elderly, the poor, the infirm here at home is instead lining the pockets of war profiteers from Halliburton and private mercenary militias like Blackwater. But George's god says, "That's cool, George." His god tells him to honor his father and mother, but when his father tells him not to occupy Iraq, George's god counsels him to ignore his father. Well, I think we have a different understanding of those commandments here. And let's not forget that most important one: thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not kill or recklessly risk the lives of our brave men and women overseas. Over 3,000 dead. Over 50,000 wounded. Thou shalt not kill or needlessly risk the lives of Iraqi civilians. How many? 50,000? 200,000? 400,000? 650,000? Only God knows, George. Only God knows. AMY GOODMAN: Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Jane Fonda and Sean Penn.