[ RadSafe ] New nuclear power ‘wave’ — or just a ripple?

[Sandy Perle]

Index:

New nuclear power `wave´ - or just a ripple?
German nuclear phase-out will hit emission target 
Nuclear Areva targets clean power 
Truck with radioactive material swept away by swollne creek
Russia, Algeria plan cooperation on nuclear power
Qatar - Seven more stations to monitor radiation 
==================================

New nuclear power `wave´ - or just a ripple?

How millions for lobbying, campaigns helped fuel U.S. industry's big 
plans

In a debate certain to be replayed over and over again in the next 
few years, residents of Lacey Township, N.J., debate the future of 
the Oyster Creek nuclear plant -- the nation's oldest operating 
nuclear facility -- as its operators seek a 20-year extension of its 
operating license.

Buoyed by billions of dollars in subsidies pushed through Congress by 
the Bush administration, the U.S. nuclear power industry says 2007 is 
the year its plans for a "renaissance" will reach critical mass. 

"We see a wave," said Steve Kerekes, a spokesman with the Nuclear 
Energy Institute, the industry´s chief lobbying arm, pointing to 
letters of intent by a dozen firms to seek licenses for as many as 31 
new nuclear power plants. "We definitely believe it´s going to be a 
whole new era of new plant construction in this country." 

Kerekes credits improvements in plant design and efficiency and the 
ability to operate without spewing carbon into the air - a key 
advantage amid mounting concern about global warming - as chief 
reasons for the resurgence.

But critics say the real catalyst has been well-funded lobbying by 
the industry. They believe tax dollars spent to jump-start the 
dormant industry would be better devoted to alternative energy 
sources like wind and solar power. 

"If this were a renaissance, you wouldn´t need to be enticing giant 
corporations with subsidies in order to get them to build reactors 
they claim are economically viable," said Jim Riccio, nuclear policy 
analyst for the environmental group Greenpeace, a staunch foe of 
nuclear energy.

A remarkable turnaround
Regardless of which side is eventually proved correct, the mere 
discussion of building dozens of new plants is a remarkable 
turnaround for an industry that less than 10 years ago was widely 
viewed as the energy sector´s unsafe and expensive also-ran. And it´s 
a textbook case of how the wheels of government can change direction 
quickly when enough money, influence and political will are applied. 

Nuclear power proponents say the interest in new plants is just one 
sign that the technology may finally be on the verge of achieving the 
widespread acceptance and use they have long envisioned. Among them:

The relicensing of four dozen U.S. commercial reactors.
The emergence of well-known environmentalists as supporters of 
nuclear technology.
Groundbreaking for a new uranium enrichment plant in New Mexico.
A breathtakingly ambitious Bush administration plan for a global 
nuclear fuel cartel to light up the developing world with electricity 
while avoiding the threat of nuclear proliferation.
   
Ardent foes of nuclear energy like Paul Gunter of the Nuclear 
Information and Resources Service respond that these actions all are 
the result of pro-nuclear work by industry supporters in Congress and 
the Bush administration, not a genuine watershed in how investors and 
the public view nuclear power. 

"There´s a big difference between a letter of intent and the filing 
of an application," he said of the new plants, predicting that 
problems with waste disposal, safety and security will ultimately 
stall what he refers to as a nuclear power "relapse."

And while key committee chairmanships will remain in the hands of 
strong pro-nuclear lawmakers, the retaking of Congress by the 
Democrats could also present some roadblocks, especially on the 
central issue of waste, he said.

That lawmakers are once more considering such issues shows how far 
the nuclear energy needle has moved since the mid-1990s. 

Three Mile Island: The last straw
After its birth as an outgrowth of weapons programs in World War II, 
the nuclear energy industry battled design problems, cost overruns, 
safety issues and environmental foes for years to wind up with the 
103 U.S. reactors that remain in commercial operation today from 
California to New Hampshire. 

As construction delays and costs escalated, the meltdown at 
Pennsylvania´s Three Mile Island nuclear plant in the spring of 1979 
was the last straw for those who held the purse strings to new 
reactor construction. No new commercial reactors have been ordered 
since, although previously ordered plants continued to be built and 
come online until 1996. 
 
The 1986 accident at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in Russia, which is 
blamed for about 60 deaths by the World Health Organization, further 
tarnished the technology´s image. At that point, "any talk about a 
new plant (in the U.S.) would have been dismissed as childish 
optimism," admits nuclear power´s chief congressional cheerleader, 
Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M.

While accidents and economics halted nuclear expansion in the U.S., 
they did not have the same impact elsewhere. Of the 322 operating 
electricity-generating reactors currently in operation outside the 
United States, 171 began operating in the 1980s, 48 in the 1990s and 
28 so far this century, according to the NEI. Twenty-nine more plants 
are under construction outside the country, and 10 nations get more 
than 40 percent of their electricity from nuclear reactors, led by 
France at 78.5 percent. 

In the U.S., chastened nuclear operators focused on improving safety 
and efficiency at existing plants. They were successful: There have 
been no notable U.S. accidents since Three Mile Island and the U.S. 
reactor fleet has produced at about 90 percent of licensed capacity 
since 2001, up considerably from efficiency figures of the early 
1980s. Nuclear plants today produce about 20 percent of the 
electricity used in the United States.

Industry improvements are "an outgrowth, in all honesty, of the Three 
Mile Island accident," NEI's Kerekes said, "because the steps that 
were taken after that do a better job of sharing information in our 
industry and applying best practices."  

Industry gets a second wind
The industry´s first big step in its transformation from bastard 
stepchild to energy panacea and clean air savior came in 1997. That´s 
when Domenici delivered what he calls a "storied speech on nuclear 
power" at Harvard. The veteran senator was well-acquainted with 
nuclear issues by virtue of representing New Mexico, the birthplace 
of nuclear weapons and the home of two of the nation´s nuclear 
laboratories. 

Long fascinated by "gee-whiz-bang technical stuff," in the words of 
one acquaintance, and mindful of the nuclear industry´s improving 
efficiency record, Domenici became convinced the technology was not 
getting a fair shake. Urged on by a number of true believer aides 
that included Alex Flint, now the industry´s chief lobbyist, and Pete 
Lyons, now a Nuclear Regulatory Commission member, Domenici urged 
U.S. policy-makers to undo "bad decisions" of the past and harness 
"the full potential of the nucleus."

The Domenici speech was followed up by a 1998 forum that gathered 60 
participants from industry, government and academia to draft a plan 
to put nuclear power back on the nation´s energy agenda. 

With those talking points in hand, the industry saw its best opening 
in years in the 2000 presidential election and backed the Bush-Cheney 
ticket with nearly $270,000 in contributions, according to the Center 
for Responsive Politics. The victorious Republicans welcomed industry 
representatives to their energy transition team and later private 
discussions by Vice President Dick Cheney´s task force on energy. 

Familiar names from the 1998 forum popped up on the energy transition 
team: Flint, Domenici's former aide who was in between Senate staff 
jobs and working as a lobbyist for the industry; Flint´s new boss, 
former Louisiana Sen. Bennett Johnston, a strong ally of the nuclear 
industry while in Congress; and Joe Colvin, then president of NEI. At 
least another half-dozen of their industry colleagues also were 
involved.

Bush administration ties
But nuclear interests had long had the attention of Bush and Cheney, 
themselves major players in the oil and gas industry. 

One of the biggest names on the Bush energy transition team was 
Thomas Kuhn, president of the Edison Electric Institute, which 
represents the electric power industry and its nuclear reactor 
owners. Not only was Kuhn the president´s Yale classmate and longtime 
friend, he was one of Bush´s biggest fund-raisers. A study by Common 
Cause found that in the six years that bracketed the 2000 election, 
Kuhn´s organization and its members gave $41 million to political 
campaigns, three-fourths of it to Republicans. 

Cheney also had close ties to players with stakes in the nuclear 
sector. When the vice president was CEO of Halliburton, the company´s 
portfolio included Nuclear Utility Services. His close friend, former 
Texas Rep. Tom Loeffler, another big Republican fund-raiser, worked 
as a lobbyist on nuclear issues. And Cheney´s wife, Lynne, had served 
on the board of directors of Lockheed Martin, which earned millions 
from the federal government managing the Sandia Nuclear Laboratory in 
New Mexico. 

Once in office, Cheney´s energy task force worked quickly and behind 
closed doors. Kuhn had regular input, though he was not a member of 
the group.

As the administration´s energy policy began to emerge in the spring 
of 2001, its support for the nuclear power industry was beyond "my 
wildest dreams," Christian H. Poindexter, chairman of the 
Constellation Energy Group, later told the New York Times. A number 
of the policy´s final recommendations, including broad administration 
support for "the expansion of nuclear energy," streamlining the 
regulatory process and opening the way to reprocessing spent fuel, 
had been included in the action plan drafted by the 1998 forum that 
followed Domenici´s Harvard speech.  

At a press conference in the spring of 2001 to herald the 
administration´s energy plan, Domenici congratulated Bush and Cheney 
for "being courageous and realistic" on the nuclear front and 
embarked on a four-year effort to turn the plan into law. 

Task force records remain secret
Cheney's conduct of the task force sessions in secret angered 
journalists and others. Groups at opposite ends of the political 
spectrum sued over what Tom Fitton of the conservative group Judicial 
Watch, one of the plaintiffs, called an "unprecedented assertion of 
executive branch supremacy," but were largely unsuccessful in forcing 
the release of records they sought.

Six months after unveiling its energy plan, the administration forged 
ahead with the "Nuclear Power 2010 program," which the Department of 
Energy described as a cost-sharing demonstration project by 
government and industry to get a new generation of nuclear reactors 
up and running by "early in the next decade."

On Capitol Hill, however, energy legislation languished until 
Republicans regained control of the Senate in 2003, giving Domenici 
the chairmanship of the Senate Energy Committee. He hired back Flint, 
his former aide, from the nuclear lobbying ranks to direct the 
committee´s work and after 2½ years of horse-trading, parliamentary 
maneuvering and secret conference committee meetings, the bill 
finally became law in August 2005. 

Flint has since returned to work for the industry as its chief 
lobbyist. Domenici, meanwhile, led the fight to build a new uranium 
enrichment plant in his state to help fuel the presumed nuclear 
resurgence. On June 23, 2006, it became the first nuclear facility to 
win a new NRC license in 30 years. Both have declined repeated 
requests to be interviewed by MSNBC.com. 

The senator also has become a strong supporter of the Bush 
administration´s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, a futuristic and 
controversial plan for the United States and other nuclear "haves" to 
supply technology to "have-nots." The plan envisions the reprocessing 
of spent fuel, banned for decades by previous administrations because 
it was feared it could lead to the spread of nuclear weapons.

Billions pour into `renaissance´
Nuclear industry perks in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 were 
spotlighted when President Bush  signed the bill at Sandia National 
Lab in Domenci's home state of New Mexico. With his signature, 
billions in federal assistance flowed from Bush´s pen into the 
nuclear "renaissance," including:

$3 billion in research subsidies.
More than $3 billion in construction subsidies for new nuclear power 
plants. 
Nearly $6 billion in operating tax credits. 
More than $1 billion in subsidies to decommission old plants. 
A 20-year extension of liability caps for accidents at nuclear 
plants. 
Federal loan guarantees for the construction of new power plants.
Critics say the energy bill amply rewarded the industry for years of 
investment in campaign contributions and lobbying. 

"There no question that the utility industry lobbying and campaign 
contributions has had a huge influence," said Tyson Slocum of the 
anti-nuclear group Public Citizen. "... These are business people and 
business people do not part with money easily unless they are making 
investments. Politics is not a charity, it´s not tax deductible. The 
return on that investment dwarfs anything that they could get on Wall 
Street." 

But NEI's Kerekes said the legislation reflects the energy realities 
of the new century. 

"That would be a wonderful myth to peddle," he said, arguing that 
nuclear power found new favor on Wall Street and in Congress on its 
own merits. "Unless they´re going to accuse us of stoking concerns 
about global climate change over the past 15 or 20 years, I think 
that argument becomes pretty hollow pretty quickly."

Patrick Moore, a co-founder of the vehemently anti-nuclear group 
Greenpeace and one of a number of well-known environmentalists who 
now back nuclear power, agrees that nuclear energy earned a second 
look. 

Greenpeace founder embraces nuclear energy
"I honestly believe that the concern for emissions is why people are 
saying, `Hey we should be building more nuclear,´" said Moore, whose 
Vancouver, B.C.-based, consulting firm is now retained by the nuclear 
industry to improve its image. 

While the effect of the industry's campaign contributions and 
lobbying efforts in the years before the energy bill's passage are 
debatable, the amount of money invested is remarkable by any measure. 

Numerous reports from watchdog groups provide some details, but the 
fragmented nature of campaign finance disclosure and lobbying reports 
makes it difficult to determine cumulative figures. Many 
contributors, such as General Electric (owner of NBC Universal, which 
in turn is a partner with Microsoft in MSNBC.com), have numerous 
business concerns beyond nuclear energy. Others, like the U.S. 
Enrichment Corporation and NEI, are exclusively focused on nuclear 
energy.

But even a partial accounting is eye opening. MSNBC.com culled these 
statistics from campaign finance data provided by the Center for 
Responsive Politics via federal reports:

Companies in the energy and natural resources sectors, which includes 
nuclear power, and their employees, have donated $212.2 million to 
the campaigns of federal candidates since 2000 alone, three-fourths 
of it to Republicans.
Employees and political action committees of 23 large companies 
involved in efforts to build new U.S. nuclear reactors gave nearly 
$41 million to federal candidates from 1998 through this year. The 
donations accelerated as nuclear power regained favor, totaling  $3.5 
million in the 1998 election cycle, $4.6 million for 2000, $9.5 
million for 2002, $11.3 million for 2004 and more than $12 million in 
2006. Lobbying expenses reported by the same 23 firms from 1998 
through 2005 exceeded $292.5 million.

Four members of Congress singled out by Bush at the signing ceremony 
as instrumental in the energy bill's passage have been major 
recipients of nuclear industry largesse. Since 1989, Domenici has 
received $384,923 from electric utilities with big stakes in nuclear 
power, and his list of donors includes at least three dozen firms on 
the membership roster of the NEI. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., who 
succeeded Domenici as chairman of the Senate Energy Committee in 
January, got $406,576 from electric utilities in the same period and 
five of his top seven donors are tied to the nuclear industry. Former 
House Energy Committee Chairman Joe Barton, R-Texas, received $1 
million from electric utilities and his Lone Star colleague on the 
panel, Republican Ralph Hall, got $536,670.

Probe of energy task force promised
While there is little expectation that the Democratic-controlled 
Congress will seek to substantially roll back provisions of the 
energy bill, which was approved by an overwhelming majority in both 
houses, skeptics say some elements of the onrushing "nuclear 
renaissance" could face new scrutiny. In particular, the new chairman 
of the House Energy Committee, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., has vowed 
to investigate the Cheney energy task force, saying it was "carefully 
cooked to provide only participation by oil companies and energy 
companies." Dingell himself has been a favorite recipient of campaign 
contributions from the nuclear power industry over the years. 

Dr. Edwin Lyman of the Union of Concerned Scientists and other 
critics say the industry now faces the challenge of proving its 
economic argument. The only way to do that, he said, is by 
demonstrating that the resurgence will result in the construction of 
more than "a small number of reactors, exactly the number that 
receive subsidies under the Energy Policy Act." 

But Adrian Heymer, NEI´s senior director for new plant deployment, 
said the extent of the rebound will soon be clear; applications to 
build a majority of the 30-plus new nuclear reactors are expected by 
year's end.

He also brushed aside complaints that the streamlined NRC review 
process for the new license applications shuts out important 
opportunities for public comment and participation. 

"There´s more opportunity for public involvement, a lot more 
information is available earlier to the public," he said. Besides, he 
added, there may be little opposition to some of the plants, slated 
to be built on existing nuclear sites and actively sought by 
community leaders who look favorably on the economic benefits of 
large construction projects and the permanent jobs the plants will 
bring.

Don´t count on it, countered Gunter. "The anti-nuclear movement has 
been seasoned; we´re a lot more sophisticated and far more educated 
now as to the hazards and folly of nuclear power," he said. "None of 
the concerns that brought about the anti-nuclear movement in the 
1970s have disappeared. They´ve only been magnified. We have no 
better clue as to how to manage nuclear waste now than we did in 
1975." 

Waste disposal remains key issue
All parties agree that any large-scale nuclear renaissance will 
depend on answering the thorny political and technical questions 
surrounding the handling of spent fuel. The industry and 
administration´s current bid to get the Yucca Mountain repository in 
Nevada licensed are seen as dead by many observers because the new 
Senate majority leader, Democrat Harry Reid of Nevada, has always 
firmly opposed the facility.
-----------------

German nuclear phase-out will hit emission target 

Germany's plan to phase out nuclear energy will make it miss its CO2 
emission targets, raise electricity prices, cause more blackouts and 
"dramatically" increase Berlin's dependence on imported Russian gas, 
an independent study has warned. 
 
The 60-page paper by Deutsche Bank (NYSE:DB - news) is a serious 
indictment of chancellor Angela Merkel's decision, despite personal 
misgivings, to stick to the phase-out deal agreed by the previous 
government in 2000.

It will add to the increasingly acrimonious debate within the 
government about the wisdom of renouncing nuclear energy amid rising 
concern about global warming and the safety of energy supplies.

Michael Glos, the economics minister and a political ally of Ms 
Merkel, has campaigned vigorously for a revision of the nuclear phase-
out deal, triggering equally vigorous opposition from Sigmar Gabriel, 
the Social Democratic environment minister.

The paper also highlights the quandary facing the chancellor, who 
would have to choose between the three key goals of Germany's energy 
policy - to reduce emissions, to cut reliance on Russian fossil fuel, 
and to keep energy prices in check.

"Shutting down nuclear is inconceivable as a serious policy," Mark 
Lewis, energy analyst and author of the report, said. "It will mean 
missing your carbon emission targets and lead to gas-powered plants 
replacing today's nuclear plants."

A spokesman for the environment ministry said Germany's goal of 
cutting CO2 emission by 40 per cent of their 1990 level by 2020 "can 
be achieved without nuclear energy. But of course, nobody ever said 
it would be easy."

Backers of nuclear fuel also point out that the phase-out has left 
the country isolated as holder of the        European Union's 
rotating presidency. Berlin could have difficulties hammering out a 
compromise on a future European energy policy at the next European 
council summit in March.

With nuclear providing 25 per cent of Germany's electricity - and 
taking into account rising electricity demand and the fossil-fuel 
plants that are scheduled for replacement - DB calculates that 42 
Gigawatt of new plants will need to be built by 2022.

Since lignite and coal-powered plants are highly polluting, most of 
these would have to be gas-powered. Based on these assumptions, CO2 
emissions by the power sector will rise by 16 in the decade from 2010 
while Russian gas imports will increase from today's 35 per cent of 
the total to 50 per cent.

Even assuming Germany's ambitious emission targets for the industrial 
and transport sectors can be fulfilled, total greenhouse gas 
emissions will fall by only 31 per cent between 2010 and 2020, well 
short of the environment ministry's goal.

There are also doubts, too, about Berlin's emission goals for the non-
energy sectors, since these are based on cuts achieved shortly after 
1990, when half the fall in emissions was accounted for by the 
collapse of industrial activity in the former east-Germany.

An alternative policy, Mr Lewis said, would be to extend the life of 
nuclear power stations from 32 to 60 years. A special tax on the 
profits from these plants could be reinvested into research on 
"capture and storage" technology that makes coal-powered plants 
clean.

"I see the outline of a possible compromise between Ms Merkel and the 
SPD," he said, "since it would solve the energy policy dilemma while 
giving a future to domestically-produced coal, which matters a lot to 
the Social Democrats."
----------------

Nuclear Areva targets clean power  
 
Wind farms are expanding as clean energy gains in appeal 
French firm Areva - the largest maker of nuclear reactors - has 
tabled a $1bn (£506m; 772m euro) bid for leading clean energy firm 
Repower of Germany. 
Areva said it would pay 105 euros a share for the wind turbine firm, 
a move that would allow it to tap into the booming wind energy 
sector. 

Climate change has fuelled a greater commercial interest in clean 
energy, as firms try to reduce carbon emissions. 

News of the unsolicited offer pushed Repower shares 20% higher. 

The 105 euros a share offer represents a 17% premium on the firm's 
closing price on Friday. 

Areva said the deal would give it access to the technology, financial 
means, and expertise to speed up development especially in off-shore 
projects. 

Repower is one of Germany's major wind turbine producers and is 
present in Europe, Japan, China, India and Australia. 

Areva's move comes after it said its operating income would be 
considerably lower for 2006 than in 2005, but that it would "easily 
remain well in the black". 

News of the deal also gave a boost to fellow companies in the wind 
power sector. 

Denmark's Vestas, the world's largest maker of turbines saw the value 
of its shares rise 3% while shares in Spain's wind power firm Gamesa 
rose 1.7%.
---------------

Truck with radioactive material swept away by swollne creek
 
McALESTER, Okla. The search resumes tomorrow for a pickup truck 
carrying radioactive material that was swept from a bridge over a 
swollen creek.

Authorities blamed runoff from melting ice and snow and heavy weekend 
rains for the accident near McAlester today. No one was hurt.

Pittsburg County Undersheriff Richard Sexton says a pickup truck 
carrying radioactive materials used in pipeline scanning equipment 
was swept from a bridge and disappeared in swollen Coal Creek.

The truck's two occupants escaped unharmed, but efforts to locate the 
truck and its radioactive cargo were suspended tonight due to 
darkness.

Sexton says officials hope the creek's level will fall enough 
tomorrow to reveal the truck's whereabouts. A container containing 
the material is bolted to the truck.
---------------------

Russia, Algeria plan cooperation on nuclear power

ALGIERS Jan 22 --  Algeria and Russia want to cooperate in developing 
nuclear energy in Algeria, Russian industry and energy minister 
Victor Khristenko said in a statement carried by the Algerian news 
agency APS. 

"The [Russian] minister expressed satisfaction that Algeria and 
Russia agreed on the principle of future development of cooperation 
in the field of nuclear energy," the statement said late Sunday. 

The remarks following the signing of a "memorandum of understanding 
and cooperation" on energy. 

Khristenko said: "We have agreed within the framework of the 
memorandum to begin contacts between experts in the two countries to 
study the possibilities of bilateral cooperation and to determine the 
areas of possible cooperation in this [nuclear] context and I hope 
that we can begin this work soon." 

Algeria has been operating two experimental nuclear reactors since 
1995. One of these is at Draria, Algiers, and the other at Ain 
Ouessara in the central south of the country. Both are inspected 
regularly by the International Atomic Energy Agency. 

On January 9, in remarks to a regional African conference on nuclear 
matters, Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika defended the right 
of African countries "to benefit from scientific and technological 
progress made in the [civil] nuclear field." 

Algerian and Russian officials said that the memorandum provided 
assurance that joint projects would be followed up at every stage in 
the process of the exploration, production, marketing, and 
transportation of hydrocarbons. 

Algerian energy and mines minister Chakib Khelil had said beforehand 
that he would give approval "as soon as possible" for the development 
of a gas field at Illizi in the Sahara Desert. 

This resource was discovered by Algerian company Sonatrach in 
association with Russian companies Rosneft-Stroytransgaz. 

Algerian authorities say that the investment required is estimated at 
$3 billion to $4 billion. 

Development of this gas field "will show that Russian companies can 
compete with other companies and achieve very positive results in 
Algeria," Khelil said. 

He hoped that this example of cooperation with Sonatrach would be 
followed by other Russian companies such as Gazprom or Lukoil in the 
activities of exploration and production. 

Khristenko has been visiting Algeria since Friday to strengthen 
cooperation between the two countries, particularly in the gas 
sector.
-----------------

Qatar - Seven more stations to monitor radiation 

Gulf Times Jan 22 - Qatar is to have seven more  nuclear accidents 
and radiation emergency early warning stations. Like the existing 
four such stations, the new facilities will be set up with the 
International Atomic Energy Agency´s help. It will provide a grant of 
$120,000 this year and a similar amount in 2008, according to a team 
of IAEA experts, now visiting Qatar. Besides helping Qatar develop 
its human resources with eight scholarships, the agency will also 
provide four experts and organise four scientific trips. This was 
announced at a press conference at the Supreme Council for 
Environment and Natural Reserves (SCENR). SCENR secretary-general 
Khalid Ghanem al-Ali said that all "organisations and agencies in 
Qatar were doing their best to augment their capabilities to achieve 
maximum protection from the dangers of radiation". The IAEA team 
included Dr Galmoni Balqasem, member of the IAEA; Dr Tom Ryan, 
radiation safety expert from Ireland; Dr Adlien Isloe, from France; 
and Ibrahim Shaddad, an expert from Sudan. Also present at the press 
conference was Dr Ahmed al-Khatibeh, adviser on radiation protection 
at SCENR. This is the second visit by the IAEA team to Qatar. The 
previous one was in 2003. Khalid al-Ali pointed out that no country 
in the world could do without radioactive materials that are used for 
peaceful purposes such as in medicine and industry. The IAEA 
officials expressed appreciation for efforts by Qatar in the 
effective use of radioactive materials for peaceful purposes. Now, 
Qatar can increase its capabilities in this context since it was 
among the best in the region in terms of monitoring radiation. The 
IAEA has agreed to implement five projects, including the monitoring 
centres, in nuclear application in Qatar.   

Sandy Perle
Senior Vice President, Technical Operations
Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc.
2652 McGaw Avenue
Irvine, CA 92614 

Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714  Extension 2306
Fax:(949) 296-1144

E-Mail: sperle at dosimetry.com
E-Mail: sandyfl at cox.net 

Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ 
Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/