http://nucnews.net/nucnews/2001nn/0106nn/010601nn.htm#20

NucNews - June 1, 2001

Archive By Date | Today's Links to Search By Activists' News | Nuclear | Depleted Uranium | Military
Alternative Energy Etc. | From Subscribers ------- Index of Articles NUCLEAR
UK warned of nuclear terror threat at new plant
Pentagon lines up industry chiefs for top jobs
Nuclear Energy: Look at the Costs
China Plans War Games Off Taiwan
China's Army Said in Large Exercise
Inside the Ring: China sub untracked
Radioactive water leaks in Czech n-plant
Persian Gulf War Illness Compensation Act of 2001
'My hair fell out and my teeth began to rot'
NATO Rebuff
NATO expansion still a guessing game
Mishaps involving n-arms can kill thousands
Plan to Recycle Plutonium Delayed
Tanaka may raise issue of marine drill relocation
Optimism Over Defense Spending
Faith-Based Reasoning
Missile Defenses Need More Tests, Key Senator Says
Russia Space Forces Get New Status
Russia Hails Missile Elimination
Modernizing U.S. nuclear weapons to cost millions
Duke Calif. rates spike in emergency
White Sands Tour Finds Relics, Tiny Survivor
DOE plans to store stockpile of recycled nickel 'indefinitely'
Budget Chief Optimistic on Defense
The Promise of China Trade
Nuclear Power: Worth the Risk?
Daschle: Nuclear Waste Plan 'Dead'

MILITARY
NATO exercise spurs fear disease
A field trip in the name of peace
China Targets Poor Countries on FC-1
A Dark Secret Comes to Light in Serbia
Colombia Debates New Terrorism Laws
Indonesian Military Warns President
Editorial: Iraqis still suffering
U.S. Clerics: End Iraq Sanctions
Security Council Agrees on Iraq Sanctions
Iraqis get little help from new sanctions plan
U.S. To Allow Sale of Goods to Iraq
Israeli president warns Arafat
IDF sending crack units into W. Bank
Sharon considers plan for 48-hour knockout punch
CITY POWER: U.S. Bombs Explode Hope in Vieques
Militarizing Space "to protect U.S. interests
Bush to seek 6.1 billion for the military now, more later
CHEMICAL EXPOSURE CALLED UNLIKELY CAUSE FOR MARINES' BLISTERS
Strategies clouded by excess policy reviews
Dredging Pearl Harbor
Inside the Ring: Hamel on hold

OTHER
French minister proposes EU - wide "eco-tax"
Judge dismisses Indians suits against Texaco
Swift Rise Seen in H.I.V. Cases for Gay Blacks
Taliban Diplomat Defends Decrees on Hindus, Women
Waco simulation didn't test gun FBI agents carried
Prying eyes: A report on the global spy network
U.S. to Shut Spy Station in Germany
Judge to Appoint Master in Lee Case
ACTIVISTS
Windpower 2001 in DC June 3-7
2 Questions For People Traveling to Washington for June 10-12 Anti-Star Wars Events to Consider


-------- NUCLEAR


-------- britain

UK warned of nuclear terror threat at new plant

UK: June 1, 2001
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=11039

LONDON - A nuclear weapons expert warned yesterday that output from a new fuel plant in northwest England could easily be used by terrorists to make nuclear bombs.

Frank Barnaby's report to the government comes as ministers consider whether to allow the plant to start up at all amid questions over its economic viability.

But state-run British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL), owner of the station, dismissed the concerns saying the risk of nuclear material being used in the manufacture of weapons was "minimal."

Barnaby's report spells out how easy it is to make the mixed oxide fuel (MOX) into a bomb.

MOX is a mixture of plutonium and uranium oxide made for reactor operators in Europe and Japan.

"It would be sheer irresponsibility for the government to allow the new plant to open as the theft of MOX fuel pellets would then become a terrifying possibility," Barnaby said.

"The government, if it takes its policy of preventing the spread of nuclear weapons seriously, should take this into account," he told Reuters.

The MOX plant at Sellafield was completed in 1997 but lies idle as the government decides whether to allow output to begin.

"Once you have got the MOX then the steps to a nuclear explosion are not complex," Barnaby said.

His report, commissioned by the Oxford Research Group, describes three ways of chemically separating the plutonium dioxide from uranium dioxide in MOX fuel.

New Scientist, the magazine where the report appeared, said the chemistry required to extract plutonium from MOX is less sophisticated than that required for the illegal manufacture of designer drugs.

It adds that only 13 kg (29 lbs) of pure metal would be needed to create an explosion 50 times more powerful than the fertilizer bomb that killed 168 people in Oklahoma City in the United States six years ago.

BNFL played down the concerns, part of wider fears that poor security arrangements for radioactive material worldwide could play into the hands of terrorist organisations.

"I would describe the existing safeguards we have got as mature, comprehensive and robust," a company spokesman said.

"It is also worth noting that safeguarded nuclear material has never been illegally diverted into use for the manufacture of weapons."

The report comes hard on the heels of a court action launched last week by the Friends of the Earth environmental group against the government over plans for the station.

The group says the government acted unlawfully in not allowing the 482 million pound ($675 million) construction cost to be taken into account when economic viability was assessed.

Before starting up, the plant must pass a test required by European law proving that the benefits of a practice involving ionising radiation outweighs any adverse environmental impact.

Story by Mike Collett-White

REUTERS

-------- business

Pentagon lines up industry chiefs for top jobs

June 1, 2001, Sydney Morning Herald
http://www.smh.com.au/news/0106/01/world/world15.html

Washington: Executives from some of the nation's largest defence contractors have been tapped by the Bush Administration for Pentagon jobs overseeing a defence budget that now gives the lion's share of $US94 billion ($180 billion) in taxpayer money to their former employers.

Those with the inside track for top-level Pentagon posts come from Lockheed-Martin, General Dynamics and Northrop-Grumman, companies that get a combined $US27.6 billion a year from the Pentagon.

These are the very same companies that sell more than a third of the aircraft, ships, electronics and high-dollar weapons that account for most of the $US60 billion a year now spent on Pentagon procurement. They also get the biggest chunk of the additional $US34 billion earmarked for research and development, including a hefty rise in such spending for President George Bush's controversial defence against ballistic missiles.

The selections by Mr Bush and the Defence Secretary, Mr Donald Rumsfeld, illustrate another trend emerging with the top-level Pentagon nominations: while the Constitution calls for civilian control of the military, the Administration has picked a retired navy captain to head the air force and a former general to oversee the army.

While Rumsfeld aides defended the selections, some Pentagon officials bridled because of their daily battles with poor contractor performance and cost overruns. "They are bringing in the sharks," said Mr Chuck Spinney, an air force system analyst. But he conceded that Mr Rumsfeld was caught in the predictable bind of finding experts for a new administration.

Mr Bush plans to nominate Mr Albert Smith, a Lockheed-Martin vice-president, for the newly elevated position of undersecretary of the air force, according to Defence Department officials.

Already selected were Mr Gordon England, vice-president of General Dynamics, for navy secretary and Mr James Roche, a former navy man and an executive with Northrop-Grumman, for the new post of air force secretary.

In addition to Mr Roche, a retired brigadier-general, Mr Thomas White, has been named army secretary. The service secretaries would serve as Mr Rumsfeld's executive committee, with new stature and powers.

Mr William Hartung, of the World Policy Institute, said Mr Bush and Mr Rumsfeld were trying to establish a corporate-style structure in Washington.

"They probably could find some very qualified executives who are not in the defence industry. After all, the defence firms don't have the best reputations for controlling costs."

Mr Smith, as No 2 at the air force, would assume a crucial position in charge of overseeing which companies would get hundreds of billions of dollars in the coming decade if Congress approves Mr Bush's ambitious missile defence program. Lockheed-Martin is to get $US15 billion this year in defence contracts for aircraft, naval systems, space boosters and an array of other programs.

Purchases of ships, aircraft and other weapons have more than doubled in the past decade, resulting in record profits for companies such as General Dynamics, which makes ships and submarines for the navy. In turn, defence industry executives have made millions.

Newsday

----

Nuclear Energy: Look at the Costs

Friday, June 1, 2001; Page A30

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A5223-2001May31?language=printer

At least two issues associated with the economics of nuclear power generation were left out of May 15 news stories on energy development.

The first is the issue of liability. In the infancy of nuclear power, the electricity-generating industry refused to build nuclear plants without assurances that it would never have to bear the full cost of any catastrophic accident. It got -- and still has -- the Price-Anderson Act, which limits the liability of the nuclear industry. In effect, the taxpayer is the insurer of last resort of the nuclear power industry.

The second is the issue of decommissioning costs. The question of how best to dispose of nuclear fuel wastes is trivial compared with the question of how to dispose of outmoded nuclear plants. Studies estimate that it will cost more to decommission a nuclear plant than it cost to build it.

Any comparison of the costs of producing electricity in nuclear power plants and fossil-fuel plants needs to take into consideration these issues.

MARCIA RUCKER Bethesda

-------- china

China Plans War Games Off Taiwan

By John Pomfret
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, June 1, 2001; Page A01

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A3389-2001May31?language=printer

BEIJING, May 31 -- Thousands of Chinese soldiers are massing opposite Taiwan for their biggest military exercises in several years, coordinated with amphibious tanks, fighter aircraft, submarines and missile batteries, an official Chinese Web site reported today.

The report by BeijingNews.com, a site run by leading state-owned newspapers in the Chinese capital, said the main goals of the exercises are to practice "attacking and occupying an outlying Taiwanese island and fighting off an aircraft carrier." The mention of an aircraft carrier was seen as a reference to the U.S. Navy; Taiwan has no carriers.

The United States has long been committed to helping Taiwan defend itself, although the commitment is deliberately vague. While declaring there was no change in policy, President Bush said April 25 that he would do "whatever it took" to defend the island from any Chinese attack.

At the Pentagon, officials expressed no concern today, saying the planned exercises appear no larger and no more significant militarily than similar efforts by the Chinese military in previous years.

"Just about every spring you can count on them to mass their amphibious units on their coast facing Taiwan," said a senior defense official. "Sure it looks like a lot, but it is everything they've got and it still, in our view, does not add up to a credible capability to invade Taiwan. . . . Does it signify some change in policy? Is it meant as a threatening gesture? Those are different questions."

The Beijing Web site, whose content is monitored and approved by government censors, said the exercises will center on and around Dongshan Island in the Taiwan Strait, about 98 nautical miles west of Taiwan's Penghu Island and 166 nautical miles west of Kaohsiung, Taiwan's main southern port. It said the railways and highways of Fujian province already are full of military vehicles and rail cars carrying amphibious tanks and other equipment in preparation for the exercises, dubbed "Liberation No. 1."

The report said the exercises, expected to begin in June, underscore China's "strong opposition" to the Taiwanese government of President Chen Shui-bian and what it claimed was Chen's failure to improve ties since he became president in May of last year. China's government is particularly incensed that Chen has so far refused to accept the "one-China principle," which holds that Taiwan is part of China and has served as the foundation for Beijing's troubled relations with Taipei for years.

It was unclear whether the upcoming exercises, which follow drills this month in the South China Sea of Chinese naval and air forces, mark a shift in China's recent tactics toward Taiwan.

China conducts amphibious exercises and attempts joint military exercises on a yearly basis. However, the pro-Beijing Wen Wei Po newspaper in Hong Kong said Tuesday the exercises will be the biggest since 1996, when China fired unarmed missiles near Taiwan's two ports in exercises that prompted the Clinton administration to dispatch two aircraft carrier battle groups to the region.

When asked about the exercises by reporters on Wednesday, Zhang Mingqing, a spokesman for China's Office of Taiwan Affairs, replied: "Undoubtedly, these exercises have a definite purpose."

The military maneuvers come during a period of tension between the United States and China. The April 1 collision of a Chinese fighter jet and a U.S. Navy surveillance plane off China's southern coast, the decision in April by the Bush administration to sell Taiwan a multibillion-dollar weapons package and visits to the United States by Chen and the Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, have soured relations considerably.

Douglas Paal, an expert on U.S.-China relations, said Beijing so far has responded in a "measured" manner to what it sees as provocations from the new U.S. administration.

However, the People's Liberation Army Daily on Wednesday attacked Bush's recent statements about his goals for the U.S. military, especially his support of a national missile defense system. The newspaper called Bush's statements about peace "nice packaging" but predicted that the policies behind them will "only pull the United States and the rest of the world into the nightmare of war."

The exercises are important for the PLA, which is the largest standing military force in the world but is still evolving from a peasant army to a modern fighting force.

James Mulvenon, an expert on China's military at the Rand Corp., said that in the past China's amphibious exercises were mostly show, designed to "rattle Taiwan." But lately, military analysts have noted that the PLA has begun to wrestle with real problems, "logistical problems, timing problems, command and control problems," he said.

In the past, for example, China's idea of joint exercises involved the four main constituent parts of its military -- infantry, navy, air force and rocket forces -- showing up at the same place and training separately. "Now we are looking for them to integrate their operations," Mulvenon said.

To that end, today's report said the Su-27, China's most advanced fighter planes, purchased from Russia, will participate in the drills. So far, military experts say, China has had difficulty integrating the aircraft into its arsenal.

China has vowed to attack Taiwan if it declares independence. Barring that, however, the prospect of a full-scale invasion is slim. However, China's military analysts in recent years have bruited the possibility that China would seize one of the dozens of islands that belong to Taiwan but lie near China's coast.

Since the Persian Gulf War and especially since the 1996 face-off between the two U.S. carrier groups and the Chinese navy, China also has devoted many resources to countering a U.S. response to any military moves against Taiwan. Its purchases of Russian-built destroyers, submarines and state-of-the-art anti-ship missiles are designed to give U.S. commanders pause before they enter a battle on Taiwan's side, Western and Chinese military analysts say.

Staff writer Roberto Suro in Washington contributed to this report.

----

China's Army Said in Large Exercise

JUNE 01, 00:00 EST
http://wire.ap.org/APnews/center_package.html?FRONTID=WORLD&PACKAGEID=china

BEIJING (AP) - In one of its largest military exercises ever, China's army will practice capturing an outlying Taiwanese island and attacking an aircraft carrier, a state-run newspaper said Friday.

The exercises, involving land, sea and air forces, begin this month on and around Dongshan Island, off China's southeastern coast in the straits that separate China and Taiwan, the Beijing Morning Post said.

The maneuvers will be China's first large-scale war games since the election of Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian last May, the newspaper said. It said the combined exercises are one of the largest ever conducted by China's 2.5-million member People's Liberation Army, the world's biggest fighting force.

``The main military targets of these exercises will be attacking and occupying an outlying Taiwanese island and attacking an aircraft carrier,'' the newspaper said.

The exercises ``demonstrate the Chinese government's determination to protect sovereignty and territorial integrity,'' it said.

Taiwan and China split amid civil war in 1949, but Beijing still regards the island as part of its territory. China has repeatedly threatened to attack Taiwan if its government indefinitely rebuffs Beijing's demands for talks on unification or if it declares outright independence.

The Beijing Morning Post said forces taking part in the exercises will include missile units, amphibious tanks, submarines, warships, marine soldiers and Russian-made Su-27 aircraft - among the most modern and potent weapons in China's growing arsenal.

Nearly 10,000 troops have been taking up position on Dongshan Island since mid-May, the newspaper said, quoting a report in a pro-Beijing Hong Kong newspaper.

``Dongshan Island is now full of all types of Liberation Army units. Troops that have reached the site of the exercises are intensifying training in order to prepare for the big maneuvers,'' the newspaper said.

----

Inside the Ring: China sub untracked

June 1, 2001, by Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20010601-21312290.htm

Notes from the Pentagon.

A Chinese submarine conducted secret underwater operations for more than a month without being detected by U.S. intelligence agencies, according to defense sources.

The Ming-class attack submarine snuck out of its port at Qingdao, on the Yellow Sea coast opposite Korea, and returned 31 days later.

Intelligence officials said the "undetected SSN deployment" is an indication that China´s Navy is improving its underwater-warfare skills. China´s military has harassed the Navy surveillance ship USS Bowditch, sailing in international waters in the Yellow Sea, on two occasions in the past three months. Intelligence officials told us the submarine could have been operating in the region to support Chinese countersurveillance of the U.S. ship.

China has 20 of the Ming-class diesel-electric-powered boats. The submarines are equipped with anti-ship cruise missiles.

Intelligence officials said the Mings will be replaced in the next decade by a new generation of nuclear attack submarines called the Type O93, now under construction.

China also is building a new class of ballistic-missile submarine known as the Type 094. It will carried a variant of the DF-31 ICBM, a road-mobile missile that was flight tested twice last year.

-------- czech republic

Radioactive water leaks in Czech n-plant

CZECH REPUBLIC: June 1, 2001

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=11032

PRAGUE - Several cubic metres of radioactive water leaked on Wednesday during reactor tests in the controversial Czech nuclear power plant at Temelin near the Austrian border, a spokesman said yesterday.

Temelin spokesman Milan Nebesar told Reuters all the water remained within the reactor's safety shell. He said radiation levels were very low and there was no danger either to staff of the plant, run by CEZ, or to the environment.

"The water was slightly radioactive. The levels of radiation did not reach even the lowest classification of a radiation event," Nebesar said, adding that cleaning works were finished yesterday morning.

"It was rather a mistake of operating staff (than a system fault)," Nebesar said.

Temelin has been the source of bitter dispute with strongly anti-nuclear Austria, which says its design combining Russian VVER reactors with a U.S. safety system may be dangerous. It has been off-line since early May due to turbine problems.

REUTERS


-------- depleted uranium

Persian Gulf War Illness Compensation Act of 2001 (Introduced in the House)

From: DSNurse@aol.com

We need you to call each rep and senator Not signed on to HR612/S409 in DC to get them to cosponsor HR612/S409. Request you get family, friends, and other vets also to repeat the calls until they cosponor! Here are talking points:

TALKING POINTS

In 1994, Congress passed legislation (Public Law 103-446; 38 USC 1117) to provide compensation to Gulf War veterans with undiagnosed illnesses. Since then, the V.A. has narrowly interpreted the law so as to limit compensation to Persian Gulf veterans with illnesses that cannot be attributed to any known clinical diagnosis.

To date, the V.A. has denied 75% of the claims for undiagnosed illness compensation (approx. 12,000 applied: 3,000 compensated and 9,000 denied).

H.R. 612 seeks to clarify the definition of "undiagnosed illness" so that Gulf War veterans suffering from chronic undiagnosed or poorly defined illnesses are properly compensated. Undiagnosed or poorly defined illnesses are illnesses without known causes, such as fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, autoimmune disorder and multiple chemical sensitivity. H.R. 612 will, by definition, include ALS ("Lou Gherig's disease") as a poorly defined illness.

H.R. 612 also extends the timeline for when these symptoms may manifest themselves from 2001 to 2011.

House sponsor contact person is Congressmanman Manzullo (R) - Reps contact him to sign on as official cosponsor

Senate Sponsors Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R) and Senator Durbin (D)

Cost factors rough estimate $80 million for each of first two years and then $30 million per year thereafter.....enough money in Presidents budget for this - line item.

PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHICH STATE YOU ARE WILLING TO HELP WITH! HERE ARE THE TALKING POINTS FOR THE BILL

Bill has been endorsed by VFW, DAV, Legion, VVA, National Vietnam and Gulf War Veterans Coalition

Text of bill below:

--

Persian Gulf War Illness Compensation Act of 2001 (Introduced in the House)

HR 612 IH

107th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 612 To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the standards for compensation for Persian Gulf veterans suffering from certain undiagnosed illnesses, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 14, 2001 Mr. MANZULLO (for himself, Mr. GALLEGLY, and Mr. SHOWS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans Affairs

A BILL To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the standards for compensation for Persian Gulf veterans suffering from certain undiagnosed illnesses, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Persian Gulf War Illness Compensation Act of 2001'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Although the majority of veterans of the Armed Forces who served in the Persian Gulf War returned from the Southwest Asia theater of operations to normal activities, many of those veterans have experienced a range of unexplained illnesses, including chronic fatigue, muscle and joint pain, loss of concentration, forgetfulness, headache, and rash.

(2) Those veterans were potentially exposed to a wide range of biological and chemical agents including sand, smoke from oil-well fires, paints, solvents, insecticides, petroleum fuels and their combustion products, organophosphate nerve agents, pyridostigmine bromide, depleted uranium, anthrax and botulinum toxoid vaccinations, and infectious diseases, in addition to other psychological and physiological stresses.

(3) Section 1117 of title 38, United States Code, enacted on November 2, 1994, by the Persian Gulf War Veterans' Benefits Act (title I of Public Law 103-446), provides for the payment of compensation to Persian Gulf veterans suffering from a chronic disability resulting from an undiagnosed illness (or combination of undiagnosed illnesses) that became manifest to a compensable degree within a period prescribed by regulation.

(4) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs prescribed regulations under section 1117 of title 38, United States Code, that interpreted that section so as to limit compensation to Persian Gulf veterans with illnesses that `cannot be attributed to any known clinical diagnosis'.

(5) In a report dated September 7, 2000, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences indicated that it was not asked to determine whether an identifiable medical syndrome referred to as `Gulf War Syndrome' exists and suggested that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, in developing a compensation program for Persian Gulf veterans, consider the health effects that may be associated with exposures to specific agents that were present in the Southwest Asia theater of operations during the Persian Gulf War.

SEC. 3. COMPENSATION OF VETERANS OF PERSIAN GULF WAR WHO HAVE CERTAIN ILLNESSES.

(a) PRESUMPTIVE PERIOD FOR UNDIAGNOSED ILLNESSES PROGRAM- Section 1117 of title 38, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)(2), by striking `within the presumptive period prescribed under subsection (b)' and inserting `before December 31, 2011, or such later date as the Secretary may prescribe by regulation'; and

(2) by striking subsection (b).

(b) UNDIAGNOSED ILLNESSES- Such section, as amended by subsection (a), is further amended by inserting after subsection (a) the following new subsection (b):

`(b)(1) For purposes of this section, the term `undiagnosed illness' means illness manifested by symptoms or signs the cause, etiology, or origin of which cannot be specifically and definitely identified, including poorly defined illnesses such as fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, autoimmune disorder, and multiple chemical sensitivity. The attribution of one or more of the symptoms to a disability that is not an undiagnosed illness shall not preclude other symptoms from being considered a manifestation of an undiagnosed illness.

`(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), signs or symptoms that may be a manifestation of an undiagnosed illness include the following:

`(A) Fatigue.

`(B) Unexplained rashes or other dermatological signs or symptoms.

`(C) Headache.

`(D) Muscle pain.

`(E) Joint pain.

`(F) Neurologic signs or symptoms.

`(G) Neuropsychological signs or symptoms.

`(H) Signs or symptoms involving the respiratory system (upper or lower).

`(I) Sleep disturbances.

`(J) Gastrointestinal signs or symptoms.

`(K) Cardiovascular signs or symptoms.

`(L) Abnormal weight loss.

`(M) Menstrual disorders.'.

(c) PRESUMPTION OF SERVICE CONNECTION PROGRAM- Section 1118(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(4) For purposes of this section, the term `undiagnosed illness' has the meaning given that term in section 1117(b) of this title.'.

(d) EFFECTIVE DATE- (1) For purposes of section 5110(g) of title 38, United States Code--

(A) the amendments to section 1117 of title 38, United States Code, made by subsections (a) and (b) shall take effect as of November 2, 1994; and

(B) the amendment to section 1118 of title 38, United States Code, made by subsection (c) shall take effect as of October 21, 1998.

(2) The second sentence of section 5110(g) of title 38, United States Code, shall not apply in the case of an award, or increased award, of compensation pursuant to the amendments made by this section if the date of application therefor is not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act.

For up-to-date list of co-sponsors, contact DSNurse@aol.com

--------

'My hair fell out and my teeth began to rot'

06/01/2001
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/01/06/nuran506.xml

KEVIN RUTLAND, a 41-year-old father of three from Hull, served in Bosnia in 1995 and 1996 as a Royal Engineer before leaving the Army. But within a few months of returning home his hair fell out, he began to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, his teeth started to rot and he suffered from osteoarthritis.

His symptoms have not improved and he now sees a psychiatrist for psychological problems caused by his illness. "It was only within the last year that it has come to my attention that it might be linked to the depleted uranium.

"I've been to see more doctors than I've had hot dinners but it's not the sort of thing they are briefed about as the MoD and the Government are not telling them about it. I may be the first in this country but I believe there are more that have not come forward or do not know yet. I think I'm owed an explanation for my benefit and that of other servicemen."


-------- europe

NATO Rebuff

It's the latest symptom of wrongheaded U.S. policy

June 1, 2001 Detroit Free Press
http://www.freep.com/voices/editorials/enato1_20010601.htm

The United States is getting awfully frigid shoulders from formerly friendly international bodies. President George W. Bush had best start building bridges, lest this country find itself uncomfortably alone at the top of the world. No amount of money or military hardware can compensate for alienating allies.

The latest rebuff -- only weeks after the United States was thrown off two United Nations committees -- came from NATO's top policy-making body. The North Atlantic Council refused to endorse the Bush administration's plan for a national missile defense system, even after Bush sent Secretary of State Colin Powell as pitchman.

Although Powell urged foreign ministers to denounce the "common threat" of a missile attack, they issued only a vague statement saying missiles "can pose" a threat and welcoming a review of strategies to combat them. Clearly the gap is wide between the Bush administration's perception of global threats and the view of the rest of the world.

Indeed, opponents of the U.S. plan -- which includes most NATO members and U.S. citizens -- say that missile defenses would provoke a nuclear arms race because it is premised upon scrapping the ABM Treaty with Russia, which will inevitably lead to arms buildups around the world. The system will cost untold billions with no assurances of being effective.

But this is about more than the demerits of one plan. It's about a resurging worldwide perception that the United States is an arrogant, self-serving nation that isn't willing to look at the big picture.

Bush can't lead the world by bullying it into submission -- nor can he even expect the world to submit. International relationships are built through diplomacy. Sadly, that's in far too short supply.

----

NATO expansion still a guessing game

World Scene June 1, 2001 • Combined dispatches and staff reports
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20010601-98918590.htm

VILNIUS, Lithuania -- NATO Secretary-General George Robertson yesterday said discussions on enlarging the alliance were likely to remain a "guessing game" as all elements of a decision won´t be in place until a summit in 2002.

Lawmakers from 10 NATO hopefuls had wanted to hear something more specific about their chances for membership, but Mr. Robertson said informed decisions on further enlargement could not be made until candidate countries implement a third year of their membership action plans -- a program designed to help prepare NATO hopefuls for entry into the alliance.

-------- india / pakistan

Mishaps involving n-arms can kill thousands

By N. Gopal Raj - The Hindu, June 1, 2001
http://www.indiaserver.com/thehindu/2001/06/01/stories/0201000j.htm

BANGALORE, MAY 31. If nuclear weapons were to be deployed in South Asia and there was to be an accident involving one of them on the outskirts of a large metropolis, for instance, New Delhi or Lahore, several thousands could die of plutonium inhalation, according to a paper in the latest issue of the journal, Current Science.

The paper authored by Dr. Zia Mian and Dr. M.V. Ramana of Princeton University and Dr. R. Rajaraman of the School of Physical Sciences at the Jawaharlal Nehru University points out that nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles contained highly combustible, explosive and hazardous components. At least 230 accidents involving the nuclear weapons of the U.S., the erstwhile U.S.S.R. and the U.K. were believed to have occurred between 1950 and 1980.

The study examines the consequences to a civilian population of an accident resulting in the detonation of the conventional high- explosive in the nuclear weapon, which is used to compress the core of nuclear material (without, however, triggering a nuclear explosion). In such accidents, all the plutonium would be oxidised into plutonium oxide and converted into fine particles which could be breathed in. The explosion would send these plutonium oxide aerosols high into the atmosphere, where they would mix and be carried further by prevailing winds.

According to the paper, such accidents had indeed happened, such as at Palomares in Spain in 1966 and Thule in Greenland in 1968. In both cases, aircraft carrying nuclear weapons had crashed, detonating the high-explosive in the weapons.

The paper models the spread of plutonium in the event of such an accident, its carriage by the winds, the possible extent of inhalation by people and the resulting fatalities through cancer. The authors conclude that if such an accident were to happen at some air force base or cantonment at the edge of a major city, such as Delhi, Karachi or Lahore, 5,000 people or more could die of cancer from inhaling plutonium.

The authors agree that these 5,000 deaths would occur over a few decades and that these deaths would form only a small fraction of all cancer fatalities during that period due to other causes. ``But 5,000 deaths are still 5,000 deaths. That they happen quietly over decades among a largely unsuspecting public does not mitigate the tragedy. If it can be avoided, it must be,'' they point out.

Apart from the deaths, such an accident would cause panic and flight, creating an unprecedented disaster in its own right. Further, it was simply not feasible to decontaminate or evacuate a major South Asian city. Even limited decontamination in the immediate neighbourhood of the accident would cost at least hundreds of crores of rupees. This would clearly be a major catastrophe.

In addition, if such an explosion were to happen at a time of crisis, it might well be assumed to be a nuclear attack and lead to a nuclear response.

The authors believe that India and Pakistan should not deploy nuclear weapons. They should also store such nuclear weapons far away from missiles and aircraft carrying potentially explosive fuel. A further level of safety would be to keep the nuclear weapons disassembled so that the high-explosive was not close to the fissile material. All these steps would not only reduce the danger of accidental explosions, but also reduce the risk of a nuclear weapon being launched through error, panic or miscalculation, the authors say.

-------- japan

Plan to Recycle Plutonium Delayed

New York Times By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, June 1, 2001
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Japan-Nuclear.html?searchpv=aponline

TOKYO (AP) -- A nuclear power plant operator said Friday it will postpone a plan to use recycled plutonium at a reactor in northern Japan after local residents rejected the idea in a vote.

The Tokyo Electric Power Co. said it will comply with local government leaders' request to delay the use of plutonium-based mixed oxide, or MOX, fuel at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant.

``Our company decided to hold off on the use of MOX at this time,'' the company said in a statement, without specifying how long it will freeze the plan.

In the first-ever referendum on Japan's aggressive nuclear power program, residents in Kariwa voted against TEPCO's plan to introduce MOX at the nuclear plant -- the world's largest -- by mid-June.

Sunday's plebiscite in Kariwa, a village of 5,000 residents, 160 miles northwest of Tokyo, was held in the wake of a series of accidents and cover-ups that have made many Japanese uneasy about nuclear power.

Japan's worst-ever nuclear accident killed two workers and exposed hundreds of others to radiation at Tokaimura, 70 miles northeast of Tokyo, in September 1999.

The vote on the referendum, which isn't legally binding, reflected concerns about the safety of MOX, which critics say is a dangerously volatile form of nuclear fuel. It is made by mixing uranium with plutonium extracted from spent fuel.

Despite the postponement, TEPCO said on Friday the company will continue efforts to gain public understanding so their plan ``can be resumed as soon as possible.''

Welcoming the decision, Kariwa Mayor Horoo Shinada told national television network NHK: ``I think TEPCO made an appropriate decision that shows understanding to the residents' feelings.''

TEPCO had planned to start using the MOX fuel at the No. 3 reactor of its Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant, said TEPCO spokesman Takashi Nakayama.

Kashiwazaki-Kariwa's seven reactors have a combined capacity of 8.2 million kilowatts, making it the world's largest nuclear facility in terms of power generated.

Japan depends on nuclear power for about 30 percent of its electricity needs, and planners see the use of recycled fuel as one solution to the long-term problem of disposing of nuclear waste.

----

Tanaka may raise issue of marine drill relocation

The Japan Times: June 1, 2001
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20010601a2.htm

Foreign Minister Makiko Tanaka said Thursday she is prepared to consider Okinawa Prefecture's demand that some U.S. Marine drills on the islands be moved overseas.

She added that she will raise the issue when she makes a planned visit to the United States later this month.

Speaking at the Lower House Committee on Security, Tanaka said, "There is room to discuss and study (Okinawa's demand).

"When I visit the United States, I will propose the idea and hear their opinions."

Tanaka also said that, during her visit, she will point out that some experts in the U.S. have also suggested shifting some of the marines' drills from Okinawa.

The relocation demand was initially made by former Okinawa Gov. Masahide Ota.

Keiichi Inamine, the prefecture's current governor, also said in February that he will seek to have at least some of the drills conducted in Okinawa relocated to Guam.

Tanaka is the first member of the Japanese government to comment on the matter.

Previously, Tokyo has merely repeated its commitment to reducing the burden shouldered by Okinawa.

The prefecture, which accounts for only 0.6 percent of the country's territory, provides 75 percent of the land occupied by U.S. forces in Japan.

It hosts 25,000 members of the U.S. military and more than half the 47,000 marines stationed in Japan.

Joseph Nye, former U.S. assistant secretary of defense, said in an interview with Kyodo News in March that Japan and the U.S. should start examining the possibility of relocating some marine officers to Guam, depending on the state of affairs on the Korean Peninsula.

Tanaka also emphasized her policy of exchanging views with Washington regarding the countries' policies toward North Korea, saying that coordination between Japan, U.S. and South Korea is a vital part of settling North Korea-related issues.

She made the remarks in response to questions by Eisei Ito and Shu Watanabe, Lower House members of the Democratic Party of Japan, the nations largest opposition party.

-------- missile defense

Optimism Over Defense Spending

By Robert Burns AP Military Writer Friday, June 1, 2001; 3:21 a.m. EDT

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010601/aponline032140_000.htm

WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon's budget chief says he is optimistic that Congress, even with Democrats controlling the Senate, will approve big spending increases for missile defense for 2002 and beyond.

Dov Zakheim, the comptroller of the Defense Department, told reporters Thursday that the first significant increases for missile defense will be seen in President Bush's amended 2002 budget request for the fiscal year starting Oct. 1. He said it will be presented to Congress in a few weeks.

Missile defense is not among programs named for spending boosts in Bush's request for an extra $5.6 billion to the current $296 billion defense budget. The president is expected to submit that request to Congress any day now, Zakheim said. The request actually is for $6.1 billion for the Pentagon, but it would be offset partially by proposed cuts of $505 million, resulting in a net increase of $5.6 billion.

Zakheim refused to discuss any budget figures for missile defense or other defense programs. Nor would he comment on suggestions that Bush would ask Congress to add $20 billion to $30 billion to the 2002 budget, which was pegged at $310 billion when it was submitted with the expectation of add-ons.

Bush has taken this long to propose increases in the 2002 budget because he has been waiting for preliminary results of a series of policy reviews overseen by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

Zakheim said that while the 2002 budget "starts to point in the direction we wish to go" with military modernization, the first budget plan to incorporate Bush's defense priorities fully will be the 2003 budget, to be put together in the second half of this year and presented to Congress early next year.

The budget chief said he sees little reason to expect a partisan battle over missile defense spending.

"I'm reasonably sanguine, and I'll tell you why," he said. "I don't think it's as partisan an issue as you might, perhaps. And that is because ... it was a very different world" when former President Reagan first proposed a space-based missile defense aimed at stopping an all-out Soviet missile attack.

"We're not out there to zap the Russians; we're not out there to zap the Chinese," Zakheim said. "The context has changed completely. And I believe that there are a lot of Democrats who see this."

Congress has supported building a defense against ballistic missile attack when the technology is ready. The power shift in the Senate means, however, that Sen. Carl Levin, as the new chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, will have a greater voice in this and other defense programs. And Levin, a Michigan Democrat, has been skeptical of the technical feasibility of missile defense.

Zakheim refused to say how much Bush might propose adding to the budget for missile defense.

"I believe that the current level, as has been budgeted up to now, is seriously inadequate," he said. "We will have to add more" for research and testing various technologies. "That's going to mean - if you're serious about it - it's going to mean considerably more money."

Bush has said he wants the Pentagon to look beyond the approaches to missile defense taken during the Clinton administration, which were focused mainly on proving the feasibility of using land-based missiles to intercept ballistic missiles during the midcourse of their flight.

Bush is expected to instruct the Pentagon to examine the feasibility of sea-based and possibly space-based missile defenses, which would be used to protect not only the United States but many of its allies.

--

On the Net: Ballistic Missile Defense Organization: http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/

----

Faith-Based Reasoning

FROM THE EDITORS
Scientific American, June, 2001
http://www.sciam.com/2001/0601issue/0601rennie.html

Scientists are often lampooned as living in an ivory tower, but lately it seems that it is the scientists who are grounded in reality and the U.S. political establishment that is floating among the clouds. In March the Bush administration gave up a campaign promise to control emissions of carbon dioxide and withdrew U.S. support for the Kyoto Protocol. "We must be very careful not to take actions that could harm consumers," President George W. Bush wrote in a letter to four Republican senators. "This is especially true given the incomplete state of scientific knowledge of the causes of, and solutions to, global climate change."

Yet incomplete knowledge doesn't seem to be a concern when it comes to strategic missile defense. After another failed test last summer, candidate Bush issued a statement: "While last night's test is a disappointment, I remain confident that, given the right leadership, America can develop an effective missile defense system....The United States must press forward to develop and deploy a missile defense system." And press forward he has. The U.S. is reportedly on the verge of withdrawing unilaterally from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. In one case, the president invokes uncertainty; in the other, he ignores it. In both, he has come down against the scientific consensus.

Presidents, needless to say, must protect the country's economic interests and shield the nation from nuclear death. That is precisely why the administration's inconsistency is so worrisome. Ample research indicates that human activity is the main cause of global warming. Estimates of the economic damage by mid-century range in the hundreds of billions of dollars per year-uncertain, to be sure, but if you've been smoking in bed, it makes sense to take out some fire insurance. Kyoto is far from perfect; its emissions targets represent a diplomatic agreement rather than any careful weighing of cost and benefit. But it is a start.

Regarding strategic missile defense, researchers' best guess is that a reliable system is infeasible. The burden of proof is now on the proponents of missile defense. Until they can provide solid evidence that a system would work against plausible countermeasures, any discussion of committing to building one-let alone meeting a detailed timeline-is premature. It is one thing for a software company to hype a product and then fail to deliver; it is another when the failure concerns nuclear weapons, for which "vaporware" takes on a whole new, literal meaning.

Perhaps the most exasperating thing about missile defense is how the Bush administration has so quickly changed the terms of the debate. Journalists and world leaders hardly ever comment anymore on the fundamental unworkability of the system or the many ways it would fail to enhance security. Now the talk is of sharing the technology so that other countries, too, could "protect" themselves.

It would be nice not to have to shell out money for emissions controls. It would be nice to have a magic shield against all nuclear threats. It would be nice to be perfectly sure about everything, to get 365 vacation days a year and to spend some of that time on Mars. But we can't confuse wants with facts. As Richard Feynman said, "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." The dangers of ignoring its messages are greater than merely making politicians look foolish.

Roger Ressmeyer / Corbis

THE EDITORS editors@sciam.com

--------

Missile Defenses Need More Tests, Key Senator Says

By THOM SHANKER, New York Times June 1, 2001
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/01/politics/01MILI.html?searchpv=nytToday

WASHINGTON, May 31 - The next chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said today that it was highly unlikely that missile defenses would be fielded in President Bush's current term, and should not be deployed at all until repeated tests proved their effectiveness.

The senator, Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, said he was confident that the nation had both the treasury and technology for missile defenses. But he predicted that diplomatic battles over the Antiballistic Missile Treaty and the scientific hurdles meant "the odds are against" deployment by the end of 2004.

"I don't think the technology is likely to develop fast enough, even if he decided to violate the treaty," Mr. Levin said, referring to Mr. Bush, in an interview. "And I think our European allies have responded with caution and concern to such a degree that the president is going to have to look again at the complexities of the issue."

In the interview, Mr. Levin laid out his agenda - and therefore that of the Senate's new leadership - on military affairs. He emphasized that he would not occupy himself solely with the high-profile issues of strategic nuclear posture and billion-dollar weapons systems, but would focus on improving pay, health care and housing for those in uniform. He also said he would try to modernize the Pentagon's purchasing practices and push for another round of base closings to save money.

Mr. Levin also energetically endorsed the role played by American troops in peacekeeping operations in the Balkans and in Sinai. Mr. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld have questioned the peacekeeping missions, saying they divert money and troops from more important assignments.

As head of a committee widely recognized for striving to maintain a calm, nonpartisan approach to national security, Senator Levin said that he planned to "make sure that we look at the realities of a national missile defense, not just look at that one threat that has been focused on, the North Korea threat, or just the threat from ballistic missiles."

Proponents of Mr. Bush's still- evolving plan to rapidly deploy missile defenses - unilaterally if need be, and even before they are proven effective - see Mr. Levin's comments not as cautionary speed bumps, but as barriers consciously set too high.

Frank J. Gaffney Jr., a missile defense advocate who served in the Pentagon in the Reagan administration, said: "To the extent that he decides to make stopping missile defense one of his principal priorities, it will greatly compound the challenge the president has in doing what he said - in the course of the campaign and more recently - he is determined to do."

Mr. Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, a conservative defense analysis group, described Mr. Levin's technical requirements for deploying missile defense as "a delaying action."

On May 11, before Senator James M. Jeffords of Vermont defected from the Republican Party - giving Democrats control of the Senate as of next week - Mr. Levin spoke on missile defense at the National Defense University. Initially, his comments garnered little attention. Today, the speech is becoming required reading in Pentagon circles as the most detailed agenda of the man who is to become the most powerful Senate voice on military affairs.

"There is a serious possibility that if we take the wrong approach, it would decrease our security and increase the risk of nuclear proliferation," Mr. Levin said of unilateral deployment of missile defenses. "I think we could even start a second cold war, Cold War II."

In the speech, Mr. Levin repeated the core Democratic view that the 1972 A.B.M. treaty brought stability and predictability between the United States and the Soviet Union, and continues to establish "agreed rules of the road" with Russia today. He said he was open to amending the treaty to allow limited missile defenses against a few missiles.

He urged proceeding with "robust research and development" of national missile defense technology, but said today that he did not yet have a firm budget figure in mind.

Using the initials for national missile defense, he said, "We should not rush an N.M.D. system to deployment before it is ready and has demonstrated through repeated and realistic testing that it is reliable and operationally effective."

The Pentagon has conducted three intercept tests of its missile defense system. The first was initially called a success, but was later characterized as an accidental hit. In the other two, the interceptor failed to strike its target.

Mr. Rumsfeld has said that even if missile defenses envisioned by Mr. Bush do not work perfectly, they are worth deploying. "They need not be 100 percent perfect," Mr. Rumsfeld said, because a potential adversary would still be deterred by the uncertainty of whether its missile could slip past the shield.

This rationale has been dubbed the "scarecrow" defense. "But I don't think a system that doesn't work scares anybody," Mr. Levin said.

A Pentagon spokesman, Rear Adm. Craig R. Quigley, said today that "there is not a weapons system out there that is 100 percent effective."

Describing Mr. Rumsfeld's approach to missile defense, he said, "We're going to conduct the research and development in a very unfettered way, and try to ascertain which systems would be most effective."

President Bush and his national security team have not described the ultimate architecture of their missile defense system, nor is there any official timetable for deployment.

Senator Levin complimented the Bush administration for an apparent softening of its approach on possible unilateral action, and said he was seeing growing evidence that the president and his national security team were consulting more seriously with allies and were attempting to bring Russia into discussions about the future of the A.B.M. treaty.

"I don't think anybody wants to give Russia a veto, nor should we," Mr. Levin said. "But their response is relevant. If the Russians respond by not decreasing their nuclear arsenal, if China's response is to vastly increase its missile production, it seems to me that is quite relevant."

Mr. Levin said the Senate Armed Services Committee would shift its emphasis to a broader view of emerging threats. "The terrorist threats to us, which are reflected in World Trade Center-type attacks," he said. "Attacks on our embassies, on the Cole. Perhaps using weapons of mass destruction. These are the most likely threats we face."

Mr. Levin predicted that he and Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, who will give up the chairman's seat to become ranking minority member of the committee, would continue to find bipartisan support for a number of personnel, readiness and training issues.

Mr. Levin declined to say whether he would advocate canceling or curtailing any specific weapons system.

White House and Pentagon officials said today that President Bush planned to ask Congress to increase military spending for this year by $5.6 billion. The bulk of the additional money would be to pay for unexpected increases in health care and fuel costs, as well as for improved pay and benefits enacted last year.

The spending proposal, which could be sent to Congress any day, will also include a request for $153 million for research and development on an airborne laser, a potential component of a ballistic missile shield, a Congressional official said.

Mr. Bush has said he disapproves of the annual midyear "emergency" requests that the Pentagon has used for years to augment its spending.

-------- russia

Russia Space Forces Get New Status

JUNE 01, 09:33 EST

http://wire.ap.org/APnews/center_story.html?FRONTID=EUROPE&STORYID=APIS7CBPJ600

MOSCOW (AP) - The Russian Space Forces were officially reborn Friday as an independent section of the military - part of President Vladimir Putin's plan to streamline and modernize the nation's armed forces.

The Space Forces were established as a separate branch in 1982, but incorporated into the Strategic Rocket Forces in 1997. They regained independence under a military reform plan drafted by Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov.

Col. Gen. Anatoly Perminov, appointed to lead the Space Forces, said they became fully operational in their new status Friday, the ITAR-Tass news agency reported.

The Space Forces are in charge of rocket launchpads and a fleet of military satellites, which serve spy and communication purposes and track the launches of ballistic missiles.

Russia has about 110 military and civilian satellites, but about 80 percent have already served their designated lifetime, and the cash-strapped government lacks money to quickly build replacements. Russian Aerospace Agency chief Yuri Koptev has described building new navigation satellites for the military as his top priority.

----

Russia Hails Missile Elimination

The Associated Press Friday, June 1, 2001; 8:01 a.m. EDT
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010601/aponline080157_000.htm

MOSCOW -- Russia's Foreign Ministry on Friday hailed the successful elimination of nearly 2,700 Russian and American nuclear missiles and the end of 13 years of inspections under a landmark U.S.-Soviet disarmament treaty.

Then-President Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev signed the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces treaty in December 1987, ordering the destruction of an entire class of missiles and an unprecedented monitoring program.

The inspection regime ended Thursday, though the treaty has unlimited duration. U.S. and Russian officials carried out the final checks last month.

In a statement, the Foreign Ministry said Russia had dismantled 1,846 missiles around the former Soviet Union and the United States had dismantled 846, in addition to missile silos and training equipment. The rockets destroyed had ranges of 300 miles to 3,000 miles.

The ministry also used the statement to indirectly criticize U.S. plans for a missile defense system, which would require amending or scrapping the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty.

"The work on the INF treaty and its successful implementation has served as unprecedented, valuable experience, which is widely used in preparing many other international agreements," the statement said.

"From the very beginning, this treaty was agreed upon and carried out as an integral, fundamental part of the 'architecture of strategic stability,' based on cornerstone agreements on nuclear arms and anti-missile defenses," it said.

Russia says the U.S. plans could prompt a new arms race. Washington insists the defense system is not aimed at Russia's large arsenal, but at threats from smaller states such as North Korea and Iran.

In West Jordan, Utah, where Russian inspectors had monitored a missile plant under the treaty to make sure banned weapons weren't built, Russian dignitaries presented books and flowers Thursday to mark their departure.

-------- u.s. nuc weapons

Modernizing U.S. nuclear weapons to cost millions

By Jonathan S. Landay Knight Ridder Newspapers, Friday, June 01, 2001
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis/web/vortex/display?slug=nukes01&date=20010601

WASHINGTON - Although President Bush is promising deep cuts in the U.S. nuclear arsenal, his administration also is considering a six-year plan that could exceed $2 billion to renovate and improve the nation's aging nuclear-weapons laboratories, assembly plants and testing facilities.

Officials who manage the Department of Energy's (DOE) Stockpile Stewardship Program, which maintains the country's estimated 10,500 nuclear weapons, say they need the money to fix crumbling buildings, install modern equipment and attract a new generation of nuclear scientists.

Critics oppose the new spending, charging the program is bloated by mismanagement and cost overruns and is really intended to design new nuclear weapons. DOE and laboratory officials deny those allegations.

Stockpile Stewardship uses computer simulation and other experimental methods to monitor nuclear weapons to make sure they remain safe and will still work as designed as they age.

Warheads periodically are taken apart and checked for corrosion and other problems, and defective parts are replaced. U.S. nuclear warheads usually last about 18 years. The oldest is 30.

Instead of underground testing

The program is used in place of underground nuclear testing. The United States declared a moratorium on nuclear-test explosions in 1992. Every year since then, the DOE has certified the nuclear arsenal as reliable, but its managers say unless they get more money for renovations, they may not be able to continue certifying the arsenal without resuming underground tests.

"My confidence in our ability to maintain the reliability of the weapons in our stockpile without nuclear testing is being impacted by several trends that we see," John Browne, the director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, told Congress in April.

The weapons are "not aging gracefully," and the government doesn't have the modern facilities and equipment it needs to renovate them and make replacement parts, he said.

DOE officials who oversee Stockpile Stewardship refused to reveal the overall cost of their six-year plan to renovate the nuclear-weapons complex, but they said it would cost $300 million the first year and $500 million a year for the last several years.

It's costing $5 billion to maintain U.S. nuclear weapons this year, $1 billion more than originally estimated because of cost overruns and delays. The administration is seeking $5.3 billion for 2002.

Mounting problems

In congressional testimony and in interviews, DOE and laboratory officials said the stockpile program is threatened by mounting problems at three national laboratories, Los Alamos and Sandia in New Mexico and Lawrence Livermore in California.

They also said the nation's underground nuclear-test site in Nevada and the four plants where U.S. nuclear warheads are assembled and serviced or components are made - Pantex near Amarillo, Texas; the Savannah River Site near Augusta, Ga.; the Kansas City Plant in Kansas City, Mo.; and the Y-12 plant at Oak Ridge, Tenn. - need to replace old buildings, unsafe work spaces and obsolete or inoperative equipment.

For example:

• At the Pantex Plant, where nuclear warheads are assembled and disassembled, leaks in roofs sometimes have forced technicians to stop work and cover some warheads with plastic bags, said Dennis Ruddy, president of BWXT Pantex, the contractor that runs the plant.

• At the Y-12 plant, built during World War II as part of the Manhattan Project, which produced the world's first atomic bomb, chunks of roof fall out so often that workers wear hard hats, said John Mitchell of BWXT, which also runs the Tennessee plant.

• At Los Alamos, the birthplace of the world's first nuclear weapons, radioactive waste pipes leak and must be wrapped in plastic to prevent spills and contamination, said Gen. John Gordon, the head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, the DOE agency that oversees U.S. nuclear-weapons programs.

The United States already is spending more every year on average to maintain its nuclear arsenal than it did during the Cold War, according to a study by the Brookings Institution, an independent Washington think tank.

The United States spent an average of $4 billion a year in 2001 dollars throughout the 50-year Cold War to build and maintain a much larger nuclear arsenal, according to the Brookings study, "Atomic Audit."

Warheads contain as many as 6,000 parts - made of metal, plastic and other materials - and must be monitored for corrosion, decay and problems caused by age and exposure to radioactivity.

Moreover, plutonium, the warheads' explosive fuel, grows brittle with age, raising concerns that aging explosive assemblies may not perform as expected.

Some experts, such as Greg Mello of the Los Alamos Study Project, a private group that monitors the nuclear-weapons programs, say plutonium remains effective for more than 100 years. Others say the DOE's own studies suggest it lasts for 60 to 100 years.

The annual cost of the Stockpile Stewardship Program is probably twice what's needed, said Robert Civiak, a physicist who worked in the White House budget office for 10 years monitoring nuclear-weapons spending.

"If you want to maintain existing weapons, then all you need to do is focus on the existing stockpile program, in which they take apart 10 to 12 weapons a year and fix problems that they find," Civiak said. "They are not focusing on their program. They are focusing on pushing the envelope on the development of nuclear weapons."

-------- u.s. nuc facilities

Duke Calif. rates spike in emergency
Last-minute sale pushed charges to nearly 30 times average, firm says

By STELLA M. HOPKINS PETER WALLSTEN, Charlotte Observer Staff Writers, Published Friday, June 1, 2001
http://www.charlotte.com/partners/news/full/news_full_1_Jun01.htm

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- As Duke Energy faces accusations of price gouging in California's escalating energy crisis, the Charlotte company acknowledges it has sold power to one wholesale customer for more than twice the highest previously reported price.

For several days in January, Duke Energy charged the California Independent System Operator $3,880 per megawatt hour. That's about as much electricity as the average Duke Power residential customer in the Carolinas uses in one month. That average Duke Power customer pays about $73 a month.

Duke's $3,880 charge is twice the $1,900 rate that brought another power generator harsh criticism in May from California Gov. Gray Davis, who is battling President Bush to impose caps on the state's skyrocketing wholesale energy prices.

The ISO sale came to light during an Observer analysis of federal documents that provide a rare public look at closely guarded pricing in California's convoluted energy market. After that analysis, Duke also gave The Observer pricing data it has previously refused to release.

Duke says its average wholesale price in California last year was $76 per megawatt hour.

For the first three months this year, which includes the high ISO sale, Duke said its average sales price was $136 a megawatt hour.

"On average, Duke's prices are not `gouging prices,'" said Nancy DeSchane, a vice president with Duke Energy's trading arm in Salt Lake City.

Wildly gyrating energy prices are the product of California's effort to deregulate its electric industry. Legislators intended the move to foster competition and lower prices. Instead, prices soared - sometimes to unheard-of extremes. Duke Energy, whose Duke Power unit is the largest Carolinas utility, is a key player in California, where it is one of five generators accounting for 30 percent of power production.

In the past year, Duke's highest-priced sales seesawed, then rose sharply. Last spring, Duke's top charge was $1,100 per megawatt hour.

During the summer, the high dropped to $554, then rose to $1,021 last winter and topped out at $3,880 during the first three months of this year.

Duke said its rate for the ISO sale reflected higher fuel costs, the cost of running an extremely inefficient unit of one plant and a poor-credit surcharge representing up to 80 percent of the total charge to a buyer that hadn't paid its bills. The sales came during times of extreme power shortages, including two days when the ISO called blackouts, Duke said.

Duke's total sale to the ISO at $3,880 was 5,000 megawatt hours - $19.4 million. The sale represented less than 1 percent of the 10 million megawatt hours Duke sold in California during the first three months of the year.

Most wholesale rate increases hadn't been passed on to Californians, but starting today, residential consumers begin receiving bills reflecting the largest rate increase in California history. Depending on use levels, consumers will pay two to three times the rate Duke Power charges its Carolinas customers.

The reported figures The Observer's analysis of Duke's quarterly reports filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission led the company to identify significant errors in reports. The reports, for example, listed one sale late last year for $4,845. Duke said the actual charge was $758. The company volunteered the $3,880 transaction, which had been reported as $250. Duke will file amended reports.

"We have a number of erroneous items," DeSchane said. "It was not intentional."

The commission is required by federal law to assure "just and reasonable" prices, and the reports are one mechanism for monitoring prices.

Despite errors, the reports remain the best publicly available source of pricing information that Duke and other generators have fought to keep confidential.

The demands for pricing data come as the generators face lawsuits and state and federal investigations into claims of profiteering and price manipulation. The companies are resisting subpoenas from a state Senate committee investigating their business practices. The companies say price disclosure hurts their ability to compete.

"The fact that they are so insistent on confidentiality is very disturbing to me," said state Sen. Joe Dunn, the Orange County Democrat chairing the committee. "If (the allegation of market manipulation) isn't true, then why are they insisting on secrecy?"

In its quarterly federal reports, Duke lists the total power sold and the lowest and highest price for each customer. But Duke doesn't have to say how much power was sold at what price, so there's no way to calculate Duke's total California sales from the report.

The documents also show about 10 percent of Duke's sales volume came in what's called the spot market, a highly volatile, daily trading market.

The ISO sale at $3,880 was a last-minute sale, similar to those on the spot market, driven by heavy demand. The $1,900 charge that angered the California governor was a last-minute sale by Houston generator Reliant to avert blackouts.

In releasing the confidential pricing, Davis called Reliant's price "obscene."

He has called generators "the biggest snakes" and warned plant seizures could be the ultimate penalty.

For January and February trades - which includes Duke's $3,880 sale to the ISO - the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has ordered generators to refund $124 million in overcharges, including $20 million from Duke. The company has said it will gladly refund those fees - if it ever gets paid.

Duke stands by the credit surcharge policy it developed as cash-strapped utilities stopped paying mounting bills. When the utilities stopped paying the ISO, that agency couldn't pay traders such as Duke.

The ISO, created under deregulation, oversees the state's electrical transmission system and is charged with ensuring the system has enough power to meet demand.

When the system runs short, the ISO buys power at what are typically high, last-minute prices. If there is no power to buy, the ISO calls for blackouts. Generators must sell available power to the ISO.

"We were forced to sell (to the ISO) and had an obligation to our shareholders to assess the risks," Duke's DeSchane said of the decision to levy a credit surcharge. "Nobody has paid bills yet."

The company has set aside $110 million to cover anticipated refunds and unpaid bills.

The federal reports also show Duke sold 90 percent of its power this year and 70 percent last year on contracts ranging from a few days to more than a month.

Duke says most of these contracts actually range from one to four years.

Pre-selling power means Duke forgoes the chance to make potentially larger profits selling that power on the spot market. If a plant shutdown or other problem prevented the company from producing power, Duke could be forced to buy on the spot market to fulfill the contract.

Duke says it wants the stability of long-term contracts. When Duke agrees to sell power, it also buys fuel to produce that energy. That means Duke locks in sales and its largest cost.

Return on investment Duke entered the California market in 1998 by buying three power plants for $501 million. In 1999, the company signed a 10-year lease on a fourth plant. The company expected tight supplies, which likely meant strong prices, because California hadn't seen a major power plant built in 10 years. But, like much of California's leadership, Duke didn't forecast the severe shortages that have led to blackouts.

The result is a market in which sellers can charge prices far higher than elsewhere in the country.

Duke readily admits California profits have exceeded its expectations, although the company won't say how much money it has made in California.

This year, profits quadrupled in the unit that includes Duke's California plants as well as plants outside its regulated Duke Power territory in the Carolinas.

Duke calls the unit's earnings rise to $348 million from $82 million "stellar."

The unit accounted for 27 percent of the Fortune 100 company's pre-tax earnings, compared with 10 percent a year ago. Duke stock closed at Thursday at $45.72, 62 percent above its 52-week low.

Critics say generators' profits come on the backs of Californians.

Some economists and California politicians say generators' prices violate federal requirements that electricity prices be "just and reasonable."

"The generators are charging whatever they can get in the market," said Frank Wolak, a Stanford University economist with access to confidential pricing data.

"In economics, when there is a financial incentive for something to happen, it usually does."

The criticism haunts Duke veterans, sent from the Carolinas to make a go of the company's California gamble.

"We're out here on the new frontier, where they don't know Duke from Adam," said Randy Vigor, who helped build Duke's nuclear plants on Lake Wylie and Lake Norman and now heads a $500 million expansion at one of Duke's California plants. "We're getting blamed for a lot of things that aren't Duke's fault."

In July - before the big run-up in prices - Duke offered Davis the chance to buy enough electricity to power 2 million homes at $50 a megawatt hour. Davis did not act on the offer.

"At that point, prices were still lower than that," said Steve Maviglio, Davis' press secretary. "No one in a million years expected prices to rise as much as they have since then.

"Where is that offer today is the better question."

The answer, Duke says, is that the power has been sold.

"We feverishly attempted to provide a set of solutions to all the California folks," said Duke Chief Executive Rick Priory.

He includes in those attempts the offer Duke lawyers sent this spring to Davis, saying it would forgive millions in utility debts in exchange for an end to investigations. The move backfired when the offer became public May 2, dragging Duke into a harsh spotlight.

"They were clearly trying to call off the dogs," Maviglio said. "They realize this a public relations nightmare."

In similar past exchanges, Duke has said the "dogs won't find anything."

Priory says he doesn't regret making the offer, that it was an attempt to settle disputes and get on with building desperately needed power plants.

He says California remains important - and welcome - in Duke's portfolio.

"Our experiences in California have generally been positive. The one negative is the political rhetoric, but we know this problem will be solved, and that will be toned down," Priory said.

Meanwhile, he added: "We're just focused on producing every kilowatt of electricity we can." "We're out here on the new frontier, where they don't know Duke from Adam. We're getting blamed for a lot of things that aren't Duke's fault."

-------- new mexico

White Sands Tour Finds Relics, Tiny Survivor

Tuesday, May 29, 2001 By Fritz Thompson Of the Journal
http://www.abqjournal.com/news/346114news05-29-01.htm

All over the West there are graves of once-famous men poorly remembered in death, the record of their last resting place often erased by time or, worse, not written down at all.

Eugene Manlove Rhodes, said to be the first working cowboy author to make the cowboy famous, is buried in a well-marked New Mexico grave that is nevertheless obscure because it remains off limits to random visits.

A native red sandstone boulder marks his last resting place on the semi-secret White Sands Missile Range.

You can't go there without an escort.

About 25 outdoor writers and photographers did go there recently, traveling in convoy on the range's back roads and marveling at the rugged beauty that encompasses two mountain ranges and more than 2.5 percent of the geography of New Mexico. At 2 million acres it's the biggest military installation in the country.

The group visited historic Trinity Site, where the world's first atomic bomb lit up the predawn sky one spring morning in 1945, toured the onetime ranch house where the plutonium core for the bomb was assembled, found surprising oases in the desert where a unique pupfish thrives, encountered wary but curious spear-horned oryx, saw giant prickly pear and ocotillo in bloom and splashes of greenery in the canyons, on the crags and across the sand.

And they traveled up a rain-muddied road to Rhodes' grave, high in a crease of the San Andres Mountains. The boulder tombstone, dug from the horse corral at Rhodes' nearby ranch, is veiled behind post-burial cedars at the end of a dim trail.

A metal plate embedded in the boulder gives his name, the inscription "Pasó por Aquí" ("He Came This Way"), and the dates Jan. 19, 1869-June 7, 1934.

Between 1902 and 1930, Rhodes wrote widely acclaimed books and magazine stories, almost all of them set in southern New Mexico, where he had been a bronc-buster and a rancher.

Elsewhere on the tour, the iridescent, inch-long pupfish became the conversation piece. The strain, known as the White Sands pupfish, is found nowhere else in the world. It inhabits several desert ponds. Craig Springer of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and executive director of the Rocky Mountain Outdoor Writers and Photographers, pointed out the flitting little fish in a marsh fed by water gushing from beneath an ancient lava flow, or malpais.

Range public affairs officer Jim Eckels led the daylong tour. He said school groups and organizations can find further information or arrange tours by calling (505) 678-1134.

-------- tennessee

DOE plans to store stockpile of recycled nickel 'indefinitely'

June 1, 2001 by Frank Munger, News-Sentinel senior writer
http://www.knoxnews.com/business/30473.shtml

OAK RIDGE -- Given the collapse of the nuclear recycling program in Oak Ridge, the U.S. Department of Energy has no immediate plans to do anything with its big stockpile of contaminated nickel. "Right now we are treating the 5,900 tons of nickel as asset material and plan to store it indefinitely,'" DOE spokesman Walter Perry said.

The nickel stripped from old facilities at DOE's K-25 Plant at one time was supposed to help defray the cost of the nuclear cleanup in Oak Ridge.

But that was before former Energy Secretary Bill Richardson halted the commercial sale of recycled metals from Oak Ridge and other DOE nuclear sites. BNFL, the government's cleanup contractor at K-25, subsequently announced that it was disbanding recycling operations at its Oak Ridge subsidiary, Manufacturing Sciences Corp.

To uphold its contract with BNFL, which was negotiated on the basis that the company could sell the nickel after recycling, DOE has to pay BNFL market price for the nickel removed from the federal facilities.

Instead of processing the material, BNFL simply loads the nickel into containers.

"We have it in classified storage," said Jim McAnally, BNFL's Oak Ridge chief. "It is DOE's property."

The nickel is classified material because it's taken from the barrier systems once used to separate isotopes of uranium in K-25's uranium-enrichment operation. The barrier technology remains classified and must be protected by law.

BNFL, the American subsidiary of British Nuclear Fuels, originally planned to eliminate the classification problem by melting the nickel as a precursor to the recycling effort. That was supposed to remove most -- but not all -- of the radioactivity.

Although Manufacturing Sciences earlier received a permit from the state to process the nickel for commercial release, the recycling effort was the subject of strong criticism, locally and nationally. There were concerns that small amounts of radioactive material would be contained in a wide range of products, potentially exposing consumers to radiation without warning.

Supporters of the recycling program said those were scare tactics, but the critics -- including trade groups in the metals industry -- won.

Still, the question remains about what to do with the nickel. Even some of those who objected to commercial sales of the recycled material would hate to see it treated as waste.

Glenn Bell, an Oak Ridge nuclear worker, said supporting a commercial recycling program is difficult because DOE's contractors have a history of mistakes that unwittingly exposed people to hazardous materials.

"There are plenty of examples of what can go wrong," he said. "Let's not unleash this on the public."

Bell said a reasonable compromise would be to decontaminate the inventory of nickel and use it to fabricate containers, which then could be used for disposal of nuclear waste.

Although DOE has no immediate plans for the nickel, Perry said the agency will consider various options -- including use of material for waste containers or other products at DOE sites. Or the nickel could be disposed as waste, he said.

"We're keeping our options open,"' Perry said. "The nickel issue does not impact our ability to finish the BNFL project on schedule, which is anticipated to be in the summer of 2004."

Frank Munger can be reached at 865-482-9213 or twig1@knoxnews.infi.net.

-------- us nuc politics

The Promise of China Trade

By Colin L. Powell
Friday, June 1, 2001; Page A31
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A5237-2001May31?language=printer

Today President Bush will submit to Congress a determination extending normal trade relations status to China for another year. I believe this is good for America and good for the forces of change and reform in China. Moreover, it is good for the entire region, especially our friends in Hong Kong and Taiwan, who have the most to gain or lose as China seeks to define a new role for itself in a global civil society.

The president's action is necessary despite passage of legislation last October to give permanent normal trade relations status to China, because China must accede to the World Trade Organization before permanent status takes effect. That accession has not yet happened, though negotiators from many countries are hard at work on it right now.

The president's decision is not an endorsement of China's policies, some of which clearly conflict with America's views and values. Rather, we believe that extension of normal trade relations with China again this year is clearly in America's interest.

Continuation provides America an opportunity to promote rule of law, transparency and accountability in China -- essential elements of our policy designed to promote China's integration into the world trade system and thus promote change in China. As the president said at the Los Angeles World Affairs Council on May 29, "Free trade supports and sustains freedom in all its forms. . . . When we open trade, we open minds." Trade with China is not only good economic policy; it is good human rights policy and good national security policy.

Meanwhile, Congress should keep in mind that U.S. exports to China last year grew 24 percent from 1999 -- to $16 billion -- and provided jobs or other direct benefits to 350,000 to 400,000 U.S. workers. American consumers benefit as well; reasonably priced household goods and clothes from China have helped hold down U.S. inflation in the past few years, and they improve the quality of life for Americans.

This trade also benefits the Chinese people and promotes American values. American firms trading with or operating in China bring American management, American standards of worker safety and worker health, and American concerns about the environment to their business dealings with China. Chinese businesses and workers have a clear preference for dealing with U.S. companies, a preference that translates into adopting American habits in business operations. As China's economy opens, Chinese consumers are making more demands not only for international brands on the shelves but also for international standards in their quality of life.

Not only American business, agriculture, workers and consumers would suffer if Congress were to disapprove normal trade relations this year. Taiwan and Hong Kong -- two important U.S. trading partners and friends with substantial interest in a stable, prosperous mainland China -- would also suffer. Hong Kong economists estimate that China's loss of normal trade relations would cut Hong Kong's economic growth rate by more than half and eliminate 72,000 to 102,000 jobs, dealing a severe blow to its autonomy and self-confidence. Taiwan, our seventh-largest trading partner, has huge investment exposure in the People's Republic of China and benefits greatly from U.S.-China trade. Taiwan could lose $15 billion in overall exports and as many as 50,000 jobs, should China lose normal trade relations with the United States. Most important, we would be undermining the basis for economic relations between the People's Republic of China and Taiwan, a key factor in building mutual trust and confidence between the two. That is one reason Taiwan's President Chen Shui-bian has expressed support for our extension of normal trade relations status to China this year.

We do not expect trade relations to define fully the U.S.-China relationship. We will continue to expect China to live up to its international obligations, whether to advance religious freedom or promote stricter export controls on dual-use items related to missiles or weapons of mass destruction. But trade and exposure to the rules-based international marketplace are changing China for the better. And China's increasing engagement with the outside world makes it easier to work with that country on maintaining peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region and combating alien smuggling, HIV/AIDS, narcotics trafficking, financial crimes, terrorism and environmental degradation.

Continuation of normal trade relations this year -- and, we would hope, WTO accession soon after -- will confirm for China the need to adapt to the rest of the world, especially in terms of reforming state-owned enterprises and the banking system, increasing the role of private enterprise and creating a safety net that ensures the welfare of the Chinese people. Moreover, it will provide a foundation for China to work with regional players on important trade liberalization objectives at this October's Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Leaders' Meeting in Shanghai.

We are mindful of the challenges we have in working with China. Sometimes it's not easy. But if we believe that free markets promote freer societies, if we want China to live up to international standards, if we want to take every step possible to promote American interests in Asia, then it is fundamentally in our national interest to extend normal trade relations.

The writer is secretary of state.

--------

Budget Chief Optimistic on Defense

New York Times, June 1, 2001 By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Defense-Spending.html?searchpv=aponline

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Pentagon's budget chief says he is optimistic that Congress, even with Democrats controlling the Senate, will approve big spending increases for missile defense for 2002 and beyond.

Dov Zakheim, the comptroller of the Defense Department, told reporters Thursday that the first significant increases for missile defense will be seen in President Bush's amended 2002 budget request for the fiscal year starting Oct. 1. He said it will be presented to Congress in a few weeks.

Missile defense is not among programs named for spending boosts in Bush's request for an extra $5.6 billion to the current $296 billion defense budget. The president submitted that request to Congress Friday, adding to it an additional $400 million request for spending on energy, health, housing, transportation and other areas.

In his letter to Congress, Bush said the request ``is primarily for defense activities related to pay, support, training and quality of life for military personnel, as well as regular operations costs.''

``It is imperative to reverse the pattern of underfunding these costs,'' Bush said.

The request for the Pentagon actually is for $6.1 billion, but it would be offset partially by proposed cuts of $505 million, resulting in a net increase of $5.6 billion.

Zakheim refused to discuss any budget figures for missile defense or other defense programs. Nor would he comment on suggestions that Bush would ask Congress to add $20 billion to $30 billion to the 2002 budget, which was pegged at $310 billion when it was submitted with the expectation of add-ons.

Bush has taken this long to propose increases in the 2002 budget because he has been waiting for preliminary results of a series of policy reviews overseen by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

Zakheim said that while the 2002 budget ``starts to point in the direction we wish to go'' with military modernization, the first budget plan to incorporate Bush's defense priorities fully will be the 2003 budget, to be put together in the second half of this year and presented to Congress early next year.

The budget chief said he sees little reason to expect a partisan battle over missile defense spending.

``I'm reasonably sanguine, and I'll tell you why,'' he said. ``I don't think it's as partisan an issue as you might, perhaps. And that is because ... it was a very different world'' when former President Reagan first proposed a space-based missile defense aimed at stopping an all-out Soviet missile attack.

``We're not out there to zap the Russians; we're not out there to zap the Chinese,'' Zakheim said. ``The context has changed completely. And I believe that there are a lot of Democrats who see this.''

Congress has supported building a defense against ballistic missile attack when the technology is ready. The power shift in the Senate means, however, that Sen. Carl Levin, as the new chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, will have a greater voice in this and other defense programs. And Levin, a Michigan Democrat, has been skeptical of the technical feasibility of missile defense.

Zakheim refused to say how much Bush might propose adding to the budget for missile defense.

``I believe that the current level, as has been budgeted up to now, is seriously inadequate,'' he said. ``We will have to add more'' for research and testing various technologies. ``That's going to mean -- if you're serious about it -- it's going to mean considerably more money.''

Bush has said he wants the Pentagon to look beyond the approaches to missile defense taken during the Clinton administration, which were focused mainly on proving the feasibility of using land-based missiles to intercept ballistic missiles during the midcourse of their flight.

Bush is expected to instruct the Pentagon to examine the feasibility of sea-based and possibly space-based missile defenses, which would be used to protect not only the United States but many of its allies.

--

On the Net: Ballistic Missile Defense Organization: http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/

-------- us nuc power

Nuclear Power: Worth the Risk?

New York Times June 1, 2001
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/01/opinion/L01NUCL.html?searchpv=nytToday

To the Editor:

"Hard Questions on Nuclear Power" (editorial, May 29) concludes that the case has not yet been made for large-scale expansion of this power source, citing the "risks" associated with it. But there are risks associated with every human endeavor and with every fuel source for generating electricity: coal mines collapse, valleys flood, oil spills and gas pipelines rupture. Fifty years of safe power production from commercial plants proves that nuclear energy is no riskier than the alternatives. And waste disposal is primarily a political, not a scientific, issue.

Nuclear power can help diversify our energy sources and reduce our dependence on imported oil and increasingly expensive natural gas.

BERNARD L. WEINSTEIN Denton, Tex., May 29, 2001

The writer is director of the Center for Economic Development and Research, University of North Texas.

•

To the Editor:

A May 29 editorial about nuclear power moves too quickly through the problem of storing waste for thousands of years.

We marvel at the sketchy knowledge developed by archaeologists of the Egyptian civilization of 5,000 years ago. Our knowledge of human existence 10,000 years ago is artful conjecture. In what language must the "Danger - Keep Out" signs be written to be understood 10,000 years from now?

SIDNEY L. DELSON East Hampton, N.Y., May 30, 2001

•

To the Editor:

Imagine how different the electricity situation in California would be if the state had not forced the closing of the Rancho Seco nuclear plant ("Hard Questions on Nuclear Power," editorial, May 29). Nuclear power has already proved its worth to this country through the 20 percent share of electricity it supplies. The question of whether to build new plants is not if, but when.

A role for nuclear power is inevitable given the inherent problems of fossil fuels and the inability of alternatives to come close to being economical. We need a diversity of power sources, including nuclear power, which is domestically produced and nonpolluting.

WILLIAM H. MILLER Columbia, Mo., May 29, 2001

The writer is a professor of nuclear engineering at the University of Missouri at Columbia.

•

To the Editor:

Re "Hard Questions on Nuclear Power" (editorial, May 29): The least polluting, most efficient energy policy would vigorously pursue wind power, solar energy and hydrogen fuel cells.

Our current energy policies, however, are being shaped by those beholden to dirty energy. Their ideological and economic blinders even lead them to promote a revival of Frankenstein-like nuclear power. They ignore or deny the dangers of nuclear energy, the highly polluting uranium mining industry and the radioactive waste that must be isolated for thousands of years.

TOM FERGUSON Atlanta, May 30, 2001

To the Editor:

According to a May 29 editorial, "nuclear power is used almost exclusively to generate electricity, thus it cannot reduce the nation's reliance on imported oil to power transportation systems." In France, where most electricity is nuclear-generated, the train systems run on nuclear power, reducing oil imports. We can do the same.

ROBERT W. ALBRECHT Seattle, May 29, 2001