Belgio: Via le atomiche USA dalle basi europee

www.resistenze.org - osservatorio - mondo - politica e società - 24-02-10 - n. 307

da www.contropiano.org

Via le atomiche USA dalle basi in Europa. A dirlo questa volta è il governo belga. Si accentua la crisi della NATO?

a cura della redazione di www.contropiano.org

Si accentua la crisi della NATO? Prima l'impasse in Afghanistan, poi la crisi di governo in Olanda proprio sulla missione in Afghanistan. Adesso si sta aprendo un altro capitolo rilevante nelle relazioni tra Europa e USA nell'ambito dell'Alleanza Atlantica. Il governo belga di Yves Leterme, con una lettera aperta si è fatto portavoce di altri 4 paesi aderenti al Patto Atlantico: Olanda, Germania, Norvegia e Lussemburgo ed ha posto il problema dello smantellamento di circa 200 bombe atomiche della USA presenti nelle basi militari NATO sparse in Germania, Belgio, Italia, Turchia.

La richiesta resa pubblica dal governo del Belgio, ha preso le mosse da una lettera aperta pubblicata sui giornali belgi e nella quale due ex premier e due ex ministri degli esteri di schieramenti diversi sollecitano la necessita' di adattare la politica nucleare alle nuove circostanze, vista la fine della guerra fredda. Paesi come l'India, il Pakistan e la Corea del nord si sono gia' affacciati sullo scenario degli armamenti nucleari e altri come l'Iran potrebbero unirsi, affermano gli ex premier Jean Luc Dehaene, cristiano-democratico, e Guy Verhofstadt, liberale, insieme agli ex ministri degli Esteri Luis Michel, liberale, e Willy Claes, socialista e anche ex segretario generale della Nato. ''E' impossibile rifiutare agli altri Stati di acquisire armi nucleari se ne abbiamo noi'', argomentano i quattro esponenti politici belgi secondo i quali ''le armi nucleari tattiche americane in Europa hanno perduto tutta la loro importanza militare''. Il riferimento alla crisi con l'Iran sulla questione nucleare appare piuttosto evidente. Ad essere favorevole allo smantellamento da tempo è anche il cancelliere tedesco Angela Merkel che già nell’ottobre scorso, dopo la sua rielezione, pose come uno dei primi obbiettivi lo stoccaggio delle armi nucleari ancora presenti sul territorio tedesco. Proprio l’impegno della Germania potrebbe avere un peso importante, dato che ospita un gran numero di quelle armi. La richiesta prevede la rimozione delle armi nucleari dal territorio europeo “appartenenti ad altri Stati membri della NATO" cioè gli USA.

L’obbiettivo principale del documento è quello di aprire un dibattito sulla denuclearizzazione in vista della conferenza di revisione del Trattato di non proliferazione nucleare che si terrà a maggio a New York. L’iniziativa del Belgio è molto importante per fare un passo in direzione del disarmo nucleare. A doversi pronunciare su questo è anche il governo italiano che ospita alcuni ordigni nucleari nelle basi militari NATO di Ghedi ed Aviano. Sono preoccupate infatti le reazioni dei circoli atlantici italiani. "Queste armi sono troppo obsolete ed inadatte allo scopo, e potrebbero quindi essere ritirate, Ma non propongono di sostituirle con altri sistemi offensivi, bensì con maggiori sistemi difensivi antimissili ed antiaerei" commenta piuttosto preoccupato Stefano Silvestri il presidente di un organismo filo-NATO l'Istituto Affari Internazionali. "In una situazione in cui le divergenze politiche tra europei ed americani si allargano, a cominciare proprio da quell’Afghanistan dove la Nato si sta giocando la propria credibilità e forse il proprio futuro, siamo sicuri di poter tranquillamente rinunciare anche solo ad un due di briscola?". Il "due di briscola" in questione sarebbero proprio le armi nucleari presenti nelle basi disseminate in Europa e il ritiro del contingente olandese. L'allarme di Silvestri è emblematico della crisi che si va accentuando dentro la NATO anche alla luce della crisi di governo in Olanda avvenuta proprio sul mantenimento del contingente militare nell'operazione militare della NATO in Afghanistan.

ENERGY: Nuclear Does Not Make Economic Sense Say Studies
By Julio Godoy

BERLIN, Feb 12, 2010 (IPS) - The enormous technical and financial risks involved in the construction and operation of new nuclear power plants make them prohibitive for private investors, rebutting the thesis of a renaissance in nuclear energy, say several independent European studies.

The risks include high construction costs, likely long delays in building, extended periods of depreciation of equipment inherent to the construction and operation of new power plants and the lack of guarantees for prices of electricity.

Adding to these is the global meltdown and the consequent cautious behaviour of investors as also fiscal and revenue difficulties of governments in the industrialised countries, say the studies.

In the most recent analysis on the feasibility of new nuclear power plants, the Citibank group concludes that some of "the risks faced by developers … are so large and variable that individually they could each bring even the largest utility company to its knees financially."

The Citibank paper, titled ‘New Nuclear - The Economics Say No’, lists five major risks developers and operators of new nuclear power plants must confront. These risks are planning, construction, power price, operational, and decommissioning. According to the study, most governments in industrialised countries today have only "sought to limit the planning risk" for investors.

But, while it is "important for encouraging developers to bring forward projects, [planning] is the least important risk financially," the survey goes on. According to the Citibank group, the most important risks are construction, power price, and operational. The paper dubs these risks "the corporate killers."

Environmental activists would add safety issues as another major risk – both the handling of highly radioactive nuclear waste and the likelihood of accidents at nuclear power stations.

The Citibank bases its conclusions on estimated costs of construction and operation and in the necessity of setting too high electricity prices for consumers, and which have seldom been reached in the past.

According to the paper, the costs of constructing a new nuclear power plant range between 2,500 to 3,500 euros (3,420 US dollars) per kilowatt hour.

For an average 1,600 megawatt (Mw) unit, such a range leads to construction costs of up to 5.6 billion euros (7.6 billion dollars). "We see very little prospect of these costs falling and every likelihood of them rising further," the study says.

To meet such costs, the operator would need a guarantee of constant electricity prices around 65 euros (88.9 dollars) per Mw/hour for a long period of time.

The Citibank paper cites the British case where prices at that level on a sustained basis have occurred only 20 months during the last 115 months. "It was a sudden drop in power prices that drove British Energy to the brink of bankruptcy in 2003," the survey recalls.

Another survey of the so-called renaissance of nuclear power, carried out by physicist Christoph Pistner for the German Institute for applied ecology, comes to similar conclusions.

In the paper ‘Renaissance of nuclear energy’, Pistner argues that developers "must finance in advance and for an unusual long period of time the huge construction costs of a new nuclear power plant."

In an interview with IPS, Pistner said that most power plants have to be running for at least 20 years to reach the operation period free of depreciation and impairments costs. Only after this period, a nuclear power plant starts yielding returns.

In addition, Pistner said, developers of nuclear power plants are confronted with yet another risk: "The industry disposes of little references on the buildings costs of new nuclear power plants because there are very few units in construction."

Actually, there is a new nuclear power plant that serves as a warning example of the risks involved in such a project: the nuclear power plant of Olkiluoto 3 in Finland, under construction since 2004.

Although the plant was supposed to have started delivering electricity in May 2009, its completion was postponed several times in the past two years. On Feb. 11, the Olkiluoto 3 project manager Jouni Silvennoinen announced in Helsinki that the plant's start "may be pushed back further than June 2012, which is the current deadline confirmed by the equipment manufacturer."

The manufacturer is the French state-owned company AREVA. The plant was ordered by the Finnish company TVO.

Olkiluoto 3 is also facing an explosion of construction costs. Initially, it was estimated that the plant's construction would cost three billion euros (4.1) – but now the bills amount to well over 5.3 billion euros (7.2 billion dollars). How much the plant is actually going to cost remains unclear.

These costs must be added to the revenues losses TVO had budgeted as electricity sales, but which were never realised due to the non operation of the plant.

The delays in completion and the explosion of costs have led to litigation between the Finnish operator TVO and the manufacturer AREVA.

In yet another critical appraisal of the feasibility of new nuclear power plants, French energy expert Thibaut Madelin says that the uncertainties linked to the construction costs of such plants have been magnified by the global financial crisis, which makes such huge investments unlikely.

Madelin said that construction delays of nuclear power plants constitute the central argument against them. "You can build a combined cycle gas turbine with a capacity of 800 Mw in four years, for a construction cost of some 550 million euros (752.4 million dollars)," Madelin told IPS.

"But for a nuclear power plant of 1,600 Mw, you need at least eight years, and a construction budget of up to six billion euros (8.2 billion dollars)," Madelin added. "That means that the investor of a new nuclear power plant would start seeing some money only eight years after she invested a huge amount of money."

According to Madelin, "if the construction of a nuclear power plant lasts more than 10 years, the project becomes a financial catastrophe." Figures by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) say that construction delays jumped from 64 months (more than five years) to 146 months (more than 12 years) between 1976 and 2008.

In a recent commentary published by the IAEA, Sharon Squassoni, researcher at the U.S. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, also concluded that the financial crisis and the construction costs constitute almost insurmountable obstacles to the renaissance of nuclear power.

"The current economic crisis could make financing nuclear power plants particularly difficult," Squassoni wrote. "Financing costs account for between 25 and 80 percent of the total cost of construction because nuclear power plants take much longer to build than alternatives."

For example, wind plants require 18 months to build, combined cycle gas turbines need 36 months, but nuclear power plants take at least 60 months, Squassoni noted.

Squassoni warned that the global tightening of risk management standards in the wake of the current economic crisis could imperil the nuclear industry, "in particular, because a reactor entails such a large investment (between five billion and 10 billion dollars per plant) relative to the typical financial resources of electric utilities."

The Citibank paper, referring to the Olkiluoto 3 plant, points out that cost overruns and time slippages of even a fraction seen by TVO and AREVA would be more than enough to destroy the equity value of a developer’s investment "unless these costs can be passed through somehow", an euphemism for state subsidies.

"Given the scale of these costs, a construction programme that goes badly wrong could seriously damage the finances of even the largest utility companies," the Citibank survey says.

The Citibank survey concludes that without taxpayers money there is "little if any prospect that new nuclear stations will be built … by the private sector unless developers can lay off substantial elements of the three major risks. Financing guarantees, minimum power prices, and/or government-backed power off-take agreements may all be needed if stations are to be built."

Niger: The Uranium Coup

The Uranium Coup by Michael Carmichael

February 21, 2010

In yet another odd coincidence, Alan Grayson led a Congressional delegation that just happened to be in Niger at the time of the recent military coup last Thursday that deposed the legitimate elected government of the Uranium-rich nation.

The official story is that the members of Congress were focused on science, technology and humanitarian relief - at the very same time that the military coup was unfolding on the streets of the capital, Niamey.

This intriguing "coincidence" raises the question: Was this Congressional presence during a military coup another instance of a massive intelligence failure or something entirely different?

Niger is a landlocked African country with a population of 15 million mostly Islamic citizens. Niger has a relatively small military that consumes a mere 1.6% of its annual budget.

When the Grayson delegation reached Niamey, the military staged a coup d'etat to displace the elected government of President Tandja Mamadou who had raised some concerns by moves to introduce reforms and revise the constitution as well as to extend his term in office.

Niger is rich in Uranium holding at least 6% of global reserves - a figure that is twice as large as US Uranium deposits. The radioactive mineral constitutes 72% of national exports. In recent years, foreign corporations have invested billions into the Uranium-driven economy of Niger.

The military coup was allegedly led by a relatively low-level Platoon Commander Salou Djibo who held an official briefing during which he maintained silence about any future return to Niger's constitutional democracy.

Djibo is the now the leader of a 'Supreme Council' of army officials that currently constitutes the military junta governing the Uranium-rich nation.

Following Djibo's coup, the UN promptly condemned the military takeover, and the African Union immediately expelled Niger. France, Niger's former colonial overlord, condemned the coup, but the official American reaction struck a distinctly different chord when US State Department Spokesman, P. J. Crowley, briefed reporters that President Tandja may have triggered the coup himself by, "trying to extend his mandate."

The simultaneous presence of a US Congressional delegation in a uranium-rich Muslim nation at the time of a right-wing military coup is bound to arouse international scrutiny -- especially when official spokesmen in Washington are the sole sources to rationalize -- if not defend -- the military action against the elected government of Niger.

Grayson is a member of the Science and Technology Committee that has jurisdiction over non-defense (ie. non-military) federal scientific research and development including NASA, FEMA and the Department of Energy. Grayson is a progressive on domestic issues, but he performs disappointingly on foreign policy where Max Blumenthal has pointed out that he follows the AIPAC line on Israel and the Middle East - because he supported Israel's Operation Cast Lead and a pro-Israel position vis a vis Iran, an Islamic nation currently developing nuclear energy.

At this point in time, no other names of the members of the "Congressional delegation" led by Alan Grayson have been released raising deeper questions about the Uranium Coup.

Michael Carmichael is the founder of Planetary.

Yes, nuclear plants have carbon footprint

Yes, nuclear plants have carbon footprint

http://www.desmoinesregister.com, February 19, 2010

Misinformation, if repeated often enough, has the effect of lulling the public into acceptance. One particularly disturbing bit of misinformation repeated in the Feb. 4 essay is that nuclear power is environmentally friendly because nuclear power plants don't emit greenhouse gases.

At best, this is a half-truth designed to enlist support for nuclear power from those interested in curbing greenhouse-gas emissions.

While a nuclear power plant, by itself, produces little, if any, carbon dioxide, the plant is an integral part of a massive and complex infrastructure known as the nuclear fuel cycle that is designed to produce electricity.

Energy from burning fossil fuels, thus releasing CO2, is needed throughout the cycle to mine, mill and enrich uranium, fabricate fuel elements and manufacture cement and steel for plant construction. Disposition of nuclear wastes and plant decommissioning are additional parts of the cycle that involve fossil fuel energy.

By concealing the interconnections, energetics and emissions in the fuel cycle, one is led to believe that the power plant is an independent structure churning out electricity without consequence.

This is just another case of there's no such thing as a free lunch. There are much better ways to boil water.

- Dennis C. O'Brien, Windsor Heights; emeritus professor of geology, Drake University

U.S. Supports New Nuclear Reactors

U.S. Supports New Nuclear Reactors in Georgia

EPA

Speaking at the headquarters for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 26 in Lanham, Md., President Obama said the government would back two new nuclear plants in Georgia.

• • MySpace

By MATTHEW L. WALD

Published: February 16, 2010

WASHINGTON — President Obama, speaking to an enthusiastic audience of union officials in Lanham, Md., on Tuesday, underscored his embrace of nuclear power as a clean energy source, announcing that the Energy Department had approved financial help for the construction of two nuclear reactors in Georgia.

Video

Obama on Energy Jobs (CNBC)

A Comeback for Nuclear Power?

Does the need for new sources of energy outweigh the risks associated with nuclear power?

If the project goes forward, the reactors would be the first begun in the United States since the 1970s.

The announcement of the loan guarantee — $8.3 billion to help the Southern Company and two partners build twin reactors in Burke County — comes as the administration is courting Republican support for its climate and energy policies. With climate legislation stalled in the Senate and its prospects for success dim, Democrats are seeking new incentives to spur clean energy development and create jobs.

At the same time, the president’s embrace of nuclear energy has drawn the ire of environmental groups that have long opposed any return to a reliance on nuclear power.

In his speech, Mr. Obama portrayed the decision as part of a broad strategy to increase employment and the generation of clean power. But he also made clear that the move was a bid to gain Republican support for a broader energy bill.

“Those who have long advocated for nuclear power — including many Republicans — have to recognize that we will not achieve a big boost in nuclear capacity unless we also create a system of incentives to make clean energy profitable,” Mr. Obama said.

Some Republicans, however, said that the announcement would have little effect on their votes.

Don Stewart, a spokesman for the Republican Senate leader, Mitch McConnell, said that Mr. McConnell had repeatedly praised Mr. Obama for favoring additional loan guarantees for nuclear power plants. But, he said, this would not translate into support for a cap on carbon dioxide emissions.

“It won’t cause Republicans to support the national energy tax,” Mr. Stewart said.

He added that Republican and Democratic ideas on energy policy overlapped in some areas, but that much of Mr. Obama’s energy program did not fall into those areas.

Robert Dillon, a spokesman for Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, said that she thought nuclear power was “a core component of a comprehensive energy plan,” but that she would vote on an energy bill as a whole.

“One or two provisions aren’t going to offset bad provisions,” he said.

The announcement of the loan guarantees, which had been signaled in advance, drew immediate praise from the nuclear industry and criticism from some environmental groups.

David M. Ratcliffe, the chairman and chief executive of the Southern Company, said that a nuclear renaissance was in the wings and that “we will get on with that at a more rapid pace now that we’ve made this first step.”

Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, however, said that nuclear power was not the fastest or cheapest way to reduce the greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

“The loan guarantees announced today may ease the politics around comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation, but we do not believe that they are the best policy,” he said.

Despite the financing, the reactors are far from a done deal: their design has not yet been fully approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, whose staff has raised questions about whether changes made to harden the plant against aircraft attack had made it more vulnerable to earthquakes.

The builders hope to have a license to build and run the plant by the end of next year, under a revised process that is supposed to eliminate problems that caused huge cost overruns in the 1970s and 1980s, when regulatory changes during construction added billions to costs. About 100 reactors were abandoned during construction in that era.

The Southern Company applied two years ago to the commission for permission to build and operate the reactors, adjacent to its Vogtle 1 and 2 reactors.

The loan guarantees were authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. If the reactors are built and operate profitably, the borrowers will repay the banks and pay a fee to the federal government in exchange for the guarantee; if the borrowers default, the federal government will repay the banks. Critics have argued that the chance of default is high, and the loans have been delayed by protracted negotiations over what the fee should be.

The money for the reactors is the first award from $18.5 billion in loan guarantees provided for under the 2005 act. But Mr. Obama proposed this month to triple that amount. The guarantees can cover up to 80 percent of the estimated project cost, although some builders may ask for less. Southern asked for 70 percent, but the project may also be eligible for loan guarantees from the Japanese government; the reactors were designed by Westinghouse, a unit of Toshiba.

The Energy Department is negotiating with potential borrowers for three other projects, two of which could win guarantees soon. The Scana Corporation and Santee Cooper want to build a nuclear plant near Jenkinsville, S.C., and UniStar is planning a reactor in southern Maryland, adjacent to the Calvert Cliffs reactors. A third project, in Texas, is in some doubt because of rising cost estimates and a lawsuit filed by the municipal utility serving San Antonio against its partner in the project, NRG of Princeton, N.J.

The United States has 104 operating power reactors, but all the reactors ordered after 1973 were canceled.

Europe's Five "Undeclared Nuclear Weapons States"

Europe's Five "Undeclared Nuclear Weapons States" Are Turkey, Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands and Italy Nuclear Powers? by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, February 12, 2010

According to a recent report, former NATO Secretary-General George Robertson confirmed that Turkey possesses 40-90 "Made in America" nuclear weapons at the Incirlik military base.(en.trend.az/)

Does this mean that Turkey is a nuclear power?

"Far from making Europe safer, and far from producing a less nuclear dependent Europe, [the policy] may well end up bringing more nuclear weapons into the European continent, and frustrating some of the attempts that are being made to get multilateral nuclear disarmament," (Former NATO Secretary-General George Robertson quoted in Global Security, February 10, 2010)

"'Is Italy capable of delivering a thermonuclear strike?...

Could the Belgians and the Dutch drop hydrogen bombs on enemy targets?...

Germany's air force couldn't possibly be training to deliver bombs 13 times more powerful than the one that destroyed Hiroshima, could it?...

Nuclear bombs are stored on air-force bases in Italy, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands — and planes from each of those countries are capable of delivering them." ("What to Do About Europe's Secret Nukes." Time Magazine, December 2, 2009)

The "Official" Nuclear Weapons States

Five countries, the US, UK, France, China and Russia are considered to be "nuclear weapons states" (NWS), "an internationally recognized status conferred by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)". Three other "Non NPT countries" (i.e. non-signatory states of the NPT) including India, Pakistan and North Korea, have recognized possessing nuclear weapons.

Israel: "Undeclared Nuclear State"

Israel is identified as an "undeclared nuclear state". It produces and deploys nuclear warheads directed against military and civilian targets in the Middle East including Tehran.

Iran

There has been much hype, supported by scanty evidence, that Iran might at some future date become a nuclear weapons state. And, therefore, a pre-emptive defensive nuclear attack on Iran to annihilate its non-existent nuclear weapons program should be seriously contemplated "to make the World a safer place". The mainstream media abounds with makeshift opinion on the Iran nuclear threat.

But what about the five European "undeclared nuclear states" including Belgium, Germany, Turkey, the Netherlands and Italy. Do they constitute a threat?

Belgium, Germany, The Netherlands, Italy and Turkey: "Undeclared Nuclear Weapons States"

While Iran's nuclear weapons capabilities are unconfirmed, the nuclear weapons capabilities of these five countries including delivery procedures are formally acknowledged.

The US has supplied some 480 B61 thermonuclear bombs to five so-called "non-nuclear states", including Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey. Casually disregarded by the Vienna based UN Nuclear Watchdog (IAEA), the US has actively contributed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons in Western Europe.

As part of this European stockpiling, Turkey, which is a partner of the US-led coalition against Iran along with Israel, possesses some 90 thermonuclear B61 bunker buster bombs at the Incirlik nuclear air base. (National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe , February 2005)

By the recognised definition, these five countries are "undeclared nuclear weapons states".

The stockpiling and deployment of tactical B61 in these five "non-nuclear states" are intended for targets in the Middle East. Moreover, in accordance with "NATO strike plans", these thermonuclear B61 bunker buster bombs (stockpiled by the "non-nuclear States") could be launched "against targets in Russia or countries in the Middle East such as Syria and Iran" ( quoted in National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe , February 2005)

Does this mean that Iran or Russia, which are potential targets of a nuclear attack originating from one or other of these five so-called non-nuclear states should contemplate defensive preemptive nuclear attacks against Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Turkey? The answer is no, by any stretch of the imagination.

While these "undeclared nuclear states" casually accuse Tehran of developing nuclear weapons, without documentary evidence, they themselves have capabilities of delivering nuclear warheads, which are targeted at Iran. To say that this is a clear case of "double standards" by the IAEA and the "international community" is a understatement.

Click to See Details and Map of Nuclear Facilities located in 5 European "Non-Nuclear States"

The stockpiled weapons are B61 thermonuclear bombs. All the weapons are gravity bombs of the B61-3, -4, and -10 types.2 .

Those estimates were based on private and public statements by a number of government sources and assumptions about the weapon storage capacity at each base

.(National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe , February 2005)

Germany: Nuclear Weapons Producer

Among the five "undeclared nuclear states", "Germany remains the most heavily nuclearized country with three nuclear bases (two of which are fully operational) and may store as many as 150 [B61 bunker buster ] bombs" (Ibid). In accordance with "NATO strike plans" (mentioned above) these tactical nuclear weapons are also targeted at the Middle East.

While Germany is not categorized officially as a nuclear power, it produces nuclear warheads for the French Navy. It stockpiles nuclear warheads (made in America) and it has the capabilities of delivering nuclear weapons. Moreover, The European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company - EADS , a Franco-German-Spanish joint venture, controlled by Deutsche Aerospace and the powerful Daimler Group is Europe's second largest military producer, supplying .France's M51 nuclear missile.

Germany imports and deploys nuclear weapons from the US. It also produces nuclear warheads which are exported to France. Yet it is classified as a non-nuclear state.

Related Article

Rick Rozoff, NATO's Secret Transatlantic Bond: Nuclear Weapons In Europe, Global Research, December 4, 2009

---

AMERICA'S "WAR ON TERRORISM"

by Michel Chossudovsky

CLICK TO ORDER

America's "War on Terrorism"

In this new and expanded edition of Michel Chossudovsky's 2002 best seller, the author blows away the smokescreen put up by the mainstream media, that 9/11 was an attack on America by "Islamic terrorists". Through meticulous research, the author uncovers a military-intelligence ploy behind the September 11 attacks, and the cover-up and complicity of key members of the Bush Administration.

The expanded edition, which includes twelve new chapters focuses on the use of 9/11 as a pretext for the invasion and illegal occupation of Iraq, the militarisation of justice and law enforcement and the repeal of democracy.

According to Chossudovsky, the "war on terrorism" is a complete fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American intelligence apparatus. The "war on terrorism" is a war of conquest. Globalisation is the final march to the "New World Order", dominated by Wall Street and the U.S. military-industrial complex.

September 11, 2001 provides a justification for waging a war without borders. Washington's agenda consists in extending the frontiers of the American Empire to facilitate complete U.S. corporate control, while installing within America the institutions of the Homeland Security State.

Chossudovsky peels back layers of rhetoric to reveal a complex web of deceit aimed at luring the American people and the rest of the world into accepting a military solution which threatens the future of humanity.

The last chapter includes an analysis of the London 7/7 Bomb Attacks.

FERMARE NORMA "SALVA GENERALI"

SALUTE: ASSOCIAZIONI VITTIME URANIO, FERMARE NORMA "SALVA GENERALI"

Roma, 16 feb. (Adnkronos/Adnkronos Salute) - «Fermare il decreto contenente le misure che, di fatto, deresponsabilizzano i vertici militari in relazione ai casi di malattia e infortunio che possono riscontrarsi nei soldati reduci dalle missioni all'estero». Lo chiedono l'Associazione vittime uranio e l'associazione Anavafaf (associazione che si batte per i diritti delle vittime arruolate e dei loro familiari) di Falco Accame in una nota. «Da oggi - spiegano le associazioni in una nota - approda in Senato il decreto legge 1/2010, con cui lo scorso primo gennaio il Governo ha rifinanziato le missioni internazionali di peacekeeping. Al quarto comma dell'articolo 9 si legge che: 'non è punibile a titolo di colpa per violazione di disposizioni in materia di tutela dell'ambiente della tutela della salute e sicurezza nei luoghi di lavoro, per fatti connessi nell'espletamento di attività e operazioni o addestramento svolte nel corso di missioni internazionali, il militare dal quale non poteva esigersi un comportamento diverso da quanto tenuto, avuto riguardo alle competenze ai poteri e ai mezzi di cui disponeva in relazione ai compiti affidatiglì». «Si tratta semplicemente - conclude la nota - di una norma vergognosa e anticostituzionale, un tentativo di dare un colpo di spugna alle responsabilità di chi, ad esempio, ha inviato i nostri militari all'estero senza informarli dei rischi connessi all'esposizione all'uranio impoverito, di chi non ha adottato le norme di protezione e di chi non ha fatto rispettare le stesse una volta emanate. Ci aspettiamo che il Parlamento rispedisca al mittente, questa norma 'salva generalì». (Red-Mal/Col/Adnkronos) 16-FEB-10 14:12 NNN

FERMIAMO IL DECRETO SULL'IMPUNITA' PER I VERTICI MILITARI

FERMIAMO IL DECRETO SULL'IMPUNITA' PER I VERTICI MILITARI

La prossima settimana approda in Senato il decreto che vorrebbe, con un colpo di spugna, cancellare le responsabilità dei vertici militari per gli infortuni e le malattie dei soldati in missione. L'Associazione Vittime Uranio e l'Anavafaf di Falco Accame protestano. E' UNA NORMA VERGOGNOSA E ANTICOSTITUZIONALE.

L’impunità per legge

Inviato da redazione il Sab, 13/02/2010 - 13:30

Adele Parrillo (Il veleno invisibile)

VELENI. Con il D.L. 1/2010 Art. 9, con cui lo scorso primo gennaio il governo ha rifinanziato le missioni internazionali di peacekeeping, il legislatore ha modificato le responsabilità dei militari in relazione ai problemi di inquinamento e salute.

Recita il D.L. 1/2010 Art. 9 al comma 4 : «...non è punibile a titolo di colpa per violazione di disposizioni in materia di tutela dell’ambiente della tutela della salute e sicurezza nei luoghi di lavoro per fatti connessi nell’espletamento di attività e operazioni o addestramento svolte nel corso di missioni internazionali, il militare dal quale non poteva esigersi un comportamento diverso da quanto tenuto, avuto riguardo alle competenze ai poteri e ai mezzi di cui disponeva in relazione ai compiti affidatigli».

Con il suddetto articolo 9 con cui lo scorso 1° gennaio il governo ha rifinanziato le missioni internazionali di peacekeeping, il legislatore ha modificato le responsabilità dei militari in relazione ai problemi di inquinamento e salute. Tutto ciò può riguardare la mancata applicazione delle norme di protezione nei riguardi dell’uranio impoverito e delle nano-particelle. Infatti in Somalia (1992-94) e poi in Bosnia e Kossovo (dal 1995 al 99) non sono state applicate norme di protezione, mentre è noto che i militari Usa si proteggevano con tute, occhiali e maschere. Forse qualcuno si è preoccupato delle sentenze che sempre più, negli ultimi tempi, si pronunciano a favore del risarcimento a militari, tornati dalle missioni ammalati, o deceduti a seguito di patologie ricondicibili a contaminazione da uranio impoverito.

Nel caso di Giambattista Marica, per esempio, risarcito con 545.061 euro, nella motivazione della sentenza, emessa dal tribunale di Firenze a dicembre 2008, i giudici hanno sostenuto le responsabilità del Ministero della Difesa. “Non ha disposto” si legge nella sentenza, “l’adozione di adeguate misure protettive per i partecipanti alla missione in Somalia. Nonostante fosse sotto gli occhi dell’opinione pubblica internazionale la pericolosità specifica di quel teatro di guerra, e nonostante l’adozione da parte di altri contingenti di misure di prevenzione particolari”.

Secondo Falco Accame, presidente Anavafaf, Associazione nazionale vittime arruolate nelle forze armate, «la norma dell’art.9 del D.L. 1/2010, è del resto in contrasto con quanto stabiliscono i codici militari, circa i doveri dei comandanti riguardo alla tutela della salute del personale dipendente. Ed è anche in contrasto con quanto riguarda la legislazione nazionale sulla tutela della salute nei posti di lavoro (legislazione valida anche in campo militare). L’adozione della norma su citata, porterebbere ad una gravissima de-responsabilizzazione dei comandanti, in quanto non prevede alcun controllo su comportamenti (che non possono essere a priori considerati ineccepibili).

Basti pensare a quanto accadde in Somalia nell’Operazione Ibis, (1992-94) con lo stupro delle donne somale da parte di militari del Tuscania». Secondo Accame «è da tener presente che gli ormai oltre duemila casi di malattia, per possibile contaminazione da uranio impoverito dipendono, in larga misura, dalla non adozione di misure di protezione e dal non aver adottato il ‘principio di precauzione’. La norma su citata potrebbe diminuire l’attenzione sull’esigenza di assicurare, per quanto possibile, protezione al personale dipendente». «Infatti - conclude Falco Accame - non è chiaro cosa significhi ‘..non poter esigersi un comportamento diverso da quanto tenuto’, il che potrebbe rimandare al concetto di cieca obbedienza agli ordini, in contrasto con quanto stabilito dalla L382/78 sui ‘principi della disciplina’».

Era solo poco più di un anno fa. Nella finanziaria 2008, con la legge n°244 del 24 dicembre 2007, si arrivava al riconoscimento della causa di servizio e all’erogazione di risarcimenti, a chi avesse contratto infermità o patologie tumorali legate all’esposizione di proiettili all’uranio impoverito.. Una spesa di 10 milioni di euro per ciascuno degli anni 2008-2010. Il D.L. 1/2010 è stato approvato alla Camera il 9 febbraio di quest’anno ed è stato trasmesso al Senato dove sarà discusso, con il numero 2002. Sarà legge?

Il governo ricorre contro le leggi anti nucleare

Il governo ricorre contro le leggi anti nucleare di tre Regioni
di Redazione, Il Giornale, 05 febbraio 2010

Roma Prima erano i Cpt, i centri di accoglienza per gli immigrati, adesso le centrali nucleari. Nessuno le vuole, non almeno in casa propria. L’elenco dei nuovi siti ancora non è ufficiale, ma le Regioni da mesi iniziano a mettere le mani avanti: non nel nostro territorio, dicono, gli impianti stiano lontani di qua. In particolare Regioni di colore politico opposto alla maggioranza di governo. Tre consigli regionali, Puglia, Campania e Basilicata, hanno deciso addirittura per legge che nessuna centrale potrà essere costruita sul loro suolo. Le azioni di ribellione sono state proposte e approvate in rapida sequenza nelle ultime tre settimane.
Ieri la risposta da Roma: il Consiglio dei ministri ha deciso di impugnare immediatamente tutte e tre le leggi anti-atomo davanti alla Consulta.
Un’iniziativa «necessaria per questioni di diritto e di merito», chiarisce il ministro dello Sviluppo economico, Claudio Scajola. La decisione è sua, d’intesa con il ministro per gli Affari regionali Raffaele Fitto. E apre, com’era prevedibile, uno scontro politico su due binari: suscita proclami di «disobbedienza» locale, come nel caso del lanciatissimo presidente uscente della Puglia Nichi Vendola, e scatena tutta l’opposizione nei palazzi del Parlamento, Pd e Italia dei valori. Anche se, nemmeno due anni fa, come predecessore di Scajola al ministero dello Sviluppo economico, Pierluigi Bersani diceva: «Sarà possibile ridiscutere della presenza del nucleare anche in Italia».
Ma adesso dal Partito democratico si contesta il metodo del governo: il decreto legislativo all’esame delle Camere «esclude di fatto dalle decisioni sui siti sia i cittadini che gli enti locali».
È Antonio di Pietro però a giocare d’anticipo, addirittura sui mesti Verdi, da due anni fuori dal Parlamento. Ventitrè anni dopo il referendum ’87, il leader dell’Idv si candida a promotore di una nuova consultazione plebiscitaria: «L’Italia dei valori darà inizio oggi in occasione del Congresso alla raccolta delle firme contro il nucleare».
Le tre leggi regionali che vietano impianti nucleari sono contestabili, a parere di Scajola, sul piano del diritto, perché «intervengono autonomamente in una materia concorrente con lo Stato (produzione, trasporto e distribuzione di energia elettrica) e non riconoscono l’esclusiva competenza dello Stato in materia di tutela dell’ambiente della sicurezza interna e della concorrenza». Inoltre non impugnare i tre provvedimenti «avrebbe costituito un precedente pericoloso, perché si potrebbe indurre altre Regioni ad adottare altre decisioni negative sulla localizzazione d’infrastrutture necessarie per il Paese».

Allarme leucemia: 7 bimbi ammalati in un solo mese

Allarme leucemia: 7 bimbi ammalati in un solo mese
Pazienti reagiscono a cure
di Redazione, Il Giornale, 15 febbraio 2010
Sette bambini hanno sviluppato la leucemia linfoblastica acuta tra il dicembre 2009 e il gennaio 2010: tre frequentano la scuola elementare di via Corridoni. Ma la Asl assicura: "In un anno 8-12 casi di media"

Milano - Sono in tutto sette i bambini di Milano con leucemia linfoblastica acuta che hanno sviluppato la malattia tra il dicembre 2009 e il gennaio 2010. Si tratta però di un "evento eccezionale" sottolinea Luigi Bisanti, responsabile dell’epidemiologia dell’Asl di Milano, in un incontro per parlare degli sviluppi sul caso dei tre bambini con leucemia scoperti a gennaio nella scuola di via Corridoni a Milano.

Sette casi di leucemia I sette casi sono tutti giunti all’osservazione della clinica pediatrica dell’ospedale San Gerardo di Monza. Tra questi, oltre ai tre bimbi di 6, 8 e 11 anni della scuola milanese, ci sono una bimba il cui fratello frequenta lo stesso istituto, e altri tre casi su bambini residenti in zone diverse della città (uno di questi in viale Certosa). "I casi di leucemia attesi in un anno sui bambini sono 8-12 - ha detto Bisanti - però quando si parla di leucemia non ci sono correlazioni causa-effetto certe, ma una serie di sospetti che danno deboli suggerimenti". Sulla base di questi ultimi, gli esperti della Asl, insieme a Regione, Comune di Milano, docenti della scuola e genitori degli alunni hanno formato un gruppo di lavoro che "sta già esaminando l’elenco completo di tutti i fattori di rischio che sono plausibilmente collegati alla malattia secondo la letteratura scientifica".

Il report definitivo Il report definitivo potrebbe essere pronto nelle prime due settimane di aprile, anche se "i valori misurati finora non si discostano da una situazione di normalità - continua l’esperto - soprattutto per quanto riguarda l’esposizione alle radiazioni o a composti chimici. Le evidenze, quindi, per ora sono proprio quelle che ci aspettavamo". Se tutto andrà come previsto dagli specialisti, non ci scoprirà nessun legame chiaro tra un particolare fattore di rischio e le leucemie: "Crediamo che il risultato più probabile dell’indagine sia un’assenza di legami. Se non troveremo questa correlazione - ha concluso Bisanti - ci saranno due possibilità: la prima è che si è trattato di un evento largamente improbabile ma non impossibile; la seconda è che le nostre conoscenze nel campo sono ancora troppo limitate per sapere in che direzione guardare".

Puerto Rico: Island residents sue U.S - CNN

Island residents sue U.S., saying military made them sick

By Abbie Boudreau and Scott Bronstein,
CNN Special Investigations Unit

February 1, 2010 4:03 p.m. EST

Hermogenes Marrero, as a young U.S. Marine, was stationed on the island of Vieques nearly 40 years ago.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Vieques was one of Navy's largest firing ranges and weapons testing sites
• Thousands of residents say testing has made them seriously ill
• Government says under "sovereign immunity," residents have no right to sue
• See how residents are coping with illnesses on "Campbell Brown" tonight 8 ET

Hear from residents of Vieques, where thousands of people say U.S. weapons testing has made them seriously ill, on tonight's "Campbell Brown," 8 ET

Vieques, Puerto Rico (CNN) -- Nearly 40 years ago, Hermogenes Marrero was a teenage U.S. Marine, stationed as a security guard on the tiny American island of Vieques, off the coast of Puerto Rico.

Marrero says he's been sick ever since. At age 57, the former Marine sergeant is nearly blind, needs an oxygen tank, has Lou Gehrig's disease and crippling back problems, and sometimes needs a wheelchair.

"I'd go out to the firing range, and sometimes I'd start bleeding automatically from my nose," he said in an interview to air on Monday night's "Campbell Brown."

"I said, 'My God, why am I bleeding?' So then I'd leave the range, and it stops. I come back, and maybe I'm vomiting now. I used to get diarrhea, pains in my stomach all the time. Headaches -- I mean, tremendous headaches. My vision, I used to get blurry."

The decorated former Marine is now the star witness in a multibillion-dollar lawsuit by more than 7,000 residents of this Caribbean island -- about three-quarters of its population -- who say that what the U.S. military did on Vieques has made them sick.

Read: Are Americans being forgotten on Vieques?

For nearly six decades, beginning right after World War II, Vieques was one of the Navy's largest firing ranges and weapons testing sites.

"Inside the base, you could feel the ground -- the ground moving," Marrero said. "You can hear the concussions. You could feel it. If you're on the range, you could feel it in your chest. That's the concussion from the explosion. It would rain, actually rain, bombs. And this would go on seven days a week."

After years of controversy and protest, the Navy left Vieques in 2003. Today, much of the base is demolished, and what's left is largely overgrown. But the lawsuit remains, and island residents want help and compensation for numerous illnesses they say they suffer.

"The people need the truth to understand what is happening to their bodies," said John Eaves Jr., the Mississippi attorney who represents the islanders in the lawsuit.

Because he no longer lives on Vieques, Marrero is not one of the plaintiffs but has given sworn testimony in the case. He said the weapons used on the island included napalm; depleted uranium, a heavy metal used in armor-piercing ammunition; and Agent Orange, the defoliant used on the Vietnamese jungles that was later linked to cancer and other illnesses in veterans.

"We used to store it in the hazardous material area," Marrero said. It was used in Vieques as a defoliant for the fence line.

The military has never acknowledged a link between Marrero's ailments and his time at Vieques, so he receives few disability or medical benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Neither the Navy nor the Justice Department, which is handling the government's defense, would discuss the islanders' lawsuit with CNN.

But Eaves said his clients don't believe that the military has fully disclosed the extent of the contamination on Vieques: "Like uranium was denied, then they admitted it."

Dr. John Wargo, a Yale professor who studies the effects of toxic exposures on human health, says he believes that people on the island are sick because of the Navy's bombing range.

Vieques ... is probably one of the most highly contaminated sites in the world.
--Dr. John Wargo

RELATED TOPICS

• Vieques
• U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
• Vietnam War

"Vieques, in my experience of studying toxic substances, is probably one of the most highly contaminated sites in the world," he said. "This results from the longevity of the chemical release, the bombs, the artillery shells, chemical weapons, biological weapons, fuels, diesel fuels, jet fuels, flame retardants. These have all been released on the island, some at great intensity."

Wargo is the author of a new book, "Green Intelligence," on how environments and toxic exposure affect human health. He is also expected to testify as an expert witness in the islanders' lawsuit.

He said the chemicals released by the munitions dropped on Vieques can be dangerous to human health and may well have sickened residents or veterans who served on the island.

"In my own mind, I think the islanders experienced higher levels of exposure to these substances than would be experienced in any other environment," Wargo said. "In my own belief, I think the illnesses are related to these exposures."

The effects of those chemicals could include cancer, damage to the nervous, immune and reproductive systems or birth defects, he said.

"This doesn't prove that the exposures caused those specific illnesses," Wargo added. "But it's a pretty convincing story from my perspective."

Since the Navy left the island, munitions it left behind "continue to leak, particularly from the east end of the island," Wargo said.

"My concerns are now predominantly what's happening in the coastal waters, which provide habitat for an array of fish, many species of which are often consumed by the population on the island," he said.

Scientists from the University of Georgia have documented the extent of the numerous unexploded ordinance and bombs that continue to litter the former bomb site and the surrounding waters. The leftover bombs continue to corrode, leaching dangerously high levels of carcinogens, according to researcher James Porter, associate dean of the university's Odum School of Ecology.

The Environmental Protection Agency designated parts of Vieques a Superfund toxic site in 2005, requiring the Navy to begin cleaning up its former bombing range. The service identified many thousands of unexploded munitions and set about blowing them up. But the cleanup effort has further outraged some islanders, who fear that more toxic chemicals will be released.

The U.S. government's response to their lawsuit is to invoke sovereign immunity, arguing that residents have no right to sue it. The government also disputes that the Navy's activities on Vieques made islanders ill, citing a 2003 study by scientists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that found no link.

That study, however, has been harshly criticized by numerous scientists, and the CDC is embarking on a new effort to determine whether residents may have been sickened by the contamination from the Navy range.

Asked whether his duty on the island made him sick, Marrero responds, "Of course it did."

"This is American territory. The people that live here are American," he said. "You hurt someone, you have to take care of that person. And the government's just not doing anything about it."

Uranium Burial Lost Worker Confidence

Feb. 4, 2010

Huntington Uranium Burial Lost Worker Confidence with Portsmouth Contractor

By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter

Portsmouth, OH (HNN) – Can you imagine digging a hole and dumping rail cars, trucks, machines, bricks and everything else in, then cover it up? That’s what happened in Piketon when the Huntington Pilot Plant/Reduction Pilot Plant was entombed in 1979.

According to a November 1999 release by Vina Colley, President of Portsmouth/Piketon Residents for Environmental Safety and Security (PRESS) and co-founder of National Nuclear Workers for Justice (NNWJ)

Internal Goodyear Corporation correspondence from July and December 1977 described the material to be buried as 26,000 cubic feet of equipment and 10,000 cubic feet of pipe. The material was contaminated with nickel carbonyl and uranium. (At least?)

The disassembled plant arrived for placement in a ditch approximately 24 feet wide, 150 feet long and 12 feet deep. A former worker and eyewitness said it took six months and that “all kinds of stuff went into the ditch.”

The project has not been public knowledge Workers at Portsmouth were apparently informed only on a need-to-know basis. Geoffrey Sea in his thesis for Harvard University states that Goodyear "eventually lost credibility when an entire dismantled uranium processing plant from West Virginia was buried at the Portsmouth classified nuclear waste site and the workers were told it hadn't happened."

A July 11, 1977, memo discusses the contaminants: 1) Nickel Carbonyl-NI (CO)4- Nickel Tetra Carbonyl, a colorless, volatile, flammable, poisonous residue soluble only in alcohol and con nitric acid" and 2) Uranium: Uranium found in most process piping is in PPM range, "slightly enriched", and will present no health protection problems. However, some equipment may contain larger quantities and as such will have to be monitored. "This memo calls for the scrap to be covered with two feet of earth. A December 14, 1977 memo states that toxic and radioactive contaminated had been found to low enough no to require the two feet of cover.

This raised questions:

"To what extent have the buried materials contaminated the groundwater at Portsmouth?' Vina Colley of PRESS wanted to know. The Department of Energy (DOE) acknowledged that nickel and uranium are contaminates of the underground water at the site.

What took place at the plant in West Virginia? The cover of the official preliminary proposal for the burial, dated September 26, 1977,described the plant as a "reduction pilot plant." DOE was to award the contract for the plant's demolition. What did the Portsmouth workers that took care of the burial actually handle?

"Did the workers at the Inco facility know that they handling toxic and radioactive material.? Were they adequately protected,” asked Mary Byrd Davis of the Uranium Enrichment Project?.

The 1999 news release continued, “The buried plant appears to have been an early instance of what some in the Portsmouth area fear- the transformation of the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant into the a waste storage site.

"The project of the nickel plant is just one more example of the urgent need for a thorough investigation of what has taken place at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant," Colley stated.

QUESTIONS FOLLOWING HNN ARTICLE:

Following the HNN article on nickel dust, several activist readers sent a letter to Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown and Ohio Congressman John Boccieri. Here’s An edited portion of the concerns shared with the Congressional representative and Senator:

“Yesterday we copied your offices on a news article from the Huntington paper regarding reported associations between nickel and Plutonium in the nuclear fuel cycle processes/ and centrifuge development. Because the Wingfoot Lake site near Uniontown Industrial Excess Landfill (I.E.L.) , was the precursor to the Portsmouth, Ohio centrifuge site discussed in the story, and, because, according to the NRC, both Portsmouth and Wingfoot were operated by what was called the Goodyear Atomic division, we have a keen interest in this new information for obvious reasons.

“First of all, you need to know that our citizens' group, Cuyahoga Community Land Trust ( CCLT), wrote the Ohio Attorney General's Office a letter citing a statement made to us back in around 1994 by a radiation expert from the Ohio Dept. of Health (ODH) in Columbus, Ruth Vandegrift.

“The following words [in 1994] from this top radiation ODH official are close to verbatim, when she called our attention specifically to the Wingfoot Lake operation/ Goodyear:

“...I'll probably get shot for saying this, but let's presume it's Goodyear's UF 6 . Tell me what kinds of things you are seeing in both the valid and invalid (IEL) data....(CCLT response): Plutonium 238/239, 241; tritium, thorium, uranium, radium etc. etc. Vandegrift's response: Yes, yes, they would all be there. It's called "crapped up fuel, crapped up nasties.' ....

The letter continues that radiation testing was geared toward “manmade” radiation, even though the plutonium’s existence had been on the table for a decade.

Paraphrasing, the letter stressed that ,“acceptance of the consultant’s spin on plutonium from these rounds of testing was appalling, especially since especially since an Akron lawyer had been told by a former ODH lawyer that ODH had documentation of barreled radiation at Uniontown IEL....

Well, we know something went radically wrong at Uniontown… We believe local officials were pressured/ coerced into not supporting a proper clean up at IEL … Some of the clues are found in the Kittinger depositions on the Plutonium, where local soils expert, James Bauder, who worked for the Stark H.D. and County Commission, told us that “"directives" had been issued from ODH to Stark ordering /allowing the "additional" chemical to be brought in!

…..

Senator Brown and Congressman Boccieri, Will such severe politics be allowed to prevail here, without regard to the health and welfare of our community?

Puntano alla guerra civile

Antonio Di Pietro, 4 Febbraio 2010

Puntano alla guerra civile

Il governo si accinge ad impugnare dinanzi alla Corte Costituzionale le leggi regionali di Puglia, Campania e Basilicata che impediscono l'installazione di impianti nucleari nei territori regionali. In termini di diritto la legge potra' anche permettere tale operazione, ma in termini di fatto e' una dichiarazione di guerra che porterà l’Italia sull’orlo di una guerra civile mettendo lo Stato contro i cittadini.

Le parole di Vendola quando ha affermato che il governo si dovrà munire dei migliori carri armati per disporre della Puglia e dei pugliesi a suo piacimento ieri appaiono come una provocazione.

Domani, con l’arroganza istigatrice di Scajola, potrebbero diventare realtà. Gli italiani sono scesi in piazza e si sono recati alle urne, nel 1987, ed hanno messo alla porta il nucleare con un referendum. Se Silvio Berlusconi, per interessi ed accordi interpersonali, ha deciso di riportarci indietro di vent’anni reintroducendo una tecnologia superata, nociva e fallimentare, deve farlo con le stesse modalità, piazza per piazza, regione per regione e non con i suoi sondaggi taroccati. Siamo stufi di dover far ricorso a mozioni, referendum, petizioni, per riaffermare ciò che è già stato deciso con il loro stesso utilizzo.

Se un governo può buttare nel secchio un referendum, c’è un'unica interpretazione: chi governa rappresenta un’organizzazione illegittima che minaccia la democrazia. E non si rispolveri il consenso elettorale che non è stato acquisito parlando del nucleare e di molte altre porcate realizzate dopo l’insediamento al potere. Sappiamo che dovremo ancora una volta essere noi cittadini a ricorrere al referendum per il No al nucleare.

Come per il Lodo Alfano è inutile aspettare che il governo si ravveda, pertanto, l’Italia dei Valori domani inizierà la raccolta firme per il referendum contro il nucleare. I quesiti sono già stati depositati presso la Corte di Cassazione ed hanno lo scopo di chiamare i cittadini ad assumersi responsabilità importanti che peseranno sul loro futuro e su quello dei propri figli. Nel XXI secolo il futuro è nelle energie rinnovabili, certamente non nell’uranio che esaurirà nel giro qualche decennio, provocando danni irreversibili per la salute e l’ambiente.

Faccio solo un’inquietante riflessione: se il Parlamento è bypassato dai decreti, se la macchina della Giustizia è ridotta all’impotenza, se si parla di stravolgere la Costituzione, se le regioni sono piegate al volere di un gruppo ristretto di persone, se le televisioni trasmettono a reti unificate, se la legge non è più uguale per tutti, se si calpestano i referendum da un governo all’altro, perché continuiamo a raccontarci che l’Italia è una Repubblica parlamentare in cui vige la democrazia? Siamo ipocriti o incoscienti nel negare la realtà?

Cittadini, svegliatevi! L’unica arma che avete per non farvi fregare è il voto: utilizzatelo bene.

2,000 tonnes of depleted uranium has been used in Iraq

2,000 tonnes of depleted uranium has been used in Iraq

Iraq to file lawsuit against US, Britain--The report says that 2,000 tonnes of depleted uranium has been used in Iraq. 01 Feb 2010 Iraq's Ministry for Human Rights will file a lawsuit against Britain and the US over their use of depleted uranium bombs in Iraq, an Iraqi minister says. Iraq's Minister of Human Rights, Wijdan Mikhail Salim, told Assabah newspaper that the lawsuit will be launched based on reports from the Iraqi ministries of science and the environment. According to the reports, during the first year of the US and British invasion of Iraq, both countries had repeatedly used bombs containing depleted uranium.

http://www.legitgov .org/price_ use_200m_ try_bush_ instead_of_ ksm_010210. html

or http://tinyurl. com/ybeum7s

Workers Exposed to Plutonium, Neptunium

Feb. 1, 2010

Workers at Former Huntington Plants Exposed to Plutonium, Neptunium
Buried Slurry in Piketon Leaking

By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter

© 2010 BY TONY RUTHERFORD & HUNTINGTONNEWS.NET

Huntington, WV (HNN) – HNN has confirmed through publicly available, unclassified documents that the workers at the formerly ‘secret’ Huntington Pilot Plant/Reduction Pilot Plant (HPP/RPP) on the INCO campus were exposed to [at least] “trace quantities” of Neptunium and Plutonium. The Huntington facility received nickel from reactors at Hansford and Savannah River, as well as the Paducah and Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plants. The Portsmouth, Ohio, plant is located in Piketon, Ohio.

Vina Colley, a compensated Portsmouth (Piketon) Diffusion Plant former atomic worker and activist for compensation of workers, believes that plutonium and other residue on materials sent to Huntington for recycling and decontamination eventually made the Huntington plant contaminated beyond clean up.

The material that the Huntington plant received had been used at these various atomic energy plants as part of the chemical flow. Huntington’s job was to reduce/remove the radioactivity and separate the compounds. For instance, once process separated nickel carbonyl and enriched uranium.

In the early periods of attempting to attain an economic and safe recycling, HNN has seen documents that show still partially radioactive materials went to a second Huntington manufacturer for reuse. The workers at that plant have not yet been deemed eligible for atomic worker benefits, but they have petitioned for that status, HNN has learned.

RECYCLING RADOPACTIVELY CONTAMINATED PARTS?

Previously, there have been veiled and partial reports that have all but nailed governmental recycling in conjunction with commercial entities. The participation of companies such as Goodyear (which ran the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant), General Electric, and others related back to the military awarding different aspects of The Manhattan Project to private contractors.

However, the Energy Research Development Administration, Department of Energy and Atomic Energy Commission were not bound by OSHA and NIOSH exposure laws of private companies. These agencies, based on unclassified documents, worked to officiate the truth. Legally, the government has immunity from civil liability unless it consents to suit. The uproar by sick workers eventually led to government consent, but the award process is not necessarily a fair medical determination of a worker’s illness.

Even as the DOE issued a draft request to sell approximately 15,300 tons of radiologically-contaminated nickel scrap recovered from uranium enrichment process equipment at the Department’s Paducah, Ky. & Oak Ridge, Tennessee, facilities (http://www.emcbc.doe.gov/files/news/NR%20NICKEL%20Jul212009.pdf), serious concerns arise about how much radioactive recycled materials have already been marketed?

For instance, Dr. Cliff Honicker in a March 28, 2000 paper speculated and wisely surmised that nickel powder and nickel scrap recycling occurred in the 50s and 60s based on unaccounted for amounts (200 million pounds) of scrap. He correctly determined (as have interviews with former workers that so-called “decontaminated” scrap had been melted into ingots and commercially sold by the plant in Huntington, W.Va.

CLASSIFIED MEANT MANY NAMES

Gaps exist. This relates to the 50 year declassification rule. As additional time periods pass, more material becomes available. One of the gaps opening involve the relationships between plutonium and nickel.

The five story (by most reports) building once located on the INCO campus had several names. From 1951 to 1963, the Huntington Pilot Plant (HPP) performed work under contract to the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). During the SAME time period, the facility was also referred to as the Reduction Pilot Plant because of the special nickel processing operations the facility performed on behalf of the government which involved handling and processing of material contaminated with enriched uranium.

(See: Report to Advisory Board on Radiation & Worker Health, National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, Audit of Case PIID from HPP, John Mauro, Cohen & Associates, February 2005, hereinafter, Report to Advisory Board, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/OCAS/pdfs/abrwh/drreview/scadrr02.pdf)

Actually, during the Manhattan Project, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, did not “exist” on maps. It was known as a part of the Clinton Engineering Works (C.E.W.) and Happy Valley was located next to the K-25 gaseous diffusion plant.

NICKEL CARBONYL AND GASEOUS DIFFUSION

“The AEC work at Huntington involved the processing of scrap nickel to produce refined nickel powder for use in the manufacture of gaseous diffusion barriers for gaseous diffusion plants. The feedstock for producing the nickel powder was uranium –contaminated nickel that originated from the Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant (ORGDP). The contaminated nickel scrap metal was offloaded by rail at Huntington , weighed and placed in buckets, while it was still in the steel cartons, [then] the nickel was loaded into a furnace, and melt refined, and in the process, the uranium contamination was separated from the nickel through a special step in the process involving the application of carbon monoxide, referred to as the nickel carbonyl process. After the scrap was melted, it was transferred to the nickel carbonyl chamber , where the carbon monoxide gas (CO) was added, forming two separate streams, nickel carbonyl gas and enriched uranium.” (Since the contaminated nickel remained in shipping cartons until melting, it had been concluded worker exposure was low prior to the melt.)

Editor’s Note: HNN would disagree that all of the feedstock for the HPP/RPP came only from one plant i.e. ORGDP. Our interviews suggest that several gaseous diffusion plants sent materials to Huntington.

WHAT IS ENRICHED URANIUM 235?

Enriched uranium has had the composition of Uranium 235 increased through isotope separation. It is critical for nuclear power generation and military nuclear weapons. During the Manhattan Project enriched uranium produced at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, was called “oralloy,” for Oak Ridge Alloy. It is used too for navel propulsion and small amounts for research. Little Boy, the first uranium bomb, in 1946, used 80% enriched uranium. Plutonium 239, later, replaced U-235 for the primary stage. The U-235 is compressed into a secondary stage. (Wikipedia.org)

(The gaseous diffusion process requires pathways for uranium hexafluoride --- which is solid at room temperature --- to be in vapor form and due to its reactions with common metals leak tight nickel or austenitic stainless steel are utilized.)



NEXT: Portsmouth Buries Disassembled Plant that Still Leaks onto other’s properties