DU is killing AMERICANS , too, let alone Iraqis (and Afghanis)

BUSH FOUND THOSE WMDS AND USES THEM ON AMERICAN TROOPS IN IRAQ

http://clifylq.livejournal.com/74600.html


WHAT IS DEPLETED URANIUM?

Depleted uranium (DU) is the highly toxic and radioactive byproduct of the uranium enrichment process. "Depleted" uranium is so called because the content of the fissionable U-235 isotope is reduced from 0.7% to 0.2% during the enrichment process. The isotope U-238 makes up over 99% of the content of both natural uranium and depleted uranium. Depleted uranium is roughly 60% as radioactive as naturally occurring uranium, and has a half life of 4.5 billion years.2 As a result of 50 years of enriching uranium for use in nuclear weapons and reactors, the U.S. has in excess of 1.1 billion pounds of DU waste material.3

In the early 1970s, the government began exploring ways to dispose of DU which would relieve it of the burden of having to store it in low-level radioactive waste repositories. DU has several characteristics which make it attractive for use in munitions: it is extremely dense, available in large quantities, and given for free to arms manufacturers. http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/fahey.htm


http://clifylq.livejournal.com/12979.html

Some of our precious American soldiers have died under "mysterious circumstances" while serving in Iraq. Families are awaiting official answers, which hopefully will be more forthcoming than for the families of Gulf War I veterans who have been labeled as suffering from "Gulf War Syndrome", a condition now believed to be Depleted Uranium Poisoning.

Let us examine these mysterious deaths, then we shall look at what Depleted Uranium is and how it poisons, and finally, we shall examine some current news sources who are already stating that our troops are suffering from Depleted Uranium Poisoning.

MYSTERIOUS ILLNESSES AND DEATH

NEWS BRIEF: "Mystery illness kills Missouri soldier: Josh Neusche died Saturday; his family waits for answers", News-Leader.com, Springfield, Missouri, By Eric Eckert, News-Leader Staff, July 16, 2003, http://www.news-leader.com/today/0716-Mysteryill-108625.html

"Missouri National Guard Spc. Josh Neusche, 20, died Saturday at the Homburg Hospital in Germany from a mysterious illness. A member of the 203rd Engineer Battalion, he is the only Missouri National Guardsman on the Department of Defense's casualty list. Family and friends are awaiting the soldier's body, scheduled to arrive Thursday in the United States. They are also waiting for autopsy results, and his parents, Mark and Cindy Neusche, are calling for an investigation."

"He's always been healthy,' Mark Neusche said ... he's a cross-country runner. There's no reason for a boy of his health to deteriorate so quickly.'Cindy Neusche said her son collapsed July 2 while in Baghdad and was transported to Germany. Doctors there told the family they believed Josh suffered from pneumonia due to fluid that had collected on his lungs. But then his liver, kidneys and muscles started to break down ..."

You can empathize with this grief-stricken family; their son is dead, but did not die from any known combat action. A very healthy 20-year-old man who kept himself in good enough shape to compete as a cross-country runner suddenly collapsed in Baghdad and was flown to a U.S. military hospital in Germany, obviously because the military medical staff in Iraq could not effectively treat him on location.

What could cause his internal organs to just deteriorate and shut down? There may be many explanations, but one certainly does fit: Depleted Uranium Poisoning.

NEWS BRIEF: "Mysterious Diseases Haunt U.S. Troops In Iraq", IslamOnline.net, http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2003-07/17/article03.shtml, July 18, 2003.

"BAGHDAD, July 17 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) – Several mysterious diseases were reported among a number of American troops within the vicinity of Baghdad airport, a military source closely close to NATO unveiled. U.S. soldiers deployed around Baghdad airport started showing symptoms of mysterious fever, itching, scars and dark brown spots on the skin, the source, who refused to be named, said in statements published Thursday, July 17, by the Saudi Al-Watan newspaper. He asserted that three soldiers who suffered these symptoms did not respond to medical treatment in Iraqi hospitals and were flown to Washington for medication. The military source reported a media blackout by U.S. officials to hide such information from the public."

Let us stop right here to digest what we have just heard. American troops are said to be getting sick in the vicinity of the Baghdad airport, the very same place where Josh Neusche suddenly collapsed and died. In this article, we heard that the Neusche is awaiting an official explanation from the military, but in this second article, we read that our command has imposed a "media blackout ... to hide such information from the public." That sounds a lot like the response from our government to the veterans of Gulf War I.

LET US NOW GET BACK TO OUR CURRENT ARTICLE:

"U.S. officials did not come up with an explanation for the symptoms, which NATO experts tend to believe result from direct exposure to powerful nuclear radiations of the sophisticated B-2 bombs used in the war on Iraq, particularly in striking Iraqi Republican Guards forces who deployed to defend the vicinity of Baghdad airport. The military source stressed that the shrouds of secrecy imposed by American officials on the issue were prompted by fears of creating waves of panic and anger among the troops, particularly after announcements that American troops would remain in Iraq indefinitely. He asserted that NATO experts measured levels of radioactive pollution in Iraq and confirmed there were levels of radioactive pollution with destructive impacts on man and environment that may lead to risks suffered by generations to come. On April 25, the British Observer quoted military sources as affirming that depleted uranium shells and bombs used by U.S. and British troops during Iraq invasion were five times more than the number used during 1991 Gulf war."

My military sources indicate that we dropped about 10 times more depleted uranium munitions in this war than in Gulf War I. After all, we delivered a massive bombardment on Baghdad dubbed "Shock and Awe", in which tremendous quantities of munitions were expended. Further, we fought a battle for the Baghdad Airport, and fought pitched battles in the southern part of Iraq. In Gulf War I, we had an extensive air campaign, but a limited "100 hour war" on the ground; it stands to reason we would expend far more munitions this time around.

I asked a military doctor serving in a friendly foreign army if these "mysterious diseases" could be Depleted Uranium. The response I received was both telling and chilling.

"Yes, our troops are definitely dying of depleted uranium, but would probably die eventually if the desert weren't dehydrating them. You see, whenever the dehydration factors in, the blood is more concentrated-so whatever toxins a person is exposed to, the problem accelerates and compounds when the toxins are allowed to concentrate."

As I fully contemplated the terrible reality of this statement, several factors began to sink in:

1. Depleted Uranium poisoning within our troops is hastened by the effects of dehydration. I would think most soldiers in the field in Iraq now are suffering from some degree of dehydration, for they are working in very hot combat suits, heavy gear, and 110+ degree temperatures. In fact, some of our men are working and fighting in 120+ degree temperatures, and many of them are becoming dehydrated, undoubtedly to varying degrees.

2. Therefore, these men are likely to come down really sick much faster than the veterans of Gulf War I, who were pulled out of the theater quickly after fighting a "100 hour war"; for these earlier veterans, their exposure to DU was much more limited, and it has taken the last 12 years for them to either die or come down with the symptoms. Yet, today, 75% of the men who were on the ground in Gulf War I are now either dead, dying or exhibiting symptoms consistent with DU.

3. For these poor soldiers, having now to stay in Iraq, breathing in the DU dust daily, being dehydrated to some degree, they are likely to come down really sick or dead much more quickly and more as a group. In this second article, above, we read that men are coming down with mysterious and troublesome symptoms, i.e., fever, itching, scars and dark brown spots on the skin. These are symptoms of Depleted Uranium poisoning. Therefore, more than a few soldiers are now fighting this mysterious malady.

4. If this is the case, how long will it likely take for our combat units in Iraq now to lose combat efficiency? How long can the US Military Command hide the truth from these men? Once the scuttlebutt begins to spread among our men, will panic and significant loss of morale set in, seriously affecting our combat capability?

Before we can answer these questions, let us study Depleted Uranium briefly.

Depleted Uranium -- Carrying Out Nuclear Warfare On The Land of the Enemy And "Nuking" Your Own Soldiers


http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du_rokke101005.htm

DEFINITION OF DEPLETED URANIUM -- DU

"Depleted uranium is what is left over when most of the highly radioactive types (isotopes) of uranium are removed for use as nuclear fuel or nuclear weapons. The depleted uranium used in armor-piercing munitions and in enhanced armor protection for some Abrams tanks is also used in civilian industry, primarily for stabilizers in airplanes and boats. Depleted uranium is a heavy metal that is also slightly radioactive. Heavy metals (uranium, lead, tungsten, etc.) have chemical toxicity properties that, in high doses, can cause adverse health effects. Depleted uranium that remains outside the body can not harm you." [Department of Defense, Frequently Asked Questions, Depleted Uranium]

As far as this statement goes, we have no trouble with the facts DOD is setting forth, as it is virtually inert before it is fired off; however, once Depleted Uranium is used in battle, the dangerous contamination begins. This is the essence of this article.

WHY AND HOW DEPLETED URANIUM IS USED BY OUR MILITARY MACHINE

Almost 15 years ago, the Pentagon decided to start using Depleted Uranium extensively in our munitions. Depleted Uranium (DU) was dirt cheap, since it was the left over material from processing Uranium into nuclear weapons and was normally just being thrown away -- in specially built containers in which all handling was done with men wearing special radiation protection suits, because in the commercial field, this stuff is considered "toxic waste"!

Depleted Uranium also possessed several one other characteristic that made it very useful to a modern fighting force. It is extremely dense and pyrophoric, which enables it to punch and burn its way through hard targets such as tanks. Therefore, DU is used extensively in all armor piercing munitions. ["Depleted Uranium: America's Military 'Gift' That Keeps on Giving", By Dan Fahey, L.A. Times, 2/18/01.

DU has proven so effective, the United States is using it also in the following weapons systems:

1. Navy ships carrying Phalanx rapid fire guns are capable of firing thousands of DU rounds per minute. [."DOD Launches Depleted Uranium Training," Linda Kozaryn, American Forces Press Service, 8-13-99]

2. Some Tomahawk missiles launched from U.S. ships and subs are DU-tipped. [."Nukes of the Gulf War," John Shirley, Zess@aol.com. See this article in archives at www.gulfwarvets.com]

3. M1 Abrams tanks are armored with DU, as are British tanks. [BBC News, "US To Use Depleted Uranium," March 18, 2003; U.S. General Accounting Office, Operation Desert Storm: "Early Performance Assessment of Bradley and Abrams," 1-2-92; covered also by Shirley, op. cit]

4. The A-10 "tank buster" aircraft fires DU 30-mm shells at machines and people on the battlefield. [Shirley, op. cit.]

"When a DU shell is fired, it ignites upon impact. Uranium, plus traces of plutonium and americium, vaporize into tiny, ceramic particles of radioactive dust. Once inhaled, uranium oxides lodge in the body and emit radiation indefinitely. A single particle of DU lodged in a lymph node can devastate the entire immune system according to British radiation expert Roger Coghill." ["US Shells Leave Lethal Legacy," Toronto Star, July 31, 1999; also "Radiation Tests for Peacekeepers in the Balkans Exposed to Depleted Uranium," www.telegraph.co.uk, 12-31-02]

As we stated above, Depleted uranium is relatively benign before it is fired. Thus, handlers of these munitions are at little risk until the battle starts. Once munitions containing DU are fired, the risk changes dramatically; when a DU warhead or bullet hits its target, it virtually vaporizes the warhead, as well as much of the target. Most of the warhead becomes either extremely small fragments -- though larger ones are possible -- and a whole lot of radiation dust. Thus, when a person travels through the battlefield, they breathe in the particles that are now lingering in the air, plus they get a lot of radiation on their clothes. Let us hear from an expert on this type of exposure.

"The Royal Society of England published data showing that battlefield soldiers who inhale or swallow high levels of DU can suffer kidney failure within days. ["Depleted Uranium May Stop Kidneys In Days," Rob Edwards, New Scientist.com, 3-12-02; also "Uranium Weapons Too Hot to Handle," Rob Edwards, New Scientist.co.uk, 6-9-99]

Other soldiers that breathe in lesser amounts do not suffer immediately, but have a high chance of breathing in enough to cause serious problems later on. How many of the ground soldiers are contaminated enough with Depleted Uranium residue?

"Any soldier now in Iraq who has not inhaled lethal radioactive dust is not breathing." [Death By Slow Burn - How America Nukes Its Own Troops", Worthington, Amy The Idaho Observer, 4/16/03]

This fact was confirmed to me by phone by my retired Army Major source. In fact, he confirmed the statistics of the Gulf War I veterans, which we review in shortly. Virtually 100% of the ground troops are radiated to a degree that is troublesome; if Gulf War I is any guide, 75% of the men now serving on the ground will develop one or more of the exceedingly serious medical conditions we list below, in the section covering Gulf War I. In fact, the soldiers who come after the fighting troops to occupy and administer the land are the ones who are most affected! This radioactive dust is virtually impossible to clean up because it is so fine and covers everything -- from burned out and wrecked vehicles to houses in the area to the ground on which children may ultimately play. In residential areas like Basra, this consideration is frightening.

Even though much of the fighting did occur in the desert area, the Iraqis tried very hard to not get their vehicles caught in the open area; they preferred to fight in more congested areas, and in residential locations. Further, we were blasting urban targets continuously; as many Americans were cheering the sight of exploding munitions in Baghdad, for example, few realized such munitions were spreading radioactive dust everywhere.

"In the first two weeks of combat, 700 Tomahawks, at a cost of $1.3 million each, blasted Iraqi real estate into radioactive mushroom clouds. ["Navy Seeks Cash for More Tomahawks," David Rennie in Washington, Telegraph Group Limited, 1-4-03, news.telegraph.co.uk]. Millions of DU tank rounds liter the terrain. Cleanup is impossible because there is no place on the planet to put so much contaminated debris [Worthington, op. cit] and such debris is so fine that, by the time it settles, it is just dust indistinguishable from regular dust.

The U.S. military insists that DU on the battlefield is not a problem. Colonel James Naughton of the U.S. Army Material Command recently told the BBC that complaints about DU "had no medical basis." ["US To Use Depleted Uranium," BBC News, 3-18-03].

However, U.S. Army internal writings show that this is simply not true! Listen:

"A 1993 Pentagon document warned that "when soldiers inhale or ingest DU dust they incur a potential increase in cancer risk." ["Depleted Uranium Symptoms Match US Report As Fears Spread," Peter Beaumont, The Observer (UK) 1-14-01]

"A U.S. Army training manual requires anyone who comes within 25 meters of DU-contaminated equipment to wear respiratory and skin protection." ["Iraqi Cancer, Birth Defects Blamed on US Depleted Uranium," Seattle Post- Intelligencer, 11-12-02]

"The U.S. Army Environmental Policy Institute admitted: "If DU enters the body, it has the potential to generate significant medical consequences." ["US To Use Depleted Uranium," BBC News, 3-18-03]

In fact, internal communication reveals that, not only does the DOD understand DU long-term health effects, they also understand the disastrous costs the government would incur if they ever admitted the truth.

"The financial implications of long-term disability payments and healthcare costs would be excessive." [US Army Environmental Policy Institute: Health and Environmental Consequences of Depleted Uranium in the U.S. Army, Technical Report, June 1995]

As a matter of fact, if we allow the argument to be carried out solely on the basis of the radioactivity, or the lack thereof, we may be badly understating the problem. A major unstated problem with DU may be its chemical toxicity! Listen:

"In the aftermath of the Gulf War, research on rats conducted by the military's Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute found that depleted uranium's chemical toxicity--not its radioactivity--may cause immune system damage, central nervous system problems and may contribute to the development of certain cancers." [Depleted Uranium: America's Military 'Gift' That Keeps on Giving", By Dan Fahey, L.A. Times, 2/18/01]

What sort of medical problems have others experienced because of an exposure to Depleted Uranium munitions? Listen and cry.

"U.S and British troops deployed to the area are the walking dead. Humans and animals, friends and foes in the fallout zone are destined to a long downhill spiral of chronic illness and disability. Kidney dysfunction, lung damage, bloody stools, extreme fatigue, joint pain, unsteady gait, memory loss and rashes and, ultimately, cancer and premature death await those exposed to DU." [Worthington, op. cit.]

Part of the insidious nature of this DU poisoning is that its effects take a long time to develop; therefore, when a soldier becomes ill 3-10 years later, the Pentagon is primed to deny that the origin of the sickness is this Gulf War. Several years ago, I asked a friend of mine, who is a master mechanic, if he could use his knowledge to damage my car rather than fix it. Even though I knew the answer, his full answer surprised me. He said that, not only could he use his extensive knowledge to damage my car but he could damage it in such a way that the breakdown would occur many, many months later so that I could not directly tie his shop to the damage. This is the principle the DOD is using to deny Gulf War I claims. What gains have come in having the Federal Government pay for medical bills for these veterans has come very slowly, very begrudgingly.


http://clifylq.livejournal.com/50025.html

UNITED NATIONS' DEBATE ON DEPLETED URANIUM HEALTH RISKS

"DU munitions are classified by a United Nations resolution as illegal weapons of mass destruction. Their use breaches all international laws, treaties and conventions forbidding poisoned weapons calculated to cause unnecessary suffering." [Worthington, op. cit]

Since this is true, we should expect Iraq to complain to the United Nations about our use of Depleted Uranium munitions in the 1991 Gulf War -- and they did! Let us review a little bit of the pertinent information.

NEWS BRIEF: "Iraq Charges United States, United Kingdom, With Use of Depleted Uranium in 1991 Gulf War; Also In 'Aggression Against Yugoslavia", United Nations Press Release, DC/2702, 1 May 2000.

"Saeed Hasan (Iraq) said backing away from implementation of the provisions of the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) was symptomatic of an unhealthy international atmosphere ... Those actions ... had also caused damage to Iraq through the continuation of an embargo which which was nothing more than a verifiable genocide being carried out in the name of the United Nations. Iraq demanded compensation for those acts of aggression. The United States and the United Kingdom, both depositories of the NPT and permanent members of the Security Council, had also used depleted uranium in their aggression against Iraq in 1991 and again in their aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999. The 300 tons used against his country had polluted Iraq's environment with radiation and significantly increased the registered cases of cancer, especially among children. The radioactive effects of the depleted uranium would continue for centuries to come unless action was taken to free his country's environment from them."

Thus, Iraq did complain bitterly to the United Nations about our use of Depleted Uranium during the 1991 Gulf War! What is the reference the Iraqi representative made to "an embargo which which was nothing more than a verifiable genocide being carried out in the name of the United Nations."? Iraq had petitioned the U.N. to relax its embargo so they could bring in medicine and equipment that would enable them to combat the effects of the uranium poisoning of their people, and the United States blocked the move!

NOW, LET US RETURN TO THIS UNITED NATIONS PRESS RELEASE:

"He (Iraq's representative) invited the Conference to include in its resolutions a call for a prohibition of the use of depleted uranium for armament purposes. He also invited the Conference to take concrete steps to help Iraq reduce the negative effects of that disaster on the environment and on human life, and affirm Iraq's right to demand compensation for the unjustified use against if of weapons of mass destruction." [Ibid.]

Did you catch the significance of this statement? The Iraqi representative accused the United States of using a Weapon of Mass Destruction against it during the Gulf War? What was that WMD? Depleted Uranium! Iraq said her people were suffering terribly because of their continuous exposure to this uranium. Another news story, written about 8 months after this United Nations Press Release, gives some insight into the condition of the exposed Iraqi citizenry. http://cuttingedge.org/news/n1843.cfm


clifylq
http://clifylq.livejournal.com/



We Are Dieing Now America From Bush's DU
You Will Be Next. Help Us Get Out Of Iraq
http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm

speedlinking: more on Islamic bombs ..

From Katie Couric:

http://www.islamicbomb.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34&Itemid=44
Fatal error changed nuclear history

Trento's Column: The CIA and MI6 Protect A.Q. Khan as the British Government Destroys a True Hero

Written by Joseph Trento

http://www.storiesthatmatter.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137&Itemid=29

In the process, by focusing on Amin and not the role of the U.S. government in allowing the Kahn network to keep going, they committed the cardinal sin of journalism – they completely missed the bigger story.

Good source for information on nuclear proliferation and the CIA!!

More, much more is on the link.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1281780&mesg_id=1281780

The Nuclear Walmart - youtube visuals

Start it at about 4:40 minutes as the first part is mostly local news and weather, if you want to save some time.

How nuclear proliferation was achieved ..

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/6/112413/4231/854/431373

I choose this version of the release, as it is fairly comprehensive.

The Daily Kos comments are EXCELLENT, and you might go to the link and check them out ..

Sibel Edmonds case: Front page of the (UK) papers (finally)

by lukery [Subscribe]

Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 08:24:13 AM PST

There's a remarkable article For sale: West’s deadly nuclear secrets on the front page of the British Times today.

A WHISTLEBLOWER (Sibel Edmonds) has made a series of extraordinary claims about how corrupt government officials allowed Pakistan and other states to steal nuclear weapons secrets.
[...]
Edmonds described how foreign intelligence agents had enlisted the support of US officials to acquire a network of moles in sensitive military and nuclear institutions.

• lukery's diary :: ::
• 
  

(Please note that the Times article is long, and I've tried to stay within the parameters of Fair Use. Please go read the whole thing)

From the article:

Edmonds described how foreign intelligence agents had enlisted the support of US officials to acquire a network of moles in sensitive military and nuclear institutions.

Among the hours of covert tape recordings, she says she heard evidence that one well-known senior official in the US State Department was being paid by Turkish agents in Washington who were selling the information on to black market buyers, including Pakistan.

The article doesn't name the official, but he is Marc Grossman, former #3 at the State Department, former ambassador to Turkey, and current Vice President at The Cohen Group, the lobbying company run by former Secretary of Defense William Cohen.

(Sibel) claims that the FBI was also gathering evidence against senior Pentagon officials – including household names – who were aiding foreign agents.

"If you made public all the information that the FBI have on this case, you will see very high-level people going through criminal trials," she said.

Those household names include Richard Perle and Douglas Feith and possibly Paul Wolfowitz. Less familiar names include Eric Edelman, Feith's replacement at the Pentagon, and former Democratic Congressman Stephen Solarz.

(Sibel's) story shows just how much the West was infiltrated by foreign states seeking nuclear secrets. It illustrates how western government officials turned a blind eye to, or were even helping, countries such as Pakistan acquire bomb technology.

I'd quibble with this a little, Sibel has repeatedly said that her case involves criminal infiltration, not state-based espionage. As I wrote back in 2006:

"Sibel's case is about the systematic, long-term, for-profit, looting of US nuclear secrets (and who knows what else) by criminal organizations who then sell the nuclear technology to the highest bidder(s) - including terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda.

To make matters worse, this has been taking place with the full knowledge of the US government."

Back to The Times:

The wider nuclear network has been monitored for many years by a joint Anglo-American intelligence effort. But rather than shut it down, investigations by law enforcement bodies such as the FBI and Britain’s Revenue & Customs have been aborted to preserve diplomatic relations.

Again, I'd quibble with the purported reason for why the investigations were shut down. It may be true that diplomatic relations were at stake, but it's also true that the people at the Pentagon and the State Dept who repeatedly shut down the investigations were also personally profiting from the whole enterprise, which may have (ahem) coloured their decision making process.

Here Sibel describes how investigations were shut down, despite the protestations of FBI agents (she also names Grossman here)

It's also important to note that they haven't specified which 'diplomatic relations' are at stake here. It's not just Pakistan. As Sibel said:

We don’t know what diplomatic relations they are referring to. They must be ashamed of it! They don’t want to mention it. So we have certain diplomatic relations that prevent criminals being prosecuted here. And I am talking about criminals in the United States of America.

The Times article then describes an FBI investigation into "links between the Turks and Pakistani, Israeli and US targets":

The Turks and Israelis had planted "moles" in military and academic institutions which handled nuclear technology. Edmonds says there were several transactions of nuclear material every month, with the Pakistanis being among the eventual buyers. "The network appeared to be obtaining information from every nuclear agency in the United States," she said.

They were helped, she says, by (Marc Grossman) who provided some of their moles – mainly PhD students – with security clearance to work in sensitive nuclear research facilities. These included the Los Alamos nuclear laboratory in New Mexico, which is responsible for the security of the US nuclear deterrent.
[...]
The Turks, she says, often acted as a conduit for the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan’s spy agency, because they were less likely to attract suspicion...

The article goes on to describe how the head of the ISI, General Mahmoud Ahmad, is a supporter of al-Qaeda, including partly financing the 911 terrorist attacks, and is also good friends with AQ Khan. Obviously the nuclear secrets stolen from the US fed directly into Pakistan's nuclear program, and also into Khan's proliferation network. The so-called 'AQ Khan network' provided the nuclear programs of Iran, North Korea, Libya, and possibly up to a dozen other countries. Not only that, immediately prior to 911, Osama Bin Laden met with people in Khan's network with the aim of al-Qaeda acquiring nukes.

The article also describes how the ISI 'penetrated' the FBI translation unit in DC where Sibel worked, in much the same way that the Turkish network had placed moles there - enabling them to block important translations, steal incriminating documents, and recruit others to conduct espionage within the translation unit. Remarkably, this 'penetration' was not the result of remarkable sneakiness and superior spy-craft by the ISI and the Turkish networks - all evidence in both cases indicates that the penetration was condoned & enabled by senior people within the US government. Former FBI counterintelligence veteran John Cole (and others, including Sibel) describes the placement, despite his objections, of ISI operatives in the translation unit here.

The Times article then notes something that I reported 18 months ago. Immediately after 911, the FBI arrested a bunch of people suspected of being involved with the attacks - including four associates of key targets of FBI's counterintelligence operations. Sibel heard the targets tell Marc Grossman: "We need to get them out of the US because we can’t afford for them to spill the beans." Grossman duly facilitated their release from jail and the suspects immediately left the country without further investigation or interrogation.

Let me repeat that for emphasis: The #3 guy at the State Dept facilitated the immediate release of 911 suspects at the request of targets of the FBI's investigation.

Back to The Times:

Edmonds also claims that a number of senior officials in the Pentagon had helped Israeli and Turkish agents.

"The people provided lists of potential moles from Pentagon-related institutions who had access to databases concerning this information," she said.

"The handlers, who were part of the diplomatic community, would then try to recruit those people to become moles for the network. The lists contained all their ‘hooking points’, which could be financial or sexual pressure points, their exact job in the Pentagon and what stuff they had access to."

The article notes that Larry Franklin was one of those implicated in the scheme. However, Sibel has previously noted that Franklin was essentially a pawn in the system. More significant is the fact that high-level Pentagon officials were maintaining 'dossiers' on the sexual and financial proclivities of their underlings in order to be able to blackmail them.

I know that many of you have been (rightly) concerned about FISA, and many of you have (rightly) been confused by the inexplicable behaviour of Democrats in Congress, and wonder why they behave as though they are being blackmailed.

Now you know.

If any American journalists/media wants to step up, please remember that the nuclear black market story covered by The Times is just one element of Sibel's case.

Bradblog has more

Cross-posted at Let Sibel Edmonds Speak

(Email meif you want to be added to my Sibel email list. Subject: 'Sibel email list')

Tags: Sibel Edmonds, AQ Khan, Nuclear Proliferation, Marc Grossman, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Pakistan

What is going on in the nuclear arms race??

By PYOTR GONCHAROV
UPI Outside View Commentator

MOSCOW, Jan. 4 (UPI) -- The national ABM has crossed the boundaries of Russian-U.S. relations and, to all appearances, will soon acquire larger global significance now that Japan is following the American footsteps to establish its own sea- and land-based ABM system.

The plan was already announced and is rapidly being built up.

Only one Japanese destroyer will be on combat duty in the Sea of Japan for now. It carries U.S.-made SM-3 missiles, which successfully completed recent tests. Japan intends to have four similar ships with anti-missiles and Aegis systems designed to detect a big number of flying targets by the spring of 2011.

They will comprise a national sea-based ABM. The second, land-based echelon will be armed with the latest Patriot air-defense systems. Two air-defense batteries have already been deployed near Tokyo. The Japanese ABM will spread much wider by 2010, with approximately 30 such batteries in 11 bases in every part of the country.

The Japanese plan alarm Russia and China, who say it will inevitably trigger an arms race in the region. Tokyo is turning a deaf ear to the warnings. It has something worse to think of -- North Korea with its 200 ballistic missiles capable of hitting targets in the whole of Japan. But then Russia and China are larger and stronger than North Korea and have formidable missile arsenals of their own, so it is unwise to ignore them.

Moscow and Beijing have no legal grounds to protest such plans, Japanese or any other country's, with the United States being the only exception, to a certain extent. The Moscow-Washington controversy over U.S. intentions to deploy its missile defense elements in Europe is widely known, as well as both parties' arguments for and against it. In particular, Russia points to the ABM Treaty, which is no longer in effect because of U.S. actions. A similar treaty would provide a sound alternative to missile defense shields, Moscow insists.

The Soviet Union and the United States signed the ABM Treaty in 1972. It bound the signatories, each with a huge offensive nuclear potential, to limit the use of ABM systems. As they saw it, mutual rejection of missile defense systems was the best barrier to the strategic offensive arms race. ABM limitations reduced the motivation for SNF buildup. That was the idea. Thus, the treaty was a practical reflection of the concept of nuclear deterrence.

Japan was not part of the treaty, but then it has no means of nuclear deterrence, though it certainly needs protection against tentative missile attacks. Its emergent ABM system is strictly within the realm of self-defense.

This situation can be repeated elsewhere. Israel intends to establish its own ABM system, the Iron Dome, to intercept short-range missiles from the Gaza Strip and longer-range missiles from Iran or Syria. In doing this, Tel Aviv proceeds from national, not Russian or American, interests.

European NATO countries may also follow suit. The European ABM idea comes from them. Whether Moscow likes it or not, a continental ABM system can appear tomorrow, if not today.

Now, the Luxembourg Declaration for the Prevention of Nuclear Catastrophe, recently drafted by a team of international disarmament experts, Russians among them, recommends urgent measures to ward off a nuclear crisis -- in particular, to place smaller emphasis on nuclear deterrence and step up international cooperation for ABM development.

The Russian-U.S. Joint Declaration on a New Relationship, signed in 2002, bound the signatories to take stock of the opportunities for practical ABM partnership in Europe. They also announced their intentions to reduce their strategic offensive forces to a minimum.

In other words, Moscow and Washington concluded in the declaration that the nuclear deterrence principle -- the basis of the ABM Treaty -- was outdated. The world situation instead demanded new instruments to provide national security and reflect the new Russian-U.S. strategic relations.

see also,

The Pacific Arms Race

by Robert Maginnis

Posted: 01/04/2008

and


Russia to set up missile shield for Iran Vladimir Radyuhin

MOSCOW: Russia will set up a massive anti-missile shield in Iran that will virtually guarantee the country against military attacks.

Resoures used in the nuclearconsult.com report

REFERENCES

Arthur WB (1989): Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-in
by Historical Events, Economic Journal, No. 99.
Arthur WB (1996): Increasing Returns and the New World of Business,
Harvard Business Review, July-Aug.
Bijker, W (1995): Of Bicycles, Bakelite and Bulbs: toward a theory of
sociotechnical change, MIT Press, Cambridge.
Brown N, Michael M (2003): A sociology of expectations: Retrospecting
prospects and prospecting retrospects, Technology Analysis and Strategic
Management, 15(1) 3-18.
Carbon Trust (2006): Future Marine Energy: Results of the Marine Energy
Challenge: Cost competitiveness and growth of wave and tidal stream energy,
The Carbon Trust, London.
CEC (Commission of the European Communities) (2003): External Costs:
research results on socio-economic damages due to electricity and transport,
Brussels, 2003.
CERRIE (Committee Examining Radiation Risk from Internal Emitters) (2004):
Report of the Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters
(CERRIE), CERRIE, DoH, Defra, London.
CERRIE (Committee Examining Radiation Risk from Internal Emitters) (2004):
CERRIE Minority Report 2004, SOSIUMI Press, Aberystwyth.
CoRWM (Committee on Radioactive Waste Management) (2006): Managing
our Radioactive Waste Safely: CoRWM’s recommendations to government,
CoRWM, November.
CoRWM (Committee on Radioactive Waste Management) (2007): Ethics and
Decision making for Radioactive Waste, February.
COMARE (Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment)
(1986): First Report: The Implications of the New Data on the Releases from
Sellafield in the 1950's for the Conclusions of the Report on the Investigation
of the Possible Increased Incidence of Cancer in West Cumbria, HMSO,
London.
COMARE (Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment)
(1988): Second Report: Investigation of the Possible Increased Incidence of
Leukaemia in Young People Near the Dounreay Nuclear Establishment,
Caithness, Scotland, HMSO, London.
82
COMARE (Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment)
(1989): Third Report: Report on the Incidence of Childhood Cancer in the
West Berkshire and North Hampshire Area, in Which are Situated the Atomic
Weapons Research Establishment, Aldermaston and the Royal Ordnance
Factory, Burghfield, HMSO Books, London.
COMARE (Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment)
(1994): Fourth Report: The Incidence of Cancer and Leukaemia in Young
People in the Vicinity of the Sellafield Site, West Cumbria: Further Studies
and an Update of the Situation Since the Publication of the Report of the
Black Advisory Group in 1984, DoH, Wetherby.
COMARE (Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment)
(1998): Fifth Report: The Incidence of Cancer and Leukaemia in the Area
Around the Former Greenham Common Airbase. An Investigation of a
Possible Association with Measured Environmental Radiation Levels, NRPB,
Oxon.
COMARE (Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment)
(1999). Sixth Report. A reconsideration of the possible health implications of
the radioactive particles found in the general environment around the
Dounreay Nuclear Establishment in the light of the work undertaken since
1995 to locate their source. National Radiological Protection Board, March
1999.
COMARE (Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment)
(2004). Ninth Report. Advice to Government on the review of radiation risks
from radioactive internal emitters carried out and published by the Committee
Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters (CERRIE). National
Radiological Protection Board, October 2004.
COMARE (Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment)
(2005): Tenth Report. The incidence of childhood cancer around nuclear
installations in Great Britain. Health Protection Agency, June 2005.
Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2007): Energy the Danish way,
http://www.amblondon.um.dk/en/
David et al (1996): Standardisation, Diversity and Learning: strategies for the
coevolution of technology and industrial capacity, International Journal of
Industrial Organization, 14, 181-201, 1996.
David P (1985): Clio and the Economics of QWERTY, American Economic
Review, 75:332-7
Defra and Devolved Administrations (2007) Managing Radioactive Waste
Safely: a framework for implementing geological disposal, public consultation,
June.
83
DTI (Department of Trade and Industry) (20030: Energy White Paper: our
energy future - creating a low carbon economy, HMSO, London, March 2003.
Available (16/7/6) at: http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/ energy-policy/energywhite-
paper/page21223.html
DTI (Department of Trade and Industry), Carbon Trust (2004): Renewables
Innovation Review, 2004.
DTI (Department of Trade and Industry) (2006): The Energy Challenge: report
of the UK Government Energy Review, DTI London, July 2006. Available
(16/7/6) at: http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file31890.pdf
Department of Trade and Industry (2007): The Future of Nuclear Power,
Consultation Document, May.
EC (European Community) (2001): Energy Green Paper, Towards a
European Strategy for the Security of Energy Supply, European Commission
2001.
ECRR (European Committee on Radiation Risk) (2003): Health effects of
ionising radiation exposure at low doses for radiation protection purposes,
Regulators Edition, Brussels, 2003.
ECRR (European Committee on Radiation Risk) (2006): Chernobyl 20 Years
On, Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident, Documents of the ECRR, 2006.
Elliott (2007): Supporting Renewables: Feed-in tariffs and quota/trading
systems' in Elliott. D (ed): Sustainable Energy, Palgrave, London.
German Childhood Cancer Registry (GCCR) for Federal Office for Radiation
Protection (2007): Cancer risk for children near German power plants,
http://www.bfs.de/en/bfs/presse/aktuell_press/Studie_Kernkraftwerke.html
Grubb M (1997): Technologies, energy systems and the timing of CO2
emissions abatement: an overview of economic issues, Energy Policy, 25(2),
1997: 159-172.
Hughes T (1983): Networks of Power: electrification in western society 1880-
1930, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Hughes T (1994): Technological Momentum, in M. Smith, L. Marx, Does
Technology Drive History, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1994.
Jackson Consulting (2007) Siting new nuclear power stations: availability and
options for government, Discussion paper for DTI expert group, Jackson
Consulting Limited.
Khadim MA, Marsden SJ, Goodhead DT, Malcomson AM, Folkard M, Prise
KM, Micheal BD (2001): Long-term genomic instability in human lymphocytes
induced by single-particle irradiation, Radiation research, No. 155, pp. 122-6.
84
King D (2006): Why we have no alternative to nuclear power. The
Independent, 13th July 2006.
Landau R, Taylor, Wright (1996): The Mosaic of Economic Growth, Stanford
University Press, Stanford, 1996.
Large J (2006): Decommissioning Nuclear Plants - Openings for the Terrorist
Threat, 10th Global Conference & Exhibition on Decommissioning Nuclear -
Taking Experience Forward, London 20-22 November 2006,
http://www.largeassociates.com/ibc%20decommr/IBCpaperFINAL%2014%20
11%2006.pdf
Large J (2007): Assessments of the Radiological Consequences of Releases
from Existing and Proposed French EPR/PWR Nuclear Power Plants,
February 2007, http://www.largeassociates.com/3150%20Flamanville/r3150-
final-1.pdf
MacDonald (2003): Uranium: Sustainable Resource or Limit to Growth ? Colin
MacDonald, World Nuclear Association Annual Symposium, September 2003
(published in Nuclear Energy Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 99-05, 2004).
MacKerron et al (forthcoming): Climate of Urgency: Empowering Energy
Policy, Palgrave, London, forthcoming 2008.
Misa et al (2003): Modernity and Technology, Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Mitchell C (2007): The Political Economy of A Sustainable Energy, Palgrave,
London, 2007.
Mokyr J (1992): The Lever of Riches: technological creativity and economic
progress, Oxford.
MPA (Major Projects Association) (2006): A New Generation of UK Nuclear
Power Plants: are we ready? Institute of Civil Engineers, February 2006.
Morgan WF, Day JP, Kaplan MI, McGee EM , & Limoli CL (1996): Genomic
instability induced by ionising radiation, Radiation Research, Vol. 146, pp.
247-258.
OECD (2004): Uranium 2003: Resources, Production and Demand, a Joint
Report by the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency and the International Atomic
Energy Agency.
Patterson W (1999): Transforming Electricity, Earthscan, London, 1999
PIU (Performance and Innovation Unit) (2001): Working Paper on Generating
Technologies: Potentials and cost reductions to 2020, UK Cabinet Office,
London, 2001.
85
PIU (2002): The Energy Review, Performance and Innovation Unit, Cabinet
Office, London.
PMSU (Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit) (2002): The Energy Review, UK
Cabinet Office, February. Available (16/7/6) at: http://
www.strategy.gov.uk/downloads/su/energy/TheEnergyReview.pdf
Rosenberg (1982): Inside the Black Box: technology and economics,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982.
Runci, P J (2003): Renewable energy policy in Germany, an overview and
assessment, JGCRI, University of Maryland
http://www.globalchange.umd.edu/energytrends/germany/
Sauter and Watson (2007): Strategies for Deployment of Microgeneration:
implications for social acceptance, Energy Policy, 35(5), pp2770-2779, 2007.
SDC (Sustainable Development Commission) (2006): The Role of Nuclear
Power in a Low Carbon Economy, Sustainable Development Commission,
London, March 2006.
Smith and Stirling (2007): Moving Outside or Inside? Objectification and
Reflexivity in the Governance of Socio-technical systems, Journal of
Environmental Policy and Planning, 8(3-4), September 2007, pp.1-23
Smythe, D. (2007): Consultation Exercise: geological disposal of nuclear
waste, statement to Defra consultation exercise, October.
Soerenson (2000): Renewable Energy, Academic Press, New York, 2000.
Stewart A & Kneale G (2000): A bomb survivors: factors that may lead to a reassessment
of the radiation hazard, International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol
29, pp 708-714.
Stirling A (1997): Limits to the Value of External Costs, Energy Policy,
25(5).517-540
Stirling A (1997b): ‘Multicriteria Mapping: mitigating the problems of
environmental valuation?’, chapter in J. Foster (ed), Valuing Nature:
economics, ethics and environment, Routledge, London, 1997.
Stirling A (2003): Stirling, Risk, Uncertainty and Precaution: some
instrumental implications from the social sciences, in F. Berkhout, M. Leach, I.
Scoones (eds), ‘Negotiating Change’, Elgar, 2003.
Stirling A (2005): Opening Up or Closing Down: analysis, participation and
power in the social appraisal of technology, in M. Leach, I. Scoones, B.
Wynne, ‘Science and citizens: globalization and the challenge of
engagement’, Zed, London, pp.218-231.
86
Stirling A (2007): A General Framework for Analysing Diversity in Science,
Technology and Society, Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 4(15), August
2007, pp.707-719.
Stirling A (2008): Diversity and Sustainable Energy Transitions: multicriteria
diversity analysis of electricity portfolios, chapter for M. Bazilian et al, (eds),
Portfolio-Based Electricity Planning: Enhancing Energy Diversity and Security
– A Tribute to Shimon Awerbuch, Elsevier, forthcoming 2008.
Sundqvist et al (2004): Electric Power Generation: Valuation of Environmental
Costs, in C.J. Cleveland (ed.), Encyclopedia of Energy, Academic Press, San
Diego, 2004.
Sullivan Judgement (2007): The Queen on the Application of Greenpeace Ltd.
Versus Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Judgement, Thursday 15
February given in the High Court of Justice Administrative Division.
UKERC (2007): Final Report on Dti-Defra scenarios and sensitivities, using
the UK Markal and Markal-Macro energy system models, UK Energy
Research Centre/ Policy Studies Institute, London, May 2007.
UNSCEAR (2000): Sources and effects of ionising radiation, Report to the
General Assembly, with scientific annexes, UN, New York.
De Vries et al (2007): Renewable Energy Resources: their global potential for
the first half of the 21st Century at a global level – an integrated approach,
Energy Policy, 35, 2007:2590-2610.
Walker W (2000): Entrapment in Large Technical Systems: institutional
commitment and power relations, Research Policy, 29 (7-8) 833-846.
WEA (World Energy Assessment): (2000): Energy and the Challenge of
Sustainability, United Nations Development Programme, New York, 2000.
WEC (World Energy Council) (1994): New Renewable Energy Resources – a
guide to the future, Kogan Page, London, 1994.
Wicks M (2005): Grasping the Nuclear Nettle, Observer, 4 December.
Winner, 1977 L. Winner, Autonomous Technology: technics out of control as a
theme in political thought, Cambridge: MIT Press.
Yablokov AV (2006): The Chernobyl Catastrophe – 20 years After, a metareview,
in: Chernobyl, 20 Years On, ECRR, 2006.

WEBSITE

Downloadable copies of this report, and further information on the
Energy Review consultation can be found on the website:
nuclearconsult.com

FURTHER READING

Demos (2004): See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move
upstream, Demos, London.
Demos (2005): Start with people: How community organizations put citizens in
the driving seat, Demos, London.
Involve (2005): People and Participation: How to put citizens at the heart of
decision-making, Involve, London.
Involve (2006): The Nanotechnology Engagement Group, Policy Report 1,
Involve, London.
Power Inquiry (2006): Power to the People: The report of Power – an
independent inquiry into Britain’s democracy, The Power Inquiry, York.
Tyndall Centre (2005): De-carbonising the UK: Energy for a climate conscious
future, Tyndall Centre.

Academics say safety concerns of new generation of nuclear plants not yet addressed.

A group of U.K. scientists and academics Friday condemned as undemocratic and possibly illegal the British government's plans to force through a new generation of nuclear power stations to meet Britain's energy needs for the next 30 years. They warn that questions about the risks from radiation, disposal of nuclear waste and vulnerability to a terrorist attack have not been addressed - even though the government was ordered last February to repeat a public consultation on energy supply, after its exercise was declared unlawful by a high court judge. Friday the nuclear consultation group, made up of 17 energy economists and several of the government's independent advisers on nuclear waste, condemned the methods used in the second attempt to gather public and expert opinion. "We are profoundly concerned that the government's approach was designed to provide particular and limiting answers," said Paul Dorfman, a spokesman for the independent group, which includes professors of Oxford, Sussex, and Lancaster universities, and Rutgers in the U.S. "Those answers risk locking in U.K. energy to an inflexible and vulnerable pathway that will prove unsustainable," he added. In an 87-page report, the group says: "Significant issues were not consulted on in any meaningful way or resolved in practice. It has left the government vulnerable to legal challenge and may lead to hostility and mistrust of any future energy decision," the paper warns. Contributors include Andy Stirling, director of science at the Science Policy Research Unit, Jerome Ravetz, fellow of the Institute for Science and Civilization at Oxford University, Dave Elliott, co-director of energy and research at the Open University, Gordon Walker, chair of environment at Lancaster University, and Frank Barnaby, at the Oxford Research Group. The report comes as the government prepares to give the go-ahead next week for a major expansion of nuclear power, which could herald the building 20 reactors by private firms. Prime minister Gordon Brown is convinced, as was Tony Blair, nuclear power is needed to ensure energy security and to limit carbon emissions. The intervention could trigger fresh legal action, however. Thursday Greenpeace, whose challenge to the energy review was upheld last year, said it would wait to see the government's formal response on Tuesday before deciding whether to return to the courts. A new court case could delay the start of building stations by a further year. The government is expected to insist it has a mandate. In meetings in the autumn, more than 1,000 people were asked their view of nuclear power after seeing videos and taking part in discussion: 44% said power firms should have the option to build nuclear; 36% said no. A Department for Business and Enterprise spokeswoman said: "We gave people five months to respond, longer than the average three to four month consultation period. We have received 2,700 responses from the extensive consultation, which included public meetings across the U.K., a written consultation document, and a website. Time is pressing. We need to make a decision on whether we should continue to get some of our electricity from nuclear, which is a low carbon form of making energy." Green groups said the questions were loaded and the information presented biased and inaccurate. A complaint was made to the Market Research Standards Board alleging the market research firm involved broke the code of conduct. A Greenpeace letter sent to the Treasury solicitors before Christmas says: "It would be unlawful for the government to make a decision to build new nuclear power stations without knowing what will happen to the new radioactive waste." The consultation response will be a statement by energy secretary John Hutton, followed in days by an energy bill. Intellpuke says: Ever since then prime minister Tony Blair announced a push for nuclear power, the British government, hand-in-hand, if you will, with the nuclear industry, has been trying to rush the decision and push forward with construction as rapidly as possible. Yet its first "citizen review" was found woefully lacking by a British high court which, in essence, said many of the governments statements about nuclear power and safety were inaccurate and misleading. Now, it sounds as if the second round of "citizen review" is equally lacking in objectivity regarding construction methods and safety. Contrary to what the nuclear industry would have people believe, nuclear power is not a "clean" energy. It is, in fact, about the most toxic and lethal form of energy humans have come up with. All it will take is one construction error in a key area or one successful terrorist attack because security was not adequate to create a disaster in Britain, or anywhere else that will rival, if not surpass that of Chernobyl. Just one such blunder would not only make the immediate vicinity of the incident a "dead zone" but spread that dead zone across a surprisingly large area downwind from the incident. You can read this article by Guardian environment editor John Vidal, reporting from Manchester, England, in context here: www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/04/nuclearpower.greenpolitics You can also find a link to the independent group's full 87-page report, in PDF format, at the link to this article. you can find it at www.nuclearconsult.com and this is its executive summary: 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The public mistrust of policy decision-making on issues involving nuclear risk is a defining issue. In order to overcome this mistrust, government has consulted with the public about the potential role of nuclear power in future energy policy - the idea is to weigh expert knowledge with every-day knowledge to arrive at a democratic and balanced view. Here, the practice and purpose of this public dialogue, and the models of engagement to enable it, are core to the relationship between government and the public in a modern democracy. In order to overcome the widespread belief that institutions wishing to impose their arbitrary actions upon the public may be secretive, all the key framing propositions and assumptions underpinning the nuclear power consultation need to be made explicit in any case that is put forward for new nuclear power stations. To access true public opinion about such a high-stakes issue, the public consultation should have been clear, integrated, independent, and conducted over a long enough time-frame. Failure to do so has left the government vulnerable to legal challenge and may lead to hostility and mistrust of any future energy policy decision. Even in the most technical and sophisticated forms of analysis, it seems that the answer you get depends on the way you frame the question. We suggest that the key assumptions underpinning the government’s approach to the 2007 nuclear consultation remain open to critical analysis. We are profoundly concerned that these framing assumptions were designed to provide particular and limited answers - and those answers risk locking in UK energy futures to an inflexible and vulnerable pathway that will prove unsustainable. This report discusses the form and function of the nuclear consultation, and then addresses the issues and challenges that were elided and obscured during that consultation. We conclude that the government erred in asking the public to take a decision ‘in principle’ for more nuclear power when significant ‘what if’ issues were not consulted on in any meaningful way, or resolved in practice. These issues include uncertainty about: nuclear fuel supply and manufacture, vulnerability to attack, security and nuclear proliferation, radiation waste, radiation risk and health effects, reactor decommissioning, reactor design and siting, cost of electricity generating technologies, energy distribution models, true renewable and energy efficiency modelling. We take no satisfaction that our Conclusions and Recommendations to government are based on the understanding that the 2007 nuclear power consultation has failed. Poor consultation practice wastes people’s time and can seriously undermine people’s trust in government. The extent of mistrust of the institutions and the institutional culture underpinning nuclear power underlines that this is a public mood that, although not immutable, has been deeply entrenched by long and discouraging experience. Although a broader, 6 deeper, even-handed consultation may have appeared an inconvenience to certain sectors of the nuclear industry, a truly involving process would have produced a better result for everyone by generating greater social consensus and trust in the eventual outcome.

The UNTOLD NUCLEAR WAR

The Untold Nuclear War


For the past year and a half or so I have been intensely studying the cesspool that is US foreign affairs. I have learned all sorts of surprising facts that were never taught to me in school. Facts like, since 1945 our government has attempted to overthrow more than 50 governments, engaged in unprovoked military invasion of some 20 sovereign nations, worked to crush more than 30 populist movements which were fighting against dictatorial regimes and etc., doesn’t easily roll off an American teachers tongue. (2)

I wonder how much more peaceful the world would have been this past fifty years or so if it were not for our foreign policy.

I have seen the results of the 2003 “Shock and Awe” bombing campaign. I have seen the photos of the burned and mutilated; I have seen the photos of the dead lying lifeless among the rubble; and I have seen how bombs, smart or otherwise, do not discriminate between children and combatants. It leaves a distinct impression to see a photo of a man holding a little girl whose foot is hanging from her leg by only a few strands of flesh. Or the image of a dead Iraqi boy whose entire back of his head was blown off leaving the remainder of his head looking like some strange Hollywood prop. “Mission accomplished.

However, nothing I have seen or read prepared me for the “untold nuclear war.” I am not referring to atomic or nuclear bombs that engulf entire cities in flames; I am referring to depleted uranium munitions.

Depleted uranium, or DU, is a by-product of the production of enriched uranium fuel for nuclear reactors and weapons. Basically it’s nuclear waste. In order to be used in reactors or bombs, natural uranium has to be processed by removing less than 1/2 of 1% of a special kind of uranium called U-235. This U-235 is the stuff nuclear weapons go “boom” with or nuclear reactors create electricity with. What’s left from this process, depleted uranium, mainly U-238, is still very radioactive and dangerous to life. In other words, there’s nothing depleted about depleted uranium. (3)

As one can imagine, if you only get less than 1/2 of 1% of U-235 from the uranium you process, you are going to have a lot of waste. Some “genius” wanted to put this waste to “good” use and their solution was to put it in military bullets, shells, missiles, and bombs, because, as it was discovered, DU enhances a projectiles ability to pierce armor and fortifications.

The DU is placed inside the missile or bomb. When the munition explodes upon impact, the dense depleted uranium ignites at high temperatures which is highly effective in cutting through armor - like a hot knife through butter. Thus DU is used in armor-piercing bullets, missiles and in “bunker-busters.” DU is even used in tank armor because of its density, as in the case of the M1A1 Abrams tank.

So, What’s So Bad About DU?

DU emits three types of radiation. They are: (3) (4)

1. Alpha Particles. These particles are blocked by objects, as light is blocked by a sheet of paper. We are protected from alpha particles by our skin, unless alpha radiation is inhaled, ingested or absorbed into the blood stream through scratches and wounds, then it is highly dangerous. It is also chemically toxic.

2. Beta Particles (high speed electrons). These particles can penetrate human skin to a depth of 1 cm.

3.Photon Particles (x-rays and gamma rays). These particles can pass completely through a human body.

Natural uranium apparently can pass harmlessly through our bodies. What makes DU so sinister is what takes place upon explosion. During explosion, DU ignites and 40% to 70% is aerosolized into a fine spray which then contaminates the air, soil and water around the target area. These particles, which are smaller than viruses or bacteria, can enter the lungs via breathing, enter the blood stream via open wounds or enter organs via ingestion from contaminated food and water supplies. The impact of DU munitions convert the uranium from a heavy metal into a ceramic heavy metal, which makes it virtually insoluble and therefore difficult to excrete. (3) (5) (6)

Aside from being radioactive, DU is toxic as well, much in the same way that mercury or lead is toxic to our bodies. This explains the “double whammy” effect DU victims get. First they suffer from the toxicity of DU in their bodies. Once they recover, they then get cancer. This, in part, explains many of the strange maladies that our Gulf War I and II veterans suffer from.

DU causes a vast array of illness and disease from acute skin rashes, severe headaches, muscle and joint pain, general fatigue, to major birth defects, infection, depression, cardiovascular disease, brain tumors and every other type of cancer. Furthermore, uranium replaces calcium, thus destroying teeth and bones.(3) (5)

If a person inhales depleted uranium it will first attach itself to the trachea and stick to lung tissue. As DU is virtually insoluble, it won’t easily dissolve in the bloodstream. It clings to the respiratory system for years, even decades, irradiating and damaging surrounding tissue and organs. Gradually the DU passes through the lung-blood membranes and into the bloodstream and lymphatic system. The radiation mutates cells, causing cancers, leukemia, lymphoma, congenital disorders and birth defects. (3)

If DU enters a persons bloodstream via the mouth, open wounds or shrapnel, it will circulate freely through the body, emitting radiation as it travels. Some DU particles will concentrate in the lymph nodes and cause lymphatic cancer. It damages the immune system by hastening the death of white blood cells and impairing their ability to attack bacteria. Other particles cause low-level cell irradiation in the bone marrow and in the stem cells the body creates there. Stem cells are the progenitors of all other cells that the body manufactures in order to renew itself. Stem cells are very vulnerable. When bombarded with alpha particles, their DNA falls apart potentially affecting every organ. The result is sort of like trying to build a home with inferior materials; things fall apart. (3)

DU dust falls indiscriminately everywhere over the area it reaches. Its contamination affects every living thing and cannot be remediated.

- Dr. George Wald, Professor of Biology and Nobel Laureate. (5)

The Department of Defense says there is no scientific evidence of any increased health risks from exposure to DU, including cancer and leukemia. Furthermore, there was no problem in the Persian Gulf War and there is no potential hazard in the Balkans - except under very limited circumstances. (7)

The DOD also references the much-cited Institute of Medicine Report, which studied the effects of uranium workers. The problem with that reference is it has nothing to do with depleted uranium, nor does it study the effects of DU in uncontrolled battle conditions. (7)

Furthermore, US government and Pentagon statements about DU don’t match up. While they minimize the danger of DU, in 1995 a US Army Environmental Policy Institute Report stated, “If DU enters the body, it has the potential to generate significant medical complications. The risks associated with DU in the body are both chemical and radiological...Personnel inside or near vehicles struck by DU penetrators could receive significant internal exposure.” Also, according to Sara Flounders, co-director of the International Action Center and coordinator of the DU Education Project, claims that Army training manuals require anyone who comes within 75 feet of any DU-contaminated equipment or terrain to wear respiratory and skin protection. (1) (7)

Another piece of information that completely contradicts the Pentagon’s “DU is safe” statements is the Army’s technical bulletin on guidelines for a safe response to handling accidents with DU. The bulletin warns firefighters that “significant concentrations of DU oxide dust could be expelled from the fire in the event of an explosion...” And further, “Keeping out of the downwind plume, or wearing a self-contained breathing apparatus, will provide adequate respiratory protection.” The report even states that “emergency response personnel who sustain minor injuries but are also contaminated with DU should be decontaminated prior to treatment of minor injuries...” This is all great for the firefighter, but what about the soldier who unknowingly comes in contact with this stuff in the battlefield? What about the civilians? (4)

What Do Independent Scientists Say About DU?

The chief researcher, Asaf Durakovic, at the Nuclear Research Center in Canada reported finding high levels of DU in urine and blood samples in Gulf War Veterans ten years after the war. Dr. Durakovic states that much of the ill-defined Gulf War Syndrome is related to DU radiation and/or toxicity. He is critical of the US Defense Department and the British Ministry of Defense because they have consistently refused to test Gulf War Veterans for DU. (7)

The Answer My Friend, Is Blowing In The Wind

Microscopic and sub-microscopic DU particles are capable of being swept up into the air and, as radioactive atmospheric dust, carried by winds, many, many miles away.

In 1979, depleted uranium escaped from the National Lead Industries factory near Albany, NY. They were manufacturing DU munitions for the US military. The particles traveled 26 miles and were discovered in a laboratory filter by Dr. Leonard Dietz, a nuclear physicist. The factory was shut down in 1980 for releasing .85 pounds of DU dust into the atmosphere every month and involved a 100 million dollar clean-up. But, why the clean-up if there is no harm from DU like the Pentagon says?

Dr. Chris Busby, Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk tested radiation levels in the wake of the 2003 “hearts and minds” campaign, “Shock and Awe.” Dr. Busby recorded that uranium particles traveled 2,400 miles in nine days from Iraq to Aldermaston, England. This US made radioactive cloud quadrupled Europe’s atmospheric radiation levels. This contradicts Pentagon denials that DU contamination spreads far beyond the target sites struck. Dr. Busby stated, “This research shows that rather than remaining near the target, as claimed by the military, depleted uranium weapons contaminate both locals and whole populations hundreds to thousands of miles away.” (5) (8) (9)

340 tons of DU munitions were used in the first Gulf War in 1991. In 1999, a similar amount was used in Yugoslavia. Since the last count, more than 1,000 tons have been used in Afghanistan and more than 3,000 tons in Iraq. (3) (5)

The Story of Dr. Doug Rokke

Dr. Doug Rokke was an US Army contractor in the first Gulf War. Rokke’s job was to decontaminate shot-up vehicles and tanks. Some of these vehicles went back to
the US; others were considered too radioactive to move and were buried in a giant hole in the ground.

In an interview with reporter Julie Flint, Rokke said, “The US Army made me their expert. I went into the project with the total intent to ensure they could use uranium munitions in war, because I’m a warrior. What I saw as director of the project led me to one conclusion: Uranium munitions must be banned from the planet, for eternity, and medical care must be provided for everyone - those on the firing end and those on the receiving end.”

Rokke suffers from serious health problems. He has brain lesions, lung and kidney damage, reactive airway disease, permanent skin rashes, neurological damage and cataracts. In November of 1994, government doctors finally agreed to test him - three and a half years after he fell ill while he was director of the Pentagon’s Depleted Uranium Project. Doctors found Rokke to have 5,000 times the permissible level of radiation in his body.

Rokke’s team in Iraq was made of 100 employees. These people were devastated by exposure to DU dust. “When we went to the Gulf, we were all really healthy,” said Rokke, “However, after performing clean-up operations in the desert...30 staff members died, and most others developed serious health problems.”

In his papers describing his findings, Rokke recorded levels of contamination that were 15 times the Army’s permissible levels in tanks hit by DU and up to 4.5 times such levels in clothing exposed to DU.

Rokke went on to say, “After everything I’ve seen, everything I’ve done, it became very clear to me that you just can’t take radioactive wastes from one nation and just throw it into another nation. It’s wrong. It’s simply wrong...”

“One way or another, the Pentagon will pay a price. Using DU is a war crime. It’s that simple. Once you’ve scattered all this stuff around, and then refuse to clean it up, you’ve committed a war crime.”

The Story of Sgt. Michael Lee Tosto, US Army

Sgt. Michael Tosto died “mysteriously” in Baghdad on June 17, 2003. He was 24 years old.

The Army told Tosto’s family that he died from pulmonary edema (fluid accumulation and swelling in the lungs) and pericardial effusion (accumulation of fluid in the sac that contains the heart), or cardiac failure, after showing flu-like symptoms. After Michael’s funeral, a fellow soldier contacted Michael’s wife Stephanie and told her that his buddy started coughing up blood and his lips turned blue and was dead within 48 hours after the first symptoms.

Inhaling depleted uranium causes pulmonary edema. Symptoms are bleeding lungs, bronchial pneumonia and vomited blood. Pericardial effusion is a common cause of death among leukemia patients. Sgt. Tosto’s military autopsy exhibited elevated levels of white blood cells. Exposure to DU can cause lymphocytic leukemia.

At her husband’s funeral, Stephanie Tosto, noticed his wedding ring was missing. The Army explained that Sgt. Tosto’s belongings were missing due to possible contamination. Contaminated with what? The Army also issued new dog tags for Michael’s funeral. What was wrong with the old ones? Were the originals contaminated too? And why didn’t the Army immediately contact Mrs. Tosto at the emergency number her husband was carrying?

The Story of Wilder Gutierrez Rubbio (3)

UPI reported in December of 2005 that Wilder Gutierrez Rubio, 38, had died a few hours after returning home to Lima, Peru. He had been diagnosed by doctors at Ibn Sina Hospital in Baghdad with severe leukemia, which they attributed to depleted uranium exposure, even though he had served in Baghdad only a short time. Gutierrez was part of a contingent of Latin Americans recruited by a US company to provide security for Baghdad’s Green Zone.

The Story of Captain Terry Riordon, Canadian Armed Forces

Captain Riordon served in the first Gulf War. He passed away in April 1999 at the age of 45. He left Canada a very fit man who did cross-country skiing and ran in marathons. Upon his return only two months later he could barely walk.

Terry returned to Canada in 1991 with a documented loss of motor control, chronic fatigue, respiratory difficulties, chest pain, difficulty breathing, sleep problems, short-term memory loss, testicle pain, body pains, aching bones, diarrhea and depression. He suffered for eight years, struggling with the military bureaucracy and the system to get proper diagnosis and treatment.

We know that Captain Riordon suffered from depleted uranium, because he donated his body to the Uranium Medical Research Center. It was because of this donation that the UMRC could obtain conclusive evidence that inhaling fine particles of DU dust completely destroyed Riordon’s health.

The Story of the Unborn

The most horrific and devastating effects of depleted uranium is on unborn children.

Nothing can prepare anyone for the sight of hundreds of preserved fetuses that barely resemble human children. Iraq is now seeing babies with terribly foreshortened limbs, with their intestines outside their bodies, with huge bulging tumors where their eyes should be, or with a single eye-like Cyclops, or without eyes or without limbs, and even without heads. Significantly, some of the defects are almost unknown except for in textbooks showing the babies born near A-bomb test sites in the Pacific. Some of the photos of these fetuses and newborns can be seen on the US Citizens for a Safer Foreign Policy website link: www.uscsfp.org/id20.html

Support Our Troops!

In the first Iraq war, the ground offensive lasted only 100 hours. During the Gulf War the US military incurred: 467 individuals wounded in action, 148 killed in battle, and 145 killed in other than battle (i.e. accidents). Therefore, the total number of US Gulf War casualties was 760 at the time of redeployment. (10)

The February 2006 Gulf War Veterans Information System Report published by the Department of Veterans Affairs states that 609,198 served in the Gulf War conflict. As of February 2006, 260,209 veterans had filed claims for benefits based on service-connected injuries and illnesses caused by Gulf War combat related duties. Department of Veterans Affairs officials have processed 228,513 claims for medical care, compensation, and pension, determining that for 200,107 veterans their injuries and illnesses are service connected, caused by Gulf War exposures and injuries. Consequently they have been awarded lifetime medical care, compensation, and pensions based on the extent of their medical problems. (10) (11) (12)

SINCE THE CESSATION OF GULF WAR HOSTILITIES IN 1991: AN ADDITIONAL 11,910 VETERANS HAVE DIED FROM SERVICE CONNECTED INJURIES AND EXPOSURES INCURRED DURING OPERATION DESERT SHIELD AND OPERATION DESERT STORM. (10) (11) (12)

All this from what the Department of Defense still calls a “mystery disease.”

Neither the VA or the DOD have provided the clear research needed to answer the basic question: What part did DU play in causing death and illness among so many Gulf War Veterans?

If we really “supported our troops,” we would take those stupid magnets off our cars, demand our soldiers home now, give them and all veterans the care they deserve, while taking those who authorized and condoned the use of depleted uranium and ship them off to the Hague to be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

A Long-Term Problem

In the Army technical bulletin I mentioned earlier, it states that tanks, vehicles and etc. that have been destroyed by DU munitions must be surveyed and if necessary, decontaminated to the normal, background level of radiation. Scott Peterson, a staff writer for the Christian Science Monitor, reported on May 15, 2003 about taking Geiger counter readings at several sites in Baghdad. Near the Republican Guard Palace where US troops stood guard and over 1,000 employees walked in and out of the building, his radiation readings were the “hottest” in Iraq, at nearly 1,900 times background radiation levels.

At a roadside vegetable stand, children played on a burnt-out Iraqi tank. There Peterson’s Geiger counter registered nearly 1,000 times normal background radiation. (1) (4) (13)

On August 4, 2003, the Seattle Post Intelligencer reported elevated radiation levels at six sites from Basra to Baghdad. One destroyed tank near Baghdad had 1,500 times the normal background radiation. (13)

What must be considered, which makes Iraq War II more significant, was unlike Iraq War I which took place mostly in rural areas, Iraq War II took place mostly in urban areas. Not even those in the Green Zone are safe in Iraq with DU in the air, ground and water. If any of this makes you feel queasy, it should, depleted uranium has a radioactive life of 4.5 billion years. (5)

On August 21, 2006 our President said that many Democrats want to leave Iraq "before the job is done.” “I can't tell you exactly when it's going to be done,” he said, but “if we ever give up the desire to help people who live in freedom, we will have lost our soul as a nation, as far as I'm concerned.” (14)

No Mr. President, we’ve already lost our soul as a nation.

“Mission accomplished.”

But here’s how we can start getting back our soul: go to www.senate.gov and www.house.gov to obtain the information you need to call, e-mail or fax your representatives in Congress.

Tell them about depleted uranium and how you feel about it.

Demand we outlaw DU.

Demand we leave Iraq.

Demand we stop the lip service and start honestly supporting our troops.

And finally, share this information with others.

“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” - Hermann Goering (15)

1. “The Truth About Depleted Uranium Weaponry” By Vincent L. Guarisco (www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6143.htm)

2. “Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower” By William Blum; Common Courage Press

3. “Depleted Uranium for Dummies” By Irving Wesley Hall (www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12452.htm)

4. Department of the Army Technical Bulletin: Guidelines for Safe Response to Handling, Storage, and Transportation Accidents Involving Army Tank Munitions or Armor Which Contain Depleted Uranium; July 1996; TB-1300-278

5. “The Threat of Depleted Uranium Exposure” By Stephen Lendman (www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13433.htm)

6. “Depleted Uranium - Far Worse Than 9/11” By Doug Westerman (www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleID=2374)

7. “Depleted Uranium: The American Legacy” By Sara S. DeHart, MSN, Ph.D. and Louis Farshee, MA (www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2291.htm)

8. “GI’s, Beware Radioactive Showers!” By Irving Wesley Hall (www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12861.htm)

9. “Have DU Will Travel: Iconoclast Interview with Chris Busby” By W. Leon Smith (The Lone Star Iconoclast News)

10. “Gulf War Casualties” By Doug Rokke (www.rense.com/general29/gulf.htm)

11. “VA Data Confirms Massive Delayed Gulf War I Casualties” By Denise Nichols (www.traprockpeace.org)

12. Department of Veterans Affairs: Gulf War Veterans Information System; February 2006

13. “Another US War Crime? Iraqi Cities ‘Hot’ with Depleted Uranium” By Sara Flounders (www.globalresearch.ca)

14. “Bush: Iraq Straining US Psyche” By AP & Reuters; published by MSNBC.com; 08/21/2006

15. Wisdom Quotes (www.wisdomquotes.com/001993.html)

Poison From Depleted Uranium Munitions Site Lingers

http://qwstnevrythg.blog-city.com/poison_from_depleted_uranium_munitions_site_lingers.htm
New study shows people who lived near or worked at former munitions factory in Colonie have depleted uranium in their bodies

by Jordan Carleo-Evangelist

COLONIE, NY - Former workers at a Cold War-era munitions plant and nearby residents still carry traces of toxic depleted uranium in their bodies, a team of scientists said Wednesday.

The findings, unveiled at a news conference, seem to contradict an earlier assessment by the federal government that deemed it impossible to measure contamination because it had been so long since the emissions ended.

Contrary to that 2004 assessment by the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, the scientists from England and the University at Albany say they can now show that more than two decades later, people still carry the radioactive metal in their bodies.

The state shuttered the former NL Industries plant in 1984.

Because the contamination can still be detected, a study could be done to track down the thousands of people who could have been exposed, the researchers said. But additional financial resources are needed to pay for the pricey tests, they said.

“Our new work, using better methodology, shows that we can overcome this difficulty,” said Randall Parrish, a professor at the University of Leicester.

The findings will soon be published in the journal Science of the Total Environment.

Neighbors and former employees have demanded more detailed analysis of the cancers, immune disorders and other illnesses they say have plagued their families.

Almost three months ago, the Army Corps of Engineers completed the major phase of its $190 million cleanup at the former plant at 1130 Central Ave., originally operated by the National Lead Co.

Now, the scientists and members of an activist group, Community Concerned about NL Industries, are calling for federal funding to study the scope and effects of the contamination.

“There’s never been a careful study of a population known to be exposed to depleted uranium,” said David Carpenter of the Institute for Health and the Environment at UAlbany. “Somebody needs to step in and really answer the question, ‘What are the health effects?’ ”

A spokesman for Gov. Eliot Spitzer said the report “should prompt the federal government to do more testing and monitoring.

“We support the community’s request and urge the Army Corps of Engineers to address these serious concerns,” said the spokesman, Michael Whyland.

Previous cancer studies by the state Department of Health, activists said, were overly broad and inconclusive.

An estimated 5 to 10 metric tons of uranium dust was spewed from the plant’s smokestacks between the late 1950s and early 1980s as it manufactured armor-piercing projectiles and burned the waste in a furnace.

Parrish has also tested British soldiers believed to have been exposed on battlefields to depleted uranium weapons. The weapons produce dust on impact, leading some to believe it could be linked to illnesses known collectively as Gulf War syndrome.

In about 800 tests of soldiers, Parrish said he was hard-pressed to detect a single urine sample containing depleted uranium. In Colonie, all five former NL employees tested positive at “very high levels.” About two dozen people were tested in all.

Roughly 20 percent of the residents or nearby workers also tested positive at lesser levels, Parrish said. The scientists cautioned that the small size of their study prevents extrapolating the results to a wider population, but it provides compelling evidence that more research needs to be done.

“A lot of my co-workers died young,” said Mike Aidala, 70, who worked at the plant from 1958 to 1980, starting as a janitor and working his way up. “Whether the plant was the reason, I’ll never know.”

Aidala, who also is an Albany County legislator, was among those who tested positive for depleted uranium.

Tony Impellizzeri, 59, who grew up on Yardboro Avenue just behind the plant, said he knows about 45 people in the neighborhood stricken with cancer. Impellizzeri said he hopes the current research will prompt action, unlike previous instances “where nothing seems to happen.”

The scientists also said they found depleted uranium in dust in four buildings around the 11.2-acre site — in some cases at levels that exceed the Army Corps’ cleanup standard for soil.

The extent of the contamination in other buildings is not clear, and the danger it poses could depend on whether that dust is disturbed, said John G. Arnason, a professor of earth and atmospheric sciences at UAlbany.

The Army Corps has finished removing contaminated soil from the site and has submitted a plan to state environmental regulators to monitor groundwater. That plan could be ready for public comment by spring, said James Moore, the project’s manager for the Army Corps.

Moore said he had not been briefed on the research and noted that the Army Corps had not been charged with cleaning inside neighboring buildings.

In the 1980s, the Department of Energy cleaned about 53 neighboring properties, but the work was limited mostly to the exterior of the buildings and yards.

“It was like Love Canal,” Impellizzeri said. “They should have knocked down all these buildings on Yardboro Avenue and started over again.”

Carleo-Evangelist can be reached at 454-5445 or by e-mail at jcarleo-evangelist@timesunion.com.

© 2007 The Times Union