The United States under Barack Obama look like a ship of fools captained by the grand fool.  The only question is whether Iran made Americans look like fools, or whether Obama made Americans look like fools.

I submit that the latter is the case.  Because any fool knew what game Iran was playing.  And yet Obama – out of arrogance, ignorance, and naivete – utterly failed to understand.  And continues to fail to understand.

A full month ago Iran reneged on an apparent deal to provide its nuclear fuel to France to process it for them.  Even had Iran fulfilled the deal, it was based on a fools’ premise; that premise being that Iran had not secretly processed any other uranium.

Iran’s negotiators have toughened their stance on the nuclear programme, signalling that Tehran will refuse to go ahead with an agreement to hand over 75 per cent of its enriched uranium. . .

Iran has amassed at least 1.4 tons of low-enriched uranium inside its underground plant in Natanz. If this was further enriched to weapons-grade level – a lengthy process – it would be enough for one nuclear weapon.

But Iran agreed to export 75 per cent of this stockpile to Russia and then France, where it would have been converted into fuel rods for use in a civilian research reactor in Tehran. This would have been a significant step towards containing Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Before talks, however, Iranian officials signalled they would renege. “Iran wants to directly buy highly-enriched uranium without sending its own low-level uranium out of the country,” reported a state television channel.

What kind of people continue to negotiate with a country that has already said it would renege on whatever deal they subsequently make?  Does the word “fools” not seem in order here?

Three weeks ago we learned that Iran had secretly tested an advanced nuclear warhead design – a strange thing for a country that isn’t attempting to build nuclear weapons to do, one would think.

The UN’s nuclear watchdog has asked Iran to explain evidence suggesting that Iranian scientists have experimented with an advanced nuclear warhead design, the Guardian has learned.

The very existence of the technology, known as a “two-point implosion” device, is officially secret in both the US and Britain, but according to previously unpublished documentation in a dossier compiled by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iranian scientists may have tested high-explosive components of the design. The development was today described by nuclear experts as “breathtaking” and has added urgency to the effort to find a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis.

No harm, no foul.  And certainly no rush.  Remember, we’re fools.

Now the SAME IAEA which only a few weeks ago was saying, “Nothing to see here, folks,” is now saying that Iran has been systematically covering up what is very obviously a nuclear weapons program.

The outgoing head of the International Atomic Energy Agency said Thursday his probe of Iran’s nuclear program is at “a dead end” and that trust in Tehran’s credibility is shrinking after its belated revelation that it was secretly building a nuclear facility.

Mohamed ElBaradei’s blunt criticism of the Islamic Republic — four days before he leaves office — was notable in representing a broad convergence with Washington’s opinion, which for years was critical of the IAEA chief for what it perceived as his softness on Iran.

Six years of constant stonewalling all made up for by issuing one pitiful statement before leaving office.  Good job, ElBaradeid, you dirtbag.

If Iran does not comply this time, you can bet a politely-worded letter will surely follow.

JERUSALEM, Israel November 24, 2009
John Bolton Was Right After All

(CBS)   Richard Grenell served as the spokesman for the last four U.S. Ambassadors to the United Nations: Zalmay Khalilzad, John Bolton, John Danforth and John Negroponte.
I certainly don’t expect the New York Times to admit that one of their greatest bogeymen turned out to be correct about Iran’s nuclear game-playing. However, the Times Editorial Board did once say “John Bolton is right.  Kofi Annan is wrong.”

Unfortunately it wasn’t about the Iran nuclear issue they were talking about – it was about his opposition to the UN’s ineffective Human Rights Council.

Nevertheless, someone needs to say it now. John Bolton was right.

When the Obama Administration proclaimed victory on October 1st by announcing that a break-through had been reached in Geneva and that Iran had committed to shipping 2,600 pounds of fuel to Russia, expert Iran watchers were appropriately cynical. Bolton cautioned, yet again, that the Iranians had used some of the same diplomatic nuances they had been using for years to successfully buy more time to continue enriching uranium and fake cooperation with the international community.

Usually, the Europeans were the first to take the bait but this time the Obama Administration got hooked first. Bolton, however, was the first to stand up and call the Iranian pronouncement a sham – and he did it within hours of the announcement.

But as Obama officials were rushing to pat themselves on the back and the New York Times was proclaiming atop the paper “Iran Agrees to Send Enriched Uranium to Russia,” Iranian officials were telling reporters that they had not committed to anything. The Iranians called it “an agreement in principle” – code words for “we’d like to but…”

The Times’ reporter in Geneva, however, was taking what the Obama officials were saying and running wildly with the incredible news. Surprisingly, or maybe not, the Times had either not checked with Iranian officials or ignored their warnings in favor of the Obama Administration’s good news. Roughly a month later, the Iranian official statements confirmed the fact that the Obama Administration had been duped. The Times subsequently inched its way back to reality through multiple follow-up stories that increasingly showed skepticism in the Victory claims culminating with October 30th’s headline “Tehran Rejects Nuclear Accord.”

Today, while the Iranians reprocess more fuel, the Obama team continues to compromise and offer even more incentives to them. No wonder Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is waiting – the deal keeps getting sweeter. President Obama has offered the Iranians more time, more sites to place their illegal fuel, more personal correspondence with the Ayatollah, more excuses as to what happened to the original deal they announced and no Chinese and Russian arm-twisting. The Obama team also keeps claiming that if Iran ships 2600 pounds of fuel out to Russia for re-processing then Iran will be unable to pose a nuclear threat for at least a year.

This often told claim is a dangerous calculation based on an assumption that Iran doesn’t have more hidden fuel (we just found out about another reprocessing plant in September) and can’t quickly convert what would remain if the plan had been accepted. Additionally, the low enriched uranium in question was produced in violation of UN Security Council resolutions so any deal to help Iran convert illegal fuel undermines Security Council credibility. The naivety of President Obama could be chalked up to hope and inexperience in foreign policy matters if it wasn’t routinely and consistently happening.

Bolton should know. No American Ambassador has produced more Security Council Resolutions on the issue of Iran than John Bolton. Bolton was able to produce three UN Security Council resolutions on Iran, two with the increasing pressure of sanctions. The deadlines in the resolutions that Bolton insisted upon were kept mainly because he held his counterparts to their word.

When Iran tried to manipulate the process by asking for more time, more talks or giving empty and last minute commitments, Bolton enforced the deadlines. Bolton was incredibly patient and willing to have round the clock negotiations but in the end forced a vote of the Security Council to the dismay of the Europeans and the consternation of Russian and China. It’s true that John Bolton would not win the most popular Ambassador award at the UN but being popular shouldn’t be the priority.

I hope that the Obama team can now see that being popular at the UN doesn’t get us support from the Europeans on sanctions resolutions or an affirmative vote from Russia and China. If it did, President Obama would have passed another Security Council Resolution on Iran, North Korea and Sudan by now. Obama is so popular in foreign countries that one begins to wonder who is happier. But being popular only means you aren’t asking Countries to do anything different.

This month, the world is seeing the pressure turned down on Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions. France’s Foreign Minister has signaled their refusal to block shipments of refined fuel to Iran, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov called sanctions “counterproductive when there are talks underway” and China needs Iran’s oil so badly that it not only is refusing to consider further sanctions but is cutting new energy deals with Iran.

Where is the Obama Administration’s pressure on Iran to stop enriching uranium? Sadly, the Americans are getting hoodwinked by Iran and Europe is happy that they don’t have to vote for more sanctions or enforce the ones that are in place now. While the President gives up our missile shield to Russia, relaxes financial restrictions on Cuba, allows North Korea to violate their signed agreements and breaks campaign promises on a Sudan no-fly zone, the world applauds the most popular American President in history.

And here at home, Fareed Zakaria continues to call for more American compromises and more talk while characterizing Conservatives as unwilling to talk. It isn’t that Conservatives think speaking to Russia about Iran is bad, a claim Fareed Zakaria erroneously tries to tag Conservatives with, it’s that giving something without getting something in return is foolish and naïve. Zakaria and the other elites blinded by Obama’s global reset button want America to compromise and negotiate but fail to expect the same from the other side. Zakaria is that typical internationalist that views diplomatic success as merely sitting down to talk. Talking is the goal for them.

And if America needs to compromise in order to ensure that there are more talks, well, then so be it. Talking is success, right?

What I find almost as laughable as Obama’s never-failing ignorance and naivete is his weakness.

There’s that whole, “Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me” thing.  How many times does Obama have to be fooled?

How did Obama get China to sign on to the meaningless IAEA censure that doesn’t offer any sort of call to actual action at all?

The Sniveller-in-Chief says that – unlike gutless ObamAmerica – Israel will actually do something if Iran continues its nuclear program.  Get a load of the headline:

‘US warned China that Israel could bomb Iran’
By JPOST.COM STAFF AND AP

Two senior officials from the White House, Dennis Ross and Jeffrey Bader, made a trip to China on a “special mission” to garner support in Beijing over the Iranian nuclear program, according to a Thursday report in The Washington Post. The officials visited China two weeks before US President Barack Obama arrived in Beijing.

The officials reportedly carried the message that if China would not support the US on the issue, Israel would be likely to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. The paper quoted the officials as saying that Israel saw the issue as “an existential issue,” and that “countries that have an existential issue don’t listen to other countries.”

They stressed that were Israel to bomb Iran, the consequences for the region would be severe.

Here is Obama, leader of the free world, telling communist Iran that they’d better do what he says or big tough Israel will fight.

Just gag me.

At least Obama understands something, though.  Obama himself is a gargantuan fool and a pathetic weakling, but he does at least have a clue that genuinely strong and courageous people won’t just sit idly by and allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.  And Obama thought he’d better warn China.  Because that’s just the sort of stand-up guy he is [HURL!].

I have one thing to differ with Richard Grenell over: the story isn’t that John Bolton is right.  The story is that Barack Obama is as wrong as he has always been.

Iran will have nuclear weapons soon.  And Obama will ensure that outcome – every bit as much as Neville Chamberlain ensured that Adolf Hitler would invade Czechoslovakia followed by Poland.

{more to come}

L’Iran vient de  rejeter  la résolution du conseil des gouverneurs de l’agence internationale de l’énergie atomique -AIEA- qu’il a qualifiée de mouvement ‘politiquement motivé’ et a refusé de mettre fin à ses activités nucléaires. La résolution contre l’Iran a été adoptée “avec l’insistance et les ambitions politiques de certains états membres. Nous pensons qu’elle est motivée politiquement et n’a pour but que de faire pression sur l’Iran”. L’Iran a déja mis en garde qu’il ne sera pas obligé de poursuivre sa coopération avec l’AIEA  au niveau maximum  si certains états membres “veulent emprunter un chemin politique pour traiter du dossier nucléaire iranien en exerçant des pressions sur l’AIEA et par conséquent nous priver de nos droits de base”. Le représentant permanent iranien à l’AIEA, Ali Soltanieh, a critiqué la dernière résolution de l’agence onusienne contre son pays et a déclaré que Téhéran ne cessera pas son programme d’enrichissement d’uranium. Ali Soltanieh a déclaré que l’Iran poursuivra sa coopération avec l’AIEA et que toutes les activités nucléaires iraniennes seront menées dans le cadre du traité de non-prolifération nucléaire -TNP-. La résolution adoptée par le conseil des gouverneurs de l’agence internationale de l’énergie atomique à Vienne en Autriche  appelle l’Iran à ‘l’entière coopération’ afin de clarifier les questions en suspens concernant son programme nucléaire. Depuis 2006, c’est la première fois que l’AIEA adopte une résolution contre la république islamique d’Iran.

BHP chief takes on shareholder activists ABC Radio PM Annie Guest reported this story on  November 26, 2009

The protestors outside and shareholder activists inside raised concerns about uranium mining and storage……..PROTESTOR: Mr Argus… that would be millions of tonnes of radioactive waste…
PROTESTOR 2: Well yeah it’ll all be dealt with appropriately, don’t you worry about that.
ANNIE GUEST: Inside the conference centre, shareholder activists used the meeting to formally question the Board about its plans regarding uranium mining and storage…..
ANNIE GUEST: But his comments didn’t slow opposition from people like paediatrician Dr Helen Caldicott.
HELEN CALDICOTT: And we cannot support an industry that will directly increase proliferation of nuclear weapons and diseases throughout the rest of time…….
ANNIE GUEST: Also today, some Indigenous representatives accused the company of disrespecting and damaging Aboriginal people and their traditional land.

Eileen Winfield spoke about Roxby Downs in South Australia.

EILEEN WINFIELD: The mining company doesn’t listen to people. Ruining your children’s lives, anybody’s life. I mean the funny thing they worry about is the money. Money’s important, not the human side. I mean we have people dying every day…………….

Don Argus’ finale turns into a question and answer marathon THE AUSTRALIAN Matt Chambers November 27, 2009

“,,,,,,,,,a stream of questions and comments from anti-nuclear campaigners, Colombian trade unions, indigenous groups and others — given their one chance a year to complain directly to the board — stretched the meeting to four hours……………….Most of the concerns raised during the meeting were related to the Olympic Dam expansion and the proposed Yeelirrie mine in Western Australia and BHP’s involvement in the uranium industry.

BHP not prepared to declare crisis over

Sydney Morning Herald BARRY FITZGERALD

November 27, 2009   “……The marathon 3½ hour meeting was again dominated by questions on the BHP’s uranium interests and indigenous people issues, both in Australia and overseas. BHP’s chairman, Don Argus, eventually grew tired of the anti-nuclear questioning, saying he was not prepared for his last meeting as chairman to be hijacked by anti-nuclear campaigners.

Two points of view here, on the Australian government’s aboriginal policy.  How I would like to think that our government is completely sincere in its policies towards the aborigines.  And perhaps the government is sincere, in many regards.

But I can’t help thinking that John Pilger is right.  How very convenient it is to control and manipulate aboriginal life and land in such a way as to just make it so much easier to turn aboriginal land into uranium quarry and radioactive waste dump.

Returning to a secret country Z Space November, 27 2009vBy Pilger, John – “…………..An undeclared agenda is straight from Australia’s colonial past: a land grab combined with an almost prurient need to control, harass and blame a people who have refused to die off, whose genius is their understanding of an ancient land that still perplexes and threatens white authority. ……..

…..The indigenous affairs minister, Jenny Macklin, has decreed that unless certain communities hand over their precious freehold leases they will be denied basic services. The Northern Territory contains abundant mineral wealth, such as uranium, and has long been eyed by multinationals as a lucrative radioactive waste dump. The blacks are in the way, yet again: so it is time for the usual feigned innocence. Rudd has said his government “doesn’t have a clear idea of what’s happening on the ground” in Aboriginal Australia…..

……There is currently a liberal clarion call in Australia for a Bill of Rights, and the republican movement is stirring again. These debates are meaningless until white Australia summons the moral and political imagination to offer its first people a genuine treaty, as well as universal land rights and a proper share of the country’s resources. And respect. Only then will this fortunate society earn the respect it so often craves by other means.

On 4 November, John Pilger received the Sydney Peace Prize, Australia’s international human rights award. A Secret Country, his best-selling history of Australia published 20 years ago, remains  in print (Vintage Books).
www.johnpilger.com http://www.zmag.org/zspace/commentaries/4056

Australia to strengthen the Northern territory emergency response Source: Government of Australia 25th November 2009 The Australian Government will strengthen the Northern Territory Emergency Response (NTER) to provide the foundations for real and lasting change in Indigenous communities………….Moving the NTER to a sustainable development phase can not be achieved while the suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (RDA) continues.The Government will introduce legislation into the Parliament to repeal all NTER laws that suspend the operation of the RDA…………..

The Government will also introduce changes to make it clear that the objective of the five-year leases is to improve service delivery and promote economic and social development. The legislative changes will also clarify that exploration and mining are not permitted uses, require that the administration of the leases respect Aboriginal culture and facilitate the transition to voluntary leases.

The Government considers the leases are a special measure for the purposes of the RDA. The changes will be implemented from 1 July 2010 and the five-year leases lapse in 2012, during which time the Government will work to transition to voluntary leases…………..http://thegovmonitor.com/civil_society_and_democratic_renewal/public_administration/australia-to-strengthen-the-northern-territory-emergency-response-16664.html

As in Australia – remote rural populations were the guinea pigs of USA’s nuclear bomb testing

(USA) Residents, Workers in 70s Unintended ‘Victims’ of Radiation Experiments
Remains of Classified Uranium Contaminated Nickel Facility Trucked to Portsmouth without Transportation Containment Protection

By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter “…………Recently, HNN has reported on the Portsmouth (Piketon) Plant once operated by Goodyear then Martin Marietta. It enriched uranium.

Based on testimony, December 16, 1994, before the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C., the Huntington facility was indeed contaminated with uranium, asbestos, and nickel carbonyl .

At that meeting, testimony was memorialized by Diana Salisbury, a member of environmental groups such as Serpent Mount/Ohio Brush Creek Alliance and Portsmouth/Piketon Residents for Environmental Safety and Security and Vina Colley, a former Piketon worker and president of two environmental groups.

Ms. Salisbury read documents submitted to the committee concerning Owen Thompson, a member of a special squad who handled problems at the Portsmouth (Piketon) plant and high risk, high exposure activities, during his employment.

Prior to his death, he testified in Cincinnati. Statements were read at the 1994 D.C. meeting that had been provided to his attorney:

“I did my country wrong.” Owen Thompson said that after his health problems, after what’s happened to him. He said, “I did my country wrong,” and listen why.

The Inco Nickel Plant was dismantled, because it was contaminated with uranium, asbestos, and nickel carbonyl. The factory was so contaminated with uranium, asbestos, and nickel carbonyl that it had to be removed from the city of Huntington, West Virginia.

One contractor died immediately during the dismantling, and another died within a few days, indicating a pretty high dose. The full account given by Owen Thompson of this incident is not even in the public record……………………

.Ms. Salisbury continued, “Now the reports don’t say that [ the machine gun guards, presumably]. My point in all this is, the reports don’t always tell what really happened. What’s in the report sometimes is not anything like the full discussion.”

During her testimony, Salisbury stated, The Portsmouth facility is unique in both size and function. Portsmouth’s mission is to convert solid uranium gas to between two and five percent for commercial reactors and to more than 93 percent for nuclear weapons programs.

WHY APPALACHIA?

During the first portion of her testimony, Salisbury explains that the thinly populated Appalachian areas appealed to the government for the nuclear plants:

“The location and function of the three Federal facilities located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio, are critical to the Committee’s task. These facilities were designed to enrich uranium for military weapons and were located in rural regions of the Appalachian mountains. That is where these facilities were placed. They were put away from people. Unfortunately, we didn’t get the word. We consider that we’re people. The Appalachian population represents one group selected to bear the risks and burdens for the greater societal good.” ………..http://www.huntingtonnews.net/local/091126-rutherford-localradiation.html

Most people like to talk about the benefits of sustainable mining.  Seldom, however, do we see a concrete report on successful sustainable mining.  By way of quick admission: I am a sceptic of the concept and have frequently written critical blog postings on the abuse and mis-use of the term.  Let me, then, take a different approach in what follows.

What is say here is bolstered by what I and a number of friends wrote in papers presented at the Banff Conference Tailings and Mine Waste ‘09.  At this link are the PowerPoint presentations.  At the following links are copies of some of the actual papers:

• Vertical “Wick” Drains and Accelerated Dewatering of Fine Tailings in Oil Sands by Wells & Caldwell
• Design, Performance, and Sustainability of Engineered Covers for Uranium Mill Tailings by Jody Waugh
• Sustainability of Conventional and Alternative Landfill Covers by Jody Waugh
• Revisit to Old South African Slimes Dams & Where We Are Today by Caldwell & McPhail
• Uranium Mill Tailings Impoundment Closure: A Retrospective  by Caldwell & Strachan
• The Cannon Mine Tailings Impoundment: A Case History  by Caldwell, Freshette, and Hutchinson
• Water Balance Management Approach to Mine Closure at the Royal Mountain King Mine, Copperopolis, CA by Whitman & Hutchinson

In summary, these papers tell of some old slimes dams (in South Africa), reclaimed uranium mill tailings piles (in the western US), and in Washington State (old gold mines),and of how these impoundments have performed in the long term since they were constructed.  For good measure we throw in a paper on new activities associated with closing an oil sand tailings impoundment in Alberta. 

The fun part about two of them is their successful closure and the use to which they are now put.  In one instance (Cannon Mine in Washington) the tailings impoundment is now an exclusive riding club where the horse set recreates.  In the second instance, from what I can tell, the impoundment at Richards Bay, South Africa is the site of the yacht club–although I cannot confirm this and would love to hear from more folk nearer the site that I will ever get.  Maybe soon enough, the oil sands tailings impoundment will be a forest where only the rich and healthy can walk to admire nature. 

Of more general interest to the sustainability-minded, I recommend you take a look at the papers on the UMTRA Project–particularly those by Jody Waugh who has done such a magnificent job telling us how these piles have performed in the decades since they were closed.  I address this issue in a joint paper with Clint Strachan where we compare the performance of those piles closed by private industry with those closed by the Federal government.   [The comparison in this paper has no bearing on whether we should encourage the government to control the US health system.] 

I particularly like the paper on the Copperopolis site in California.  It is so beautiful and so well reclaimed that I would build my retirement cabin there in a heart-beat if they would let me.  Certainly I would be surrounded by the very rich who live in the two-acres estates that surround the mine. 

Now I am sure that those who preach sustainable mining do not mean or intend that all closed mine sites should become the playgrounds of the rich and privileged; but that is the outcome of these stories of successful sustainable mining.  Which of course raises the tough question of for whom is the site to be made into a “sustained” entity?  

Of course, I partly joke, although the questions are serious enough.  The point is you can enjoy these papers without giving the issue of sustainability a second thought.  You can enjoy the papers for their technical details.  I suspect you could even use the papers to prove we should not mine, as we cannot benefit those who do not own horses or yachts after mining–see what people do in using the Bible to support their arguments!

I would prefer to believe that these papers establish that if you plan and do it right, you can reclaim mines and tailings impoundment for any purpose you select. 

EPA: Uranium From Polluted British Petroleum Mine Found In Nevada Water Wells

Scott Sonner AP 11/21/09

But she can look through the window from her kitchen table, just past her backyard with its swingset and pet llama, and see an ominous sign on a neighboring fence: “Danger: Uranium Mine.”

For almost a decade, people who make their homes in this rural community in the Mason Valley 65 miles southeast of Reno have blamed that enormous abandoned mine for the high levels of uranium in their water wells.

They say they have been met by a stone wall from state regulators, local politicians and the huge oil company that inherited the toxic site – BP PLC. Those interests have insisted uranium naturally occurs in the region’s soil and there’s no way to prove that a half-century of processing metals at the former Anaconda pit mine is responsible for the contamination.

That has changed. A new wave of testing by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has found that 79 percent of the wells tested north of the World War II-era copper mine have dangerous levels of uranium or arsenic or both that make the water unsafe to drink.

And, more importantly to the neighbors, that the source of the pollution is a groundwater plume that has slowly migrated from the 6-square-mile mine site.

The new samples likely never would have been taken if not for a whistleblower, a preacher’s wife, a tribal consultant and some stubborn government scientists who finally helped crack the toxic mystery that has plagued this rural mining and farming community for decades.

“They have completely ruined the groundwater out here,” said Pauly, the wife of a local pastor and mother of two girls who organized a community action group five years to seek the truth about the pollution….

*Related: Colorado River May Face Fight of its Life

Increased toxins likely as energy companies seek oil, gas, uranium

By Abrahm Lustgarten and David Hasemyer (propublica.org) Dec. 21, 2008

Now the life vein of the Southwest faces another threat: Energy companies are sucking up the Colorado’s water to support increased development of oil, natural gas and uranium deposits along the river’s basin. The mining and drilling will likely send more toxins into the waterway, which provides drinking water for one out of 12 Americans and nourishes 15 percent of the nation’s crops along its journey from Wyoming and Colorado to Mexico….

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2008/dec/21/1n21colorado211057-colorado-river-may-face-fight-i/

Review – Australia:Alice Springs doctors protesting against uranium mining. While Australia burns Labor and Liberal squabble over a pretty much irrelevant ETS scheme.. Aborigines get back Maralinga, but land still radioactive. Regional solar and wind projects go ahead, despite Australian government prioritising “clean” coal
International : Nuclear lobby pushing hard for nuclear inclusion at Copenhagen. UK, USA and China govts formally aiming to offer nuclear power to countries as (?somehow) an opposite to nuclear weapons. AREVA’s Finland and French new reactor designs found to be unsafe. From worldwide, people organising to converge on Copenhagen on December 12. - the past week

Uranium mine stoush threatens Alice doctors ABC News By Barbara Miller  Nov 24, 2009 Doctors in Alice Springs are threatening to stop work at an Aboriginal medical service if the Government allows a Canadian company to open a uranium mine close by……………….

A community group has also been voicing its concerns about the possibility of a uranium mine so close to town.

Isabelle Kirkbride is the founder of the Families for a Nuclear Free Future:

“It has been overwhelming how many people are concerned about this issue and I think the more people that get informed, the more concerns are raised,” she said.

She said she was not convinced the mine could be a good generator of jobs.

“Well, I’m not sure about that,” she said.

“I think the risk is too great.

“I just don’t think it is worth the risk.

“The health risks are too great and the social impact.”

How to get out of Afghanistan

History News Netwrk By William Polk22 Nov 09 “……Casualties we can count, but the number of seriously wounded keeps growing because many of the effects of exposure to modern weapons do not show up until later…… Cancer, from exposure to depleted uranium is, only now coming into full effect. 11 It is sobering that 40 percent of the soldiers who served in the 1991 Gulf war – which lasted only a hundred hours – are receiving disability payments. 12 Inevitably, more “boots on the ground” will lead to more beds in hospitals……………http://hnn.us/articles/120371.htm

We will quit if uranium mine opens, say doctors Sydney Morning Herald DEBRA JOPSON November 23, 2009
DOCTORS at the only Aboriginal medical service in Alice Springs have threatened to leave if the Federal Government allows a Canadian company to mine uranium near the town.

Protesters will press Northern Territory MPs to stop their support when Parliament sits in Central Australia tomorrow. They say it threatens the town’s future and could set a precedent for other urban centres.

”It’s a big issue … It is unprecedented to have exploration for uranium so close to an established city,” said Isabelle Kirkbride, of Families for a Nuclear Free Future.

Opposition to the mine, 23 kilometres south of the town, at which the Canadian company Cameco has done exploratory drilling, is mounting. Sixteen doctors from the town’s only Aboriginal medical service have written to the federal and Northern Territory governments warning that some will quit if the mine is given the go-ahead.

”They are thinking about the health hazards potentially in contaminated water and radon dust,” said Koen De Decker, a spokesman for the doctors at the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress.

The doctors wrote to the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and other relevant ministers, because he had promoted closing the gap between the health of indigenous and other Australians, Dr De Decker said.

Allowing the mine would mean the loss of crucial senior medical staff who would be difficult to replace, potentially widening the gap, he said…….Jane Clark, a Greens councillor on Alice Springs Town Council, said some saw uranium as an alternative energy source and jobs generator, but locals worried that a mine could pollute the water supply, destroy the growing eco-tourism industry, affect pastoral lands and lead to an exodus.  We will quit if uranium mine opens, say doctors

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad paid a visit to Brazil over the weekend to discuss a number of trade and diplomatic issues with Brazilian President Luiz Anacio Lula de Silva.

This is a continuation of Iran’s drive to build stronger ties in Latin American.  Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez is already an ally of Iran, and Iran has also opened embassies in Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Uruguay.  Brazil appears to be next on that list.

Venezuela is receiving help in locating uranium deposits which Chavez says will be used for domestic power production (does that sound familiar?).  With Brazil, Iran is shopping for nuclear technology among other things.

This is also evidence that Brazil is stepping away from close cooperation with the US following its criticism of Barack Obama’s effort to restore the ousted President Zelaya of Honduras in violation of the Honduran constitution.

We can look forward to continued disorder in South American affairs as the bungling foreign policy of our president dismays our allies and encourages those who would spread their socialist mantra across the region.

More information here.

One wonders what diplomatic leverage (and it appears shrinkingly small) was purchased by Obama’s decision to lend $2 Billion to the Brazilian Oil Company, Petrobas, to develop offshore oil fields in the Atlantic.  Or was that just a payoff to George Soros?

Quite a few Brazilians protested Ahmadinejad:

Here’s some analysis by the Council of the Americas:

Via Associated Press

– 7 hours ago

MIDDLETOWN, Pa. — The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is sending investigators to the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant after a small amount of radiation was detected there.

About 150 employees were sent home Saturday afternoon after the radiation was detected at the central Pennsylvania plant.

Officials say there is no public health risk.

Via Associated Press

Excerpt:

“YERINGTON, Nev. — Peggy Pauly lives in a robin-egg blue, two-story house not far from acres of onion fields that make the northern Nevada air smell sweet at harvest time.

But she can look through the window from her kitchen table, just past her backyard with its swingset and pet llama, and see an ominous sign on a neighboring fence: Danger: Uranium Mine.”

It’s going to be interesting to see how this develops.

“Counting on new nuclear reactors as a climate change solution is no more sensible than counting on an un-built dam to create a lake to fight a nearby forest fire.”

— Peter Bradford, former U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission member

Like coal, natural gas, and oil, uranium is a nonrenewable resource. Consequently, is uranium being depleted faster than we think? With all the talk of building and investing in so-called next generation nuclear reactors, is enough uranium available to meet this proposed new demand in addition to sustaining current demand? Some U.S. Senators are proposing that more nuclear energy is the answer to address our climate change and energy troubles.

U.S. Senators Jim Webb, a democrat from Virginia, and Lamar Alexander, a Republican from Tennessee, do not support the current cap-and-trade legislation, but these Senators are throwing their support behind nuclear power and carbon-capture-and-storage technology. Furthermore, “Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who is working with Democrat John Kerry on the bill, highlighted how France now derives 80 percent of its energy from nuclear power and is presently constructing a next-generation reactor, said to be the most advanced in the world.” More on dwindling uranium supplies from the Physics arXiv Blog:

The world is about to enter a period of unprecedented investment in nuclear power. The combined threats of climate change, energy security and fears over the high prices and dwindling reserves of oil are forcing governments towards the nuclear option. The perception is that nuclear power is a carbon-free technology, that it breaks our reliance on oil and that it gives governments control over their own energy supply.

That looks dangerously overoptimistic, says Michael Dittmar, from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich who publishes the final chapter of an impressive four-part analysis of the global nuclear industry on the arXiv today.

Perhaps the most worrying problem is the misconception that uranium is plentiful. The world’s nuclear plants today eat through some 65,000 tons of uranium each year. Of this, the mining industry supplies about 40,000 tons. The rest comes from secondary sources such as civilian and military stockpiles, reprocessed fuel and re-enriched uranium. “But without access to the military stocks, the civilian western uranium stocks will be exhausted by 2013, concludes Dittmar.

It’s not clear how the shortfall can be made up since nobody seems to know where the mining industry can look for more.

That means countries that rely on uranium imports such as Japan and many western countries will face uranium .shortages, possibly as soon as 2013. Far from being the secure source of energy that many governments are basing their future energy needs on, nuclear power looks decidedly rickety.

And from PhysOrg.com:

New York Times energy reporter Matthew Wald, writing in Technology Review, said new reactors would be unable to pay for themselves because of the massive cost of construction and competition from emerging alternatives that could affect the energy price. Wald compared the costs per kilowatt of capacity of nuclear ($4,000), coal ($3,000) and natural gas ($800), which makes the nuclear option a big financial gamble. The future cost of fossil fuels is unknown, and could also affect the nuclear industry’s viability.

Energy efficiency standards and renewable energy options are better solutions than the nuclearization of energy sources. From Los Angeles Times:

If the U.S. wants to help stop global warming, nuclear power is not the way to go, according to a new report released today.

The Environment California Research & Policy Center concluded that launching a nuclear power industry nearly from the ground up is too slow and expensive a process. Energy efficiency standards and renewable energy options are better solutions, researchers said.

.       .       .

But even if the nuclear industry managed to build 100 reactors by 2030, the total power produced would reduce total U.S. emissions only 12% over the next 20 years, which Environment California deemed “far too little, too late.”

The $600-billion upfront investment necessary for the 100 reactors would slice out twice as much carbon pollution in that period if invested in clean energy, according to the report. And given the costs of running a power plant, clean energy could deliver five times as much progress per dollar in lowering pollution.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

The world is about to enter a period of unprecedented investment in nuclear power. The combined threats of climate change, energy security and fears over the high prices and dwindling reserves of oil are forcing governments towards the nuclear option. The perception is that nuclear power is a carbon-free technology, that it breaks our reliance on oil and that it gives governments control over their own energy supply.

That looks dangerously overoptimistic, says Michael Dittmar, from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich who publishes the final chapter of an impressive four-part analysis of the global nuclear industry on the arXiv today.

Perhaps the most worrying problem is the misconception that uranium is plentiful. The world’s nuclear plants today eat through some 65,000 tons of uranium each year. Of this, the mining industry supplies about 40,000 tons. The rest comes from secondary sources such as civilian and military stockpiles, reprocessed fuel and re-enriched uranium. “But without access to the military stocks, the civilian western uranium stocks will be exhausted by 2013, concludes Dittmar.

It’s not clear how the shortfall can be made up since nobody seems to know where the mining industry can look for more.

That means countries that rely on uranium imports such as Japan and many western countries will face uranium .shortages, possibly as soon as 2013. Far from being the secure source of energy that many governments are basing their future energy needs on, nuclear power looks decidedly rickety.

But what of new technologies such as fission breeder reactors which generate fuel and nuclear fusion? Dittmar is pessimistic about fission breeders. “Their huge construction costs, their poor safety records and their inefficient performance give little reason to believe that they will ever become commercially significant,” he says.

And the future looks even worse for nuclear fusion: “No matter how far into the future we may look, nuclear fusion as an energy source is even less probable than large-scale breeder reactors.”

Dittmar paints a bleak future for the countries betting on nuclear power. And his analysis doesn’t even touch on issues such as safety, the proliferation of nuclear technology and the disposal of nuclear waste.

The message if you live in one of these countries is to stock up on firewood and candles.

There is one tantalizing ray of sunlight in this nuclear nightmare: the possibility that severe energy shortages will force governments to release military stockpiles of weapons grade uranium and plutonium for civilian use. Could it be possible that the coming nuclear energy crisis could rid the world of most of its nuclear weapons?

Ref: The Future of Nuclear Energy: Facts and Fiction

arxiv.org/abs/0908.0627: Chapter I: Nuclear Fission Energy Today
arxiv.org/abs/0908.3075: Chapter II: What is known about Secondary Uranium Resources?
arxiv.org/abs/0909.1421: Chapter III: How (un)reliable are the Red Book Uranium Resource Data?
arxiv.org/abs/0911.2628 :Chapter IV: Energy from Breeder Reactors and from Fusion?

Doctors threaten to leave over uranium mine – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) By Eric Tlozek Nov 20, 2009 group of Alice Springs doctors say they will leave the town if a uranium mine goes ahead in the area. Uranium company Cameco is exploring a uranium deposit 25 kilometres south of Alice Springs.

Sixteen doctors from the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress have written to the Northern Territory and Federal Governments threatening to immediately leave the town if the uranium mine goes ahead.

“The prompt for writing the letter was borne out of concern, out of deep concern, for the implications of having a uranium mine here, especially in terms of the loss of workforce which could be one of the consequences of having a mine here in town,” said one of the signatories, Dr Koen de Decker.

Doctors threaten to leave over uranium mine – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Just another development for the Obameister to delay or fail to make a decision on and thus to further endanger the free world and to usher in the destruction of our only real ally in the Middle East…

DEBKAfile Special Report

November 19, 2009

DEBKAfile’s military sources report that the UN inspectors’ October visit to Iran turned up dual-track progress in support of its nuclear weapons program: Feverish activity was registered in the production of plutonium at Isfahan as an alternative to the Fordo enriched uranium plant near Qom which starts up in 2011.

The IAEA experts discovered 30 metric tons-IS of heavy water hidden in 600 tanks, each holding 13 gallons, according to the report they handed in last week to agency headquarters in Vienna.

From the shape of the tanks and other indications, the experts concluded that this stock had not come from the heavy water plant at Arak but was imported.

Metric tons-IS measure the amount of energy a given quantity can release. The force and types of nuclear bombs are gauged in kilotons or megatons. The American nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima in World War II was equal to 20 kilotons of TNT. By this standard, the amount of heavy water discovered at Isfahan would be enough to make at least one plutonium bomb when the plutonium reactor under construction near the Arak heavy water facility is finished.

Other than its civilian uses, heavy water may be used to produce tritium, which intensifies the explosive force of nuclear warheads. The discovery of quantities of heavy water at Isfahan confirms the suspicions surrounding Iran’s nuclear program in three respects.

1. The long concealment of the Fordo site suggested to the UN inspectors that Iran has more hole-in the-corner nuclear facilities in the country. The discovery of a stock of heavy water further confirmed that Tehran is working hard to attain a nuclear weapon capacity on more than one track and at additional covert sites.

2. The IAEA wants to know who is selling Iran heavy water in violation of Security Council resolutions banning the sale or export of nuclear materials to Iran.

The very fact that some government or outside entity is willing to flout UN resolutions demonstrates that any further international sanctions would be ineffective for halting Iran’s nuclear drive, even assuming that President Barack Obama gained Russian and Chinese backing for such penalties. This backing has so far been withheld.

DEBKAfile’s sources report from Vienna that on November 10, IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei sent a request to the Iranian Nuclear Energy Committee asking it to confirm the presence of the heavy water and document its origin with a full explanation. Tehran has yet to reply.

3. The presence of the heavy water tanks at Isfahan is additional proof that the reactor at Arak is designed for military purposes, not a peaceful installation as Tehran claims.

This week, three environmental groups sued the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for approving uranium mining just north of the Grand Canyon. In addition to endangering the Native American people of the area and threatening the Canyon’s fragile desert ecology, pollution from the Denison Mines Corporation’s 207-acre Arizona 1 mine could contaminate the Colorado River, a drinking water source for 25 million Americans.

Canadian-based Denison, a member of the extractive industries conglomerate the Lundin Group, was refused permits by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality for two other mine sites just a year ago, based on the company’s failure to provide adequate information on its pollution control methods and for its proposal to use antiquated technology to capture uranium-contaminated runoff. Despite the company’s track-record, the BLM is not requiring a new environmental impact assessment, but is allowing the company to reopen the Arizona 1 mine based on a review from more than twenty years ago.

In 2006, Denison merged with the International Uranium Corporation (IUC); IUC’s White Mesa uranium mill in Utah was built on land sacred to the Navajo and Ute people, and has been the target of environmental justice and indigenous rights’ advocates for the health and environmental hazards the company created. Last year, Denison was charged by regulators with exceeding the daily limit of uranium ore hauled from the site.

Earlier this year environmentalists revealed that, despite a Congressional resolution banning new mining on 1 million acres near the Grand Canyon, the Interior Department authorized exploratory drilling for Quaterra Alaska, a U.S. subsidiary of Quaterra Resources, a Canadian mining company holding 2,400 mining claims near the Grand Canyon.

In a promotional company profile, Quaterra’s CEO is hailed for his previous experience in the mining industry, including work with Rio Tinto, a company notorious for environmental havoc, human rights violations, and harsh labor practices. His bio also notes a successful sale of his prior firm to Glamis Gold, a U.S. firm bought by Canada’s Goldcorp in 2006 to form one of the world’s largest mining companies.

Glamis is notorious for its dirty mining operations in Honduras and for opposition to its Guatemalan mining plans. Earlier this year, in a NAFTA first, the southwestern Quechan Nation won its dispute with Glamis when an international tribunal ruled that U.S. and state governments were within their rights in regulating the company’s mining in recognition of Native American cultural and land rights. However, Glamis retains mining rights in the area, despite the tribe’s longstanding opposition to mining on its sacred Indian Pass site, an area designated as one of the 11 Most Endangered Historic Places in 2002 by the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

Who can the United States actually trust to get things? Who can the United States trust in general?

On one page of  today’s New York Times:

1. Iraq stumbling to figure out their next election.

2. Blackwater facing more investigation.

3. The Iran uranium issue still playing on.

Also: Obama trying to get progress out of Afghanistan.

Can we blame Obama for lack of global progress when so many other countries are failing to take steps themselves? Yes, we do fail on some level, but we aren’t the only ones.

Also, without any trustworthy allies, it’s hard to make sure issues get solved.