Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, pictured in Belgium yesterday, said any agreement between Iran and Russia must allow Tehran to continue current nuclear research (Gerard Cerles/Getty Images). No Breakthrough in Iran-Russia Nuclear Compromise Talks Iran and Russia today concluded two-day negotiations on a compromise nuclear proposal without any breakthrough, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Feb. 17). Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the negotiations would continue. “I would be cautious about using the term ‘failure’ or ‘setback’ while the negotiations continue,” ITAR-Tass quoted Lavrov as saying...Full Story

Biochemical Advances Create New Weapons Potential By Chris Schneidmiller Global Security Newswire ST. LOUIS, Mo. — Advances in biochemistry could lead to the development of new agents capable of causing terror, pain and a host of other effects, an expert said Saturday (see GSN, April 21, 2004)...Full Story

U.S. Deal No Proliferation Risk, Says Indian Envoy By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — India’s envoy to Washington said today that the controversial U.S.-Indian nuclear cooperation deal poses no proliferation risk (see GSN, Feb. 17)...Full Story

	Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Experts Question U.S. Port Security Only about 5 to 7 percent of all cargo shipped through U.S. seaports is ever checked by security, ABC’s “World News Tonight” reported yesterday (see GSN, Oct. 31, 2005). On two occasions ABC News was able to ship depleted uranium through U.S. ports. The material has the same radiation signature as weapon-grade uranium, according to ABC News. While the United States has spent $18 billion improving aviation security since Sept. 11, 2001, only some $560 million has been spent to secure seaports, according to one congressional study.  U.S. officials said they have deployed WMD sensors and increased the number of targeted spot checks at ports, according to ABC News. Baltimore Mayor Martin O’Malley said ports need still more surveillance cameras and other technology. “I think it’s appalling that the wealthiest nation on the planet would invest so little in port security,” O’Malley said. Some security analysts, however, question whether spending more money on port security measures would have much effect. “The best investment we can make for preventing a mushroom cloud over an American city is to prevent the terrorists from getting their hands on the nuclear material first,” said Randall Larsen of the Institute for Homeland Security (Pierre Thomas, ABC “World News Tonight,” Feb. 20). Back to top

No Breakthrough in Iran-Russia Nuclear Compromise Talks Iran and Russia today concluded two-day negotiations on a compromise nuclear proposal without any breakthrough, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Feb. 17). Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the negotiations would continue. “I would be cautious about using the term ‘failure’ or ‘setback’ while the negotiations continue,” ITAR-Tass quoted Lavrov as saying. Lavrov said yesterday that Iran should again halt uranium enrichment. “It’s important for Iran to resume a moratorium on uranium enrichment on its territory and continue contacts between all interested parties to achieve mutually acceptable agreements,” he said. However, the head of the Iranian delegation in Moscow, Supreme National Security Council Deputy Secretary Ali Hosseinitash, before the meeting rejected any connection between the Russian proposal to enrich uranium on Iran’s behalf and demands for Iran to restore an enrichment moratorium. Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency chief Sergei Kiriyenko is scheduled to travel to Iran on Thursday for further talks, according to AP (Henry Meyer, Associated Press/ABCNews.com, Feb. 21). Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said any lasting agreement with Russia would have to include fuel supplies while allowing Tehran to continue its current nuclear activities, Agence France-Presse reported yesterday. “It means the research department will continue its activities and the Russian proposal is for major fuel production, nuclear fuel production,” Mottaki said (Agence France-Presse/IranMania.com, Feb. 20). Meanwhile, top Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani last week proposed resuming snap International Atomic Energy Agency inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities and resuming negotiations with the European Union, AP reported Saturday. Larijani made the offers in a French radio interview on Thursday. The Iranian Embassy in Paris later released a statement saying that U.S. and British scientists have proposed allowing Tehran the use of centrifuges for limited uranium enrichment. The Iranian Embassy said such a centrifuge deal could prompt Iran to ratify its Additional Protocol to its International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards agreement, which allows for short-notice international inspections. “If such guarantees were accepted, Iran would accept to submit the Additional Protocol to parliament for ratification,” the embassy announced (John Leicester, Associated Press/Washington Post, Feb. 18). EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said Iran in talks yesterday had not presented any new nuclear proposals to Brussels, AFP  reported. “They have repeated their arguments but the substantive position has not changed,” he said after meeting with Mottaki. Solana said he hoped Tehran would change its position before the International Atomic Energy Agency releases its report on Iran on March 6. He also seemed to reject the possibility of continued nuclear research in Iran, according to AFP. “I don’t think these type of proposals continue to construct confidence, but probably they go in the opposite direction,” he said (Agence France-Presse, Feb. 20). Mottaki said today that Iran would only hold nuclear talks with France, Germany and the United Kingdom on a bilateral basis, AFP reported. “Our contacts with the European Union will no longer be held with the EU-3, but in a unilateral manner with the different countries of the European Union,” he said. “At the moment we are at the beginning of the road for enrichment in the laboratory. Any new idea for negotiations needs to go from this point,” he added (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Feb. 21). Mottaki also welcomed a proposal by IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei that Iran be allowed to conduct small-scale uranium enrichment. “We regard this proposal as an indication of accepting enrichment in Iran and a step forward,” the IRNA news agency quoted Mottaki was as saying (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Feb. 18). Top Iranian clerics have for the first time endorsed nuclear weapons, the London Sunday Telegraph reported. Mohsen Gharavian, a lecturer based in a religious school in Qom, declared “for the first time that the use of nuclear weapons may not constitute a problem, according to Shariah,” the reformist Iranian Internet publication Rooz reported. “When the entire world is armed with nuclear weapons, it is permissible to use these weapons as a countermeasure. According to Shariah [Islamic law], too, only the goal is important,” Gharavian is quoted as saying (Colin Freeman, Sunday Telegraph/Washington Times, Feb. 19). Iran offered to open talks with the United States on weapons of mass destruction in May 2003, Newsday reported Sunday. Sadegh Kharazi, Iran’s ambassador to France, sent a fax to the State Department proposing negotiations that would address topics including Tehran’s nuclear program and support for terrorism, said Flynt Leverett, a former senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council who said he read the document. “The Iranians acknowledged that WMD and support for terror were serious causes of concern for us, and they were willing to negotiate,” Leverett said. “The message had been approved by all the highest levels of authority. They wanted us to deal with sanctions, security guarantees, normalization of relations, and support for integration of Iran into the World Trade Organization.” In the wake of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iran’s envoys to Sweden and the United Kingdom also indicated Tehran’s willingness to negotiate with Washington, according to a former Western diplomat.  Former senior CIA official Paul Pillar also said Iran was pushing for engagement with the United States at the time. “There were several other informed intellectuals who visited Iran at the time,” he said. “They were being used to receive and deliver similar sorts of messages. There was an interest in Tehran in engaging and talking.” However, the Bush administration rejected the Iranian overtures and told Swiss Ambassador Tim Guldimann that he had exceeded his authority by acting as an intermediary in the message-passing, Leverett said. Some experts said the United States might have missed an opportunity to end Iran’s nuclear program, according to Newsday. “No one at a senior level was willing to push Iran on diplomacy,” Leverett said. “Was there at least a chance that we could have gotten something going? Yes, there was a chance.” A State Department spokesman, however, disputed the notion that there was ever an opportunity for direct negotiations with Iran. “The presumption that the regime in Iran is going to change its stripes is specious,” the spokesman told Newsday. “Was there a credible approach from the Iranian government with an offer that made any kind of sense? Never at any time.” (Gregory Beals, Newsday, Feb. 19). U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton told Time magazine that Iran should follow the example of Libya, which gave up its WMD programs in 2004, AFP reported Sunday. Asked if the nuclear standoff could still be resolved through diplomacy, Bolton said: “Sure.  I never would have guessed that Libya was prepared to make the calculation that they were safer giving up the pursuit of nuclear weapons than continuing to go after them, and yet they did.” “And that led to substantial progress in the relationship between Libya and the United States.  If Libya can do it, Iran can do it too,” he said. “That’s why I say the decision ultimately is largely in their hands,” he added (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Feb. 19). China today urged Iran to halt its uranium enrichment activities, AP reported. “We hope Iran can restore its moratorium on all activities related to uranium enrichment and create the conditions for the solution of the nuclear issue through negotiations,” said Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao (Associated Press/Pravda, Feb. 21). An Iranian official, meanwhile, said Tehran plans to construct 20 nuclear power plants, United Press International reported Saturday. The Fars News Agency quoted Mohammad Hosein Farhangi, a member of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, as saying that Iran’s next budget orders construction of the 20 plants (United Press International, Feb. 19). Back to top       U.S. Deal No Proliferation Risk, Says Indian Envoy By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — India’s envoy to Washington said today that the controversial U.S.-Indian nuclear cooperation deal poses no proliferation risk (see GSN, Feb. 17). Speaking just before U.S. President George W. Bush visits India to discuss nuclear issues and other matters, Ambassador Ronen Sen defended his country’s nonproliferation record and declined to offer detailed comment on the U.S.-Indian agreement. “I don’t think it’s a risky agreement,” said the ambassador, a former secretary of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission. Given what he described as India’s exemplary record in nonproliferation, Sen said he saw “irony” in nonproliferation advocates’ criticisms of the U.S.-Indian deal. The deal, which Bush announced last year and appears poised to submit for congressional approval, would see Washington provide nuclear technology and materials to India in exchange for New Delhi’s opening of facilities deemed civilian in nature to International Atomic Energy Agency inspections. A major focus of controversy in North America over the deal is the question of which nuclear facilities India — which is not a party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty — will deem civilian and which it will effectively shield from inspections by designating as military. Asked whether India would classify its 40-megawatt, Canadian-supplied Cirus reactor (see GSN, Jan. 19) as a civilian facility, Sen said he “would not like to comment in detail” on the agreement being negotiated. However, he added that “no country has alleged that India has broken any laws” with respect to the Cirus facility, which produces much of India’s weapon-grade plutonium. “We have taken note of the sentiments which have been expressed in Canada and in some quarters in the United States,” the ambassador said, referring to calls for the reactor to be classified as civilian. Back to top       India, France Sign Nuclear Agreement India and France yesterday signed a declaration that said the two countries would cooperate in nuclear energy matters “exclusively for peaceful purposes,” Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Feb. 17). The deal confirmed efforts by Paris and New Delhi to establish “a bilateral cooperation agreement on the development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, subject to their respective international commitments and obligations.” Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said that all cooperation would “of course be subjected to (International Atomic Energy Agency) safeguards.” “We appreciate France's support for the ongoing efforts to enable full civilian nuclear civilian cooperation between India and the international community,” he said after meeting with French President Jacques Chirac. Chirac told India Today magazine that the Nuclear Suppliers Group must approve the transfer of technology before France begins sharing with India. The organization’s rules require that countries importing nuclear technology promise that it will not be used to make nuclear weapons (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Feb. 20). Back to top       March or April Eyed for North Korean Nuclear Talks Negotiators are trying to set a March or April date for a return to multilateral talks on North Korea’s nuclear programs, Reuters reported today (see GSN, Feb. 14). China, North Korea and the United States have conducted bilateral meetings to discuss U.S. financial sanctions on firms believed to be connected to illicit North Korean financial activities, Yonhap News quoted a South Korean official as saying. “The countries participating in the talks believe it would be desirable to hold the next round in late March or early April, and related countries are holding contacts,” the official told Yonhap. “The level of contacts now (between North Korea and the United States) is at the working level and not to talk about a specific matter or substantive issues,” the official added. “But it’s possible there is substantive dialogue between China and North Korea” (Jack Kim, Reuters/Yahoo!News, Feb. 21). The Russian Foreign Ministry, meanwhile, announced that U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Alexeyev met yesterday in Moscow to discuss the potential for a return to the talks, RIA Novosti reported (RIA Novosti, Feb. 20). Elsewhere, the newly installed top South Korean nuclear negotiator warned that the six-party talks are at risk of becoming irrelevant if they do not show results soon, the Associated Press reported yesterday. “If we repeat rounds of talks without progress, it could rather give rise to views that the talks are of no use,” said Chun Young-woo, head of the Foreign Ministry’s Policy Planning and International Organizations Office. Chun, a nonproliferation and disarmament expert, was involved in implementation of the now-defunct 1994 Agreed Framework, according to AP (Jae-Soon Chang, Associated Press, Feb. 20). Back to top

Biochemical Advances Create New Weapons Potential By Chris Schneidmiller Global Security Newswire ST. LOUIS, Mo. — Advances in biochemistry could lead to the development of new agents capable of causing terror, pain and a host of other effects, an expert said Saturday (see GSN, April 21, 2004). These weapons could be used by law enforcement and the military to reduce casualties during engagements, but also would risk falling into the hands of torturers and terrorists, said Mark Wheelis, a senior microbiology lecturer at the University of California, Davis. “We will not be just equipping our police and our military, we will also be equipping our adversaries,” Wheelis said during a panel discussion on biological weapons at the 2006 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Genomics — the study of an organism’s genetic material — is paving the way for development of a wide range of “bioregulators” that target highly specific physiological processes with reduced side effects. Making these pharmaceuticals ready for public use would cost millions of dollars and take years, but eventually they could be used to treat physical pain, mental illness and other “dysfunctional states,” according to Wheelis. However, it would not be an inconceivable step to turn these drugs against people, Wheelis said: “Some of these products have potential as weapons.” The militaries of Russia, the United States and other nations are already believed to be in possession of or looking toward new forms of incapacitating weaponry, he said. Russian forces are believed to have used an aerosol version of the synthetic opiate fentanyl in several hostage situations, including the 2002 incident at a Moscow theater in which more than 100 hostages died after exposure to the gas. U.S. special operations forces have also been said to have a “knockout gas” in their arsenal, Wheelis said (see GSN, Oct. 30, 2002). “There’s almost certainly interest from a wide variety of other countries in these types of agents,” he said. “Pharmaceutical-like” compounds in gas form could increase the capability of military or police personnel to end hostage situations, pacify prisoners or clear buildings during urban warfare — hopefully without killing their targets. These drugs could advance to the point in which they would be able to cause anxiety, depression, stupor, terror, pain or paralysis, Wheelis said. Sending an enemy combatant into a stupor or leaving him immobile removes that person as a threat. New drugs potentially put new weapons in the hands of terrorists, criminals, torturers, interrogators, dictators and enemy militaries, Wheelis said. He noted that people with bad intentions already regularly use incapacitating agents. Robbers use pepper spray on their targets and date rapists use the drug Rohypnol to subdue their victims and limit their memory of being assaulted. There have also been allegations of psychiatric medications used on prisoners at the U.S. facility at Guantanamo Bay, Wheelis said. Using bioregulators as weapons would also undermine the international norms against use of chemical weapons and of using pharmaceuticals for nontherapeutic purposes, Wheelis said. Scientific progress cannot be stopped, so policies must be prepared to prevent the use of these potential weapons, he said. Nations and international bodies must “preserve, define and strengthen” the boundaries between permitted law-enforcement activities and the prohibition against use of toxic chemicals. Human rights must also be recognized to include the protection against nonconsensual physiological manipulation, Wheelis said. Wheelis and fellow panelists gave a grim assessment of the present and future of biological weapons and biological defense. They warned, though, against overstating the threat posed by bioterrorism. While weaponized forms of naturally occurring toxins such as anthrax and smallpox are likely to remain the main biological threat for the foreseeable future, technology is pushing weapons beyond those “traditional” agents, said panel moderator Alan Pearson, Biological and Chemical Weapons Control Program director at the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation. The door has opened for “enhanced” weapons engineered for increased virulence or resistance to countermeasures, Pearson said. For example, it was reported last year that Australian scientists had accidentally produced a form of mousepox able to infect vaccinated mice (see GSN, March 21, 2005). Another threat would come from “advanced” agents that target a specific biological process, such as the immune system or heart functions. The danger comes not just from terrorism but from potential state programs, Pearson said. Terrorists, in fact, are not yet thought capable of preparing a biological weapon. “Even those who are most concerned about the bioterrorism problem will tell you that terrorists don’t yet have the capability for a substantial bioterrorism attack,” Pearson said. “We’re not at doom and gloom right now.” The task now is to keep the theoretical threat from becoming an actual threat, he said. That means preparing further measures to prevent the use of biological weapons and plans and materials for responding to an attack should one occur. “Nothing we do may be 100 percent. The goal here is to reduce the risk as much as we possibly can,” Pearson said. The U.S. biodefense policy established in 2004 runs the risk of creating additional dangers from other nations, said Jonathan Tucker, senior researcher at the Monterey Institute’s Center for Nonproliferation Studies. Traditional efforts to gather intelligence on state biological weapons programs have proven insufficient, as illustrated by the Soviet Union’s ability to hide its military project under the guise of a civilian facility, Tucker said. The United States is addressing that shortfall through development of the Biological Threat Characterization Center at the U.S. National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center.  The threat center’s role is to “close critical knowledge gaps” of both known and potential threats to guide development of countermeasures, Tucker said.  Exploring “putative” threats runs the risk of focusing on the wrong dangers, Tucker said. There are “vast numbers” of genetic manipulations that could be made to organisms, he said. “How are we to know which ones an adversary would be likely to pursue?” Tucker said. Studying offensive capabilities — even only with the intent of developing countermeasures to those weapons — could lead to a new arms race, he said. Suspicious nations are more likely to react to the United States’ suspected capability rather than its pledges that its intent is purely protective. The problem is aggravated by the operation of secret U.S. biodefense programs, Tucker said. “At the very time when openness would be needed to reassure other countries … these programs have become more and more nontransparent.” There is also danger of technology “leakage” through inside threats along the lines of Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen, who sold secrets to the Soviet Union respectively from inside the CIA and FBI. Multiple strategies are needed to avoid the danger that could be posed in the effort to defend the United States against biological weapons, Tucker said. Among his recommendations were realistic transparency of biodefense work, ending assessments of “putative” threats, more international collaboration, and readying a rapid system for countermeasure development. Changes must be made in the research and development of protective drugs, said Brad Smith, an associate at the University of Pittsburgh Center for Biosecurity. Put simply, the system needs to be “faster, cheaper, better,” he said. It can take between $400 million and $800 million and up to 12 years to put a new drug on the market. That means the pharmaceutical companies focus on areas that are known to be lucrative. There were 506 drugs known to be in development in 2004 in the United States. Six of those were antibiotics and five were non-HIV antivirals.  Policy and technological changes must be made to improve the system, Smith said. Infectious disease research and development need to remain “vibrant” even when the danger seems low. All players in the drug development process — research laboratories, biotechnology firms and the “Big Pharma” companies — must be engaged in the effort, he said. “It’s something that we have to be committed to … but I think it’s a struggle worth pursuing,” Smith said. Back to top       Study Finds Early Treatment Works Against Anthrax A report published today in The Annals of Internal Medicine found that early treatment of victims in the 2001 anthrax attacks could have decreased the death rate by 50 percent, the New York Times reported (see GSN, Jan. 3). Researchers discovered that the five victims who died in the attacks did not receive the antibiotics quickly enough. They averaged 4 1/2 days between exposure to anthrax and treatment. Antibiotics must be administered quickly in conjunction with chest drains if they are to be effective, according to the report. Ten of the 11 victims in the 2001 attacks took two or more antibiotics and eight had fluid removed from their chest. “There was one who received only one antibiotic and he rapidly died,” said Jon-Erik Holty, lead author of the study. A second person who did not undergo chest-draining also died, the Times reported. Prior to 2001, half of anthrax patients received no antibiotics. Only one survived.  All patients who survived the 2001 attacks and previous cases took more than one antibiotic. Even if all those exposed to anthrax in 2001 received antibiotics within two days, the death rate would have been about 20 percent, the report states. The patients who died all had progressed to late stages of infection before antibiotics were administered.  “The diagnosis is a challenge because the early symptoms are so similar to common infections we see every day. But what the authors of this study point out about the lower fatality rate in the 2001 cases compared to the earlier ones is encouraging,” said Andre Sofair, an assistant medical professor at Yale University. Also problematic is that most U.S. doctors have never seen an anthrax case. “The problem is that it hasn't been studied because it's so rare,” Sofair said (Nicholas Bakalar, New York Times, Feb. 21). Meanwhile, a high school student in Pittsburgh proved that anthrax spores in mail can be killed with a hot clothes iron without ruining the letter inside, the Associated Press reported. Marc Roberge, a senior at Central Catholic High School, decided to test the idea after discussion with his father, a medical toxicologist for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Anthrax was not used in the experiment. “The government might have had a problem with that,” said Roberge, 17. Used in its place was a spore from the anthrax family that is more resistant to heat than anthrax. Roberge placed the spores inside an envelope then ironed them for up to 15 minutes at various temperatures. He found that an iron at 400 degrees Fahrenheit killed the spores in five minutes. “When the anthrax attacks happened, I thought, ‘There’s got to be a way to stop this,’” Roberge said. “I just never thought it would be so easy.” His results are set to be published in June in the Journal of Medical Toxicology. Mail should not normally be ironed, said Michael Allswede, a bioterrorism expert at the University of Pittsburgh. “But should there be another threat like the anthrax attacks in 2001, it would be one of the techniques that could be used by regular people,” he said (Associated Press/CBS3, Feb. 20). Back to top       Kentucky, Tennessee Lobby for Biological Defense Lab Officials at three universities are urging the federal government to build the $450 million National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility in Kentucky near its border with Tennessee, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, Dec. 21, 2005). The planned facility would develop countermeasures to biological agents that terrorists might use. The University of Kentucky, University of Louisville and the University of Tennessee have joined with political leaders from the two states in seeking to have the 500,000-square-foot complex built in nearby Pulaski County, Ky., about 90 miles northwest of Knoxville, Tenn. The Homeland Security department is expected to make its site selection next year for a laboratory to replace the Plum Island Animal Disease Center in New York. The facility is tentatively scheduled to begin operation in 2012, AP reported. Researchers at the new facility would study emerging public health threats and “high consequence” pathogens spread by animals. The facility would be among the most secure in the country, said Michael Blackwell, dean of the University of Tennessee College of Veterinary Medicine. “I would not be afraid if this facility were located in my back yard,” Blackwell said. “It will be that safe and secure” (Roger Alford, Associated Press/Tennesseean.com, Feb. 21). Back to top

Japanese Cult Leader Found Mentally Competent The founder of the Japanese cult responsible for a 1995 nerve gas attack on the Tokyo subway system has been declared mentally competent in a court-ordered psychiatric review, Agence France-Presse reported yesterday (see GSN, Jan. 17). The psychiatrist said Shoko Asahara is faking mental illness and can stand face legal proceedings, according to a spokeswoman for the Tokyo High Court. Asahara’s defense attorneys said he can only groan “mmm” and cannot make eye contact with others. “The report states the defendant shows some symptoms from his time in prison but not to the extent of mental disorder. He stays silent, faking dementia,” the spokeswoman said. “Although the defendant does not speak, there is no evidence that he has lost the ability to speak and it has been proven in many cases that he still has the ability to communicate,” she added, quoting from the report. According to Jiji Press, Asahara in November screamed at family members who visited him, “Go home, idiots!” Asahara has been sentenced to death for multiple crimes, including the sarin attack that killed 12 people and injured thousands. His lawyers said they did not file an appeal of the sentence because they have been unable to communicate with their client. If they still do not appeal, the High Court could finalize the sentence, according to AFP. Masaaki Noda, a psychiatrist who at the request of defense counsel visited Asahara last month, said the report was influenced by the High Court’s stand on the matter. “When I saw him at the prison, he failed to react to any of the words I said,” Noda said. “He only moved his face a bit, scratched his forehead and grinned every once a while.” “The psychiatrist who produced the report should prove what kind of communication ability he has and what ability he meant in the report,” he added (Agence France-Presse I, Feb. 20). Lawyers for Asahara said they would protest the finding that their client can stand trial, AFP reported. “We will demand to rectify the unfair nature” of the psychiatrist’s report, said defense lawyer Takeshi Matsui. Matsui said defense attorneys have until March 15 to submit a response to the report on Asahara’s mental health. Prosecution lawyers are likely to urge the court to reject an appeal from Asahara and push for his execution, as the defense team missed deadlines to file the request (Agence France-Presse, Feb. 21). Back to top       Belgium Unearths World War I-Era Chemical Weapons A stash of World War I-era chemical weapons has been found in Belgium, Agence France-Presse reported Saturday (see GSN, Aug. 12, 2005). The 220 shells, 80 percent of which are believed to contain arsenic, chlorine or mustard gas, are of German origin and were discovered buried at Ghislenghien in Western Belgium, the country’s Defense Ministry announced (Agence France-Presse, Feb. 18). Back to top       U.S. Destroys Recovered Chemical Weapon The U.S. Nonstockpile Chemical Materiel Project last week destroyed a recovered 75 mm mustard-gas munition at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware (see GSN, Jan. 6). The munition was destroyed using the project’s Explosive Destruction System, according to a U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency press statement. On Feb. 15, workers put explosive cutting charges on the weapon before it was placed in the destruction system. Next, the cutting charges were detonated and reagent was pumped into the EDS chamber. The weapons was heated and then allowed to cool overnight before the waste was removed from the system and packaged for disposal (U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency release, Feb. 17). Back to top       Sarin Leak Found at Umatilla CW Storage Site Trace amounts of sarin were discovered Wednesday inside a storage igloo at the Umatilla Chemical Depot in Oregon, the East Oregonian reported (see GSN, Jan. 3). A monitoring crew discovered the nerve agent during routine checks. The nerve agent posed no danger to the environment or the public. Storage igloos have a passive filter system in place to catch nerve agent. As a precaution, a powdered filter system was also installed in the igloo (East Oregonian, Feb. 16). Back to top

Pakistan Tests Nuclear-Capable Missile Pakistan on Sunday tested the nuclear-capable Abdali missile, which has a range of 200 kilometers, the Financial Times reported yesterday (see GSN, Jan. 24; Farhan Bokhari, Financial Times, Feb. 20). Back to top

U.S. Energy Department Reaffirms Yucca Findings A U.S. Energy Department report released Friday found that work done in preparation for the planned Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump in Nevada was sound despite containing fabricated information, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, July 19, 2005). However, due to quality assurance regulations the work will be redone at a cost of up to several million dollars, said Paul Golan, acting head of the department’s Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Office. “We need to move forward based on work that meets our quality standards. And if that means redeveloping this work, taking the time and incurring the cost to do that, we just need to do that,” he said. U.S. Geological Survey hydrologists indicated in e-mail messages revealed last year that they kept documents from quality assurance personnel, fabricated facts and deleted data that did not fit their needs. The scientists, who wrote the e-mails from 1998 to 2004, were trying to determine how quickly water would penetrate the dump site. Findings that the water penetration would be fairly slow supported that argument that radiation would be less likely to escape the facility, AP reported. Nevada lawmakers and opponents of the site challenged the finding and accused the scientists of changing their data to match Energy Department conclusions. The department’s report found that despite these fabrications, the estimates by the scientists match the work of other researchers on similar environments elsewhere.   The report said the 2002 recommendation to use Yucca as a storage site stood. Critics of the dump dismissed the report. “The DOE, which failed to prevent the falsification of scientific data on Yucca Mountain projects in the first place, now wants us to believe that the falsifications made no difference in the quality of the work. That's absurd,” said Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in a joint release with fellow Nevada Senator John Ensign (R) (Erica Werner, Associated Press/Washington Post, Feb. 17).   Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

© Copyright 2008 by National Journal Group, Inc. The material in this section is produced independently for NTI by National Journal Group, Inc. Any reproduction or retransmission, in whole or in part, is a violation of federal law and is strictly prohibited without the consent of the National Journal Group, Inc. All rights reserved.