THE HANDSTAND

JANUARY2007
radiation and nuclear info.
***Blair accused of nuclear waste 'cover-up'

Scientists claim committee's conclusions were manipulated for political gain.
ByColin Brown
© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited

Published: 19 January 2007

Two scientists who sat on a nuclear waste committee have alleged that chaotic organistaion drove the committee to approve an option for deep storage of high-level nuclear waste.

Labour MPs have responded to their allegations by saying there had been a " cover-up".

The scientists, Professor David Ball and Dr Keith Baverstock, left the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) in April and May. David Miliband, the Secretary of State for the Environment, subsequently informed Labour MPs that Professor Ball had left for "personal reasons", an assertion dismissed by the professor as "misleading".

Professor Ball and Dr Baverstock accused Tony Blair of "manipulating" the committee's decision for "political ends". They believe its recommendation for deep storage of high-level waste was used to push through the Cabinet the decision to go ahead with a new generation of nuclear power stations.

But they warn that CoRWM's prolonged failure to identify which sites can safely take the waste will cause delays that could open Britain to a terrorist attack on its nuclear stockpiles, which are held on the surface at the Sellafield site in Cumbria.

"Science has been manipulated for political ends," said Dr Baverstock. "The time wasted has resulted in continued and unnecessary exposure of the public to the ongoing risk of temporarily stored nuclear waste, surely a legitimate public concern in this age of terrorism," said the scientists.

Dr Baverstock is a former senior radiation adviser with 12 years' experience at the World Health Organisation, but was sacked from the committee. He is now head of environmental science at the University of Kuopio, Finland.

Mr Miliband, in a letter to the Labour MP Alan Simpson, rejected their criticism, saying the committee had taken the "best available existing scientific knowledge" into account. He added: "I believe it is possible to conclude that the scientific basis for CoRWM's work has been sound."

Professor Ball said he had given Mr Miliband substantial reasons for his resignation from the committee, none of which could remotely be described as a "personal reason". He said: "I believed CoRWM to be treading dangerously close to the line and it was overall such an appalling experience that I concluded... that the only option was to resign." He added: "Defra's continuing strategy of total denial and what looks like the attempted rewriting of history is only compounding the problem."

The two scientists added that they were unaware that four of the CoRWM's 12 members worked for the committee's largest suppliers until it was revealed by The Independent on Sunday on 8 May 2005. The committee included a paid consultant for NNC, which won the £1m contract to project-manage CoRWM's work; an associate consultant for Enviros Consulting, which had a contract worth £50,000 to £100,000 from the committee; and an associate of the IDM consultancy, which conducted £10,000 to £50,000-worth of contract work for the committee. Mr Simpson, who organised a private Commons meeting with Labour MPs to hear the scientists' criticism, said: "This blows apart the recommendations for deep storage of nuclear waste.

The taxpayer faces an £85bn bill for disposing of the last generation of nuclear waste. We now know that no one has a clue how to do this safely. This is no time for a cover-up." He added: "Blair has been allowed to ride the country into another nuclear nightmare before he goes. Someone has to call a halt, and if Brown isn't up to it, he isn't up to the succession."

The Prime Minister signalled his determination on Tuesday to take the next step towards the nuclear power programme before he steps down from office. He announced that new licensing conditions for nuclear power stations would be published next month.

But a former Labour minister joined MPs in calling on Mr Blair to stop the development of nuclear power stations until he answers the concerns raised by the scientists. A former environment minister, Michael Meacher, said their views had to be considered by the Government rather than being " rubbished".

"I think it's very dangerous when reputable scientists have their views not fully taken into account and answered," said Mr Meacher. "It is incredibly irresponsible to go for a further round of nuclear power-station building when we still have not got a safe way of storing the huge volume of nuclear waste already produced."

Where the waste goes

* Higher activity radioactive waste is stored at facilities around the UK

* The amount is estimated at 80,000 cubic metres about the size of Albert Hall. It weighs about 100,000 tons

* Even if the Government decides not to build any more reactors, waste will increase by nearly sixfold to 477,860 cubic metres over the next century

* The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management was asked to look at all the options for higher activity waste and find a long-term solution

* It is expected to take 40 years to build a deep repository so, in the interim, it says the waste should be stored at surface sites as close as possible to nuclear facilities

* The most likely candidate is Sellafield.

***Neocons Blocked 2003 Nuclear Talks With Iran
by Gareth Porter
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/porter.php?articleid=8778

The George W. Bush administration failed to enter into negotiations with Iran on its nuclear program in May 2003 because neoconservative zealots who advocated destabilization and regime change were able to block any serious diplomatic engagement with Tehran, according to former administration officials.

The same neoconservative veto power also prevented the administration from adopting any official policy statement on Iran, those same officials say.

Lawrence Wilkerson, then chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, says the failure to adopt a formal Iran policy in 2002-2003 was the result of obstruction by a "secret cabal" of neoconservatives in the administration, led by Vice President Dick Cheney.

"The secret cabal got what it wanted: no negotiations with Tehran," Wilkerson wrote in an e-mail to IPS.

The Iranian negotiating offer, transmitted to the State Department in early May 2003 by the Swiss ambassador in Tehran, acknowledged that Iran would have to address U.S. concerns about its nuclear program, although it made no specific concession in advance of the talks, according to Flynt Leverett, then the National Security Council's senior director for Middle East Affairs.

It also raised the possibility of cutting off Iran's support for Hamas and Islamic Jihad and converting Hezbollah into a purely sociopolitical organization, according to Leverett. That was an explicit response to Powell's demand in late March that Iran "end its support for terrorism."

In return, Leverett recalls, the Iranians wanted the United States to address security questions, the lifting of economic sanctions, and normalization of relations, including support for Iran's integration into the global economic order.

Leverett also recalls that it was drafted with the blessing of all the major political players in the Iranian regime, including the "Supreme Leader," Ayatollah Ali Khomeini.

Realists, led by Powell and his deputy, Richard Armitage, were inclined to respond positively to the Iranian offer. Nevertheless, within a few days of its receipt, the State Department had rebuked the Swiss ambassador for having passed on the offer.


***Australia to sell uranium to China
Australia has three working uranium mines, one in a national park.
ENERGY IN CHINA Fossil fuels currently provide 80% of energy Hydro-electric projects provide 18% of energy Nuclear energy from nine reactors currently supplies 2% Plans for 30 new reactors to be built by 2020 Nuclear power to account for 4% of national output by 2020 Sources: World Nuclear Association and Reuters

Australia will soon be able to export uranium to China, Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer has said.

The two countries signed an agreement earlier this year, which means the exports can begin in 30 days, he said. Australia has 40% of the world's recoverable uranium, while China needs a huge amount of energy for its large population and rising economy. Beijing is keen to increase its use of nuclear power, to cut down its dependence on fossil fuels.

Two bilateral nuclear treaties - the Australia-China Nuclear Transfer Agreement and the Nuclear Co-operation Agreement - were signed in April during Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's visit to Canberra. The two countries had previously failed to reach a deal amid concerns China would use the uranium in its nuclear weapons programme. But these agreements are designed to ensure that any uranium exported to China will just be used for peaceful purposes.

Australia already exports uranium to more than 30 countries, but only does so under strict conditions. India has also tried to buy Australian uranium, but unlike China it has yet to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation and has so far failed to win approval for the purchase.

China is desperate for energy to fuel its booming economy. The old coal mines that the country relies on cannot keep up with demand and there is not enough oil to go around. With power shortages and blackouts in big cities common, the government is looking for new sources of energy and nuclear is top of the list.

Beijing wants to build 40 to 50 nuclear reactors over the next 20 years and a steady supply of uranium is vital.

***US nuclear chief forced to quit The head of the US nuclear weapons agency, Linton Brooks, has been made to resign following a number of security breaches at Los Alamos Laboratory.

US Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said new leadership at the National Nuclear Security Administration was needed. "These management and security issues can have serious implications for the security of the US," Mr Bodman added.

The NNSA is in charge of maintaining the country's nuclear weapons stockpile and reducing the threat posed by WMDs. The agency was created in 2000 after an espionage scandal at Los Alamos, site of US nuclear weapons research.

Mr Brooks became head of the agency in 2003 - two security lapses are known to have happened during his leadership. In June last year, it emerged that a security breach which led to the theft of files containing information on more than 1,000 workers, had gone unreported for months. Four months later, classified documents were found during a drugs raid on the home of a former Los Alamos employee.

Mr Brooks said in a statement he accepted the decision to remove him although "it was not a decision that I would have preferred". "Our task is now to minimise the inevitable disruption of such a transition and to continue the vital national security work on which we are engaged," his statement added. Mr Brooks is expected to leave the agency by the end of the month.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/6233623.stm



A SPECIAL NOTICE ABOUT POLONIUM-210

With the recent news of Polonium-210 being used as a poison, so much incorrect information has been passed around about the material that it's important to get the facts correct. The general public is quite ignorant when it comes to knowledge about radioactive materials and radiation in general.

The amount of Polonium-210, and all the isotopes we sell is an 'exempt quantity' amount. These quantities of radioactive material are not hazardous - this is why they are permitted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to be sold to the general public without any sort of license. Although we do sell these isotopes, we do not actually stock them. All isotopes are made to order at an NRC licensed reactor in Oak Ridge Tennessee. When the isotope is made, it is shipped directly to the customer from the reactor to insure the longest possible half-life.

The exempt quantity amount of Polonium-210, or any of the radioactive isotopes sold by us or any scientific equipment supplier, is so small, it's essentially invisible to the human eye. In the case of needle sources, the radioactive material is electroplated on the inside of the eye of a needle. You would need about 15,000 of our Polonium-210 needle sources at a total cost of about $1 million - to have a toxic amount.

In comparison, Amercium-241 is a similar toxic Alpha radiation emitter and instead of a half life of 138 days like Polonium-210 has, it has a half life of over 450 years. It is far more toxic - and there is 10 times more than the 'exempt quantity' amount in every smoke detector in your home.

If you really wanted to poison someone, you would of course have to come up with a way to remove the invisible amount of material from the exempt sources - which is just about physically impossible and combine them together. Of course you would also need that 15,000 exempt sources. In addition, there are dozens of other far more toxic materials, like Ricin and Abrin, which can easily be made using common plant material, and are also undetectable as a poison and untraceable. Although it obviously works, Polonium-210 is a poor choice for a poison... not to mention an order for 15,000 sources would look a little suspicious, considering we sell about 1 or 2 sources every 3 months.