Subj: Here is the full story
Kent
Date: 7/19/00 1:09:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Nuclear warhead kills thousands,accident reports are blocked by US media.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Jim Moore, Editor & Publisher Efforts to dismantle the ex-Soviet nuclear
arsenal have come to a screeching halt - and the mainstream news media hasn't
said a word about the reason why - a 20-megaton nuclear explosion Nov. 5
that killed 3,000 in Siberia. The Asia News Service reported "the 20-megaton
warhead of an SS-18 intercontinental missile accidentally exploded" when
technicians were lowered into the missile silo at a central Siberian site
to disarm the warhead in accordance with the START I treaty. (START II has
not been ratified). News reports have been virtually nonexistent in the western
press, even though accounts did appear briefly, we are told, in the Russian
newspapers. The Russian military has reportedly issued a terse statement
confirming the blast and saying that western officials, including President
Clinton, have been briefed and would be kept abreast of any new developments.
The information TennTimes has been able to obtain is sketchy and very difficult
to verify. Part of the reason is that the START agreement imposes heavy
censorship on both the U.S. and Russian press, a censorship this reporter
found puzzling. "America's free press is anything but free when it comes
to reporting on compliance with the START I arms control agreement," says
Michael R. Boldrick, a retired Air Force colonel who writes on arms control
issues for Reason Online. "Under the terms of START I, the United States'
and the Russian Federation's nuclear republics are supposed to downsize their
still-formidable fleets of strategic nuclear bombers, ballistic missiles,
and missile-firing submarines. But despite evidence that the Russians are
backsliding on the deal, the U.S. government is holding up its end of the
bargain, including a provision that bars independent investigations of
compliance." "Other than official announcements, highly sanitized reports,
and carefully worded press releases, there is virtually no information available
to the media on how Russia and the United States are living up to their START
obligations or how they are cooperating with the first cadre of on-site
inspectors. "This cold shoulder is by design, not accident: The treaty itself
bars the U.S. government from allowing reporters to conduct independent
investigations or to consult unsanctioned sources in filing stories about
START compliance. It doesn't matter whether journalists want to visit a missile
base in Siberia or South Dakota that's undergoing compliance inspections:
They won't get permission." "Think about it," Boldrick wrote. "If Washington
had maintained equally tight controls over a minor burglary in a posh apartment
complex or an Arkansas land-development scheme, Watergate and Whitewater
would not have become household words. With both political parties deeply
committed to arms control, it's unlikely that official Washington would expose
any Russian cheating until well after it became a major threat to national
security." Would they be any more likely to report accidents such as the
one reported in Siberia in November? Had this accident happened near a major
population center, millions could have died and there would have been no
way to cover it up, but it happened in a remote area of Siberia where a cover-up
is far easier. The missile, which was allegedly targeted on New York City,
apparently exploded when, according to scant Russian reports, nine technicians
were ordered to disarm the warhead with nothing more than a hacksaw, claw
hammer and ice pick. They were probably trying to pry the casing off the
warhead's detonator when the accident occurred. Initial fears that the blast
would be discovered by the world press when radiation endangered cities in
Russia and Europe were alleviated when prevailing winds pushed the mushroom
cloud north over the Arctic Circle. Boldrick's first-hand encounter with
the East-West censorship policy provides intriguing insight into domestic
press censorship and raising some troubling questions at the same time. "As
a freelance writer on strategic nuclear issues, I only learned by chance
about Pentagon and State Department efforts to muzzle would-be independent
arms control reporters. I asked the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency's
press office if I could accompany U.S. inspectors to Russia to see for myself
the final meltdown of the Cold War. My interest was more than professional:
I also wanted to observe the concluding chapter of the Mutual Assured Destruction
era because I once stood on the front lines of Armageddon as a Minuteman
combat crew commander. "ACDA denied my request. My appeals to the Pentagon
and the U.S. On-Site Inspection Agency produced the same results. Reporters,
I was informed, cannot witness a compliance inspection, observe the destruction
of a bomber or missile silo, or conduct detailed interviews with American
or Russian START inspectors. Other than a photo opportunity or an occasional
brief Q&A session when inspection teams arrive in the United States or
Russia, no other contact is permitted between the working press and the military
and diplomatic officials charged with enforcing START rules. "Why? Because
the United States--or, more precisely, the 93 Senators who voted for START
I ratification--accepted without debate restrictive clauses limiting public
scrutiny of compliance information. The origin of the ban is unclear--some
government sources told me it was the work of the Russians, others claimed
it was a U.S. initiative--but there it is, artfully buried in 280 pages of
tedious text. "According to the START I Protocol on Inspections and Continuous
Monitoring Activities, "[T]he Parties shall not allow representatives of
the mass media to accompany inspectors during inspections...." Article VIII,
paragraph six, takes the restrictions a step further, dictating that "[t]he
Parties hold consultations on releasing to the public data and other
information...in fulfilling the obligations provided for in this Treaty."
This clause gives Russia veto authority over release of inspection data to
the American public. "Beyond press releases and official statements, the
only information available for public review is an annual report to Congress
required under Section 22 of the Arms Control and Disarmament Act. The current
edition, signed by President Clinton, contains several statements critical
of Russian compliance efforts. "The report, for instance, cryptically states
that 'the Soviets refused to allow U.S. inspectors to take a critical
measurement.' After START I was ratified in 1991, technical exhibitions were
hosted by each side for close-up inspections of the bombers, missiles, and
submarines monitored by the treaty. The refusal was referred to the Joint
Compliance and Inspection Commission created by START to arbitrate disputes.
Though their rulings are "confidential," Russia agreed that the Americans
could "measure the item in question no later than 30 days after the treaty's
entry into force." "I figured that the ACDA, which prepares the annual report,
might at least clarify its own vaguely negative account. I asked ACDA spokesman
Matthew Murphy three questions concerning the measurement dispute: What is
the "critical measurement"? Does it apply to a bomber, missile, or submarine?
Since the treaty had been in force for more than 30 days, had Russia kept
its word on permitting the measurement? "Murphy's stock answer to each question
was as brief as it was unhelpful: 'That's classified information.' "Russia
also failed to meet their START obligation of giving advance notification
of a major strategic exercise held in 1993. I asked Murphy if the United
States filed a protest. "His answer was again succinct and unhelpful: 'That's
classified because it would disclose diplomatic relations between countries.'
"From The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, I learned that Russia held another
strategic exercise in 1994. Last June 22, Moscow military leaders test launched
an SS-25 ICBM, an air-dropped cruise missile, and a submarine-launched ballistic
missile in a mock attack against the United States. I asked ACDA if Russia
had mended its ways and given advanced notice this time. "Murphy's stonewalling
continued: 'Information requested in your question is obtained from intelligence
collection sources so I cannot confirm or deny the exercise took place.'
"So, is Russia living up to its START obligations? A fair question, especially
since the administration's own compliance report lists several violations
and its spokesmen offer virtually no information on recent deviations. More
alarming are persistent reports that Russia is dragging its feet in downsizing
strategic forces. While the United States is currently below the 6,000-warhead
ceiling, Russia is believed to have more than 9,000 strategic nuclear weapons
available for military operations. Given the dubious stability of the Yeltsin
regime and the continuing unrest throughout the former Soviet Union, a stockpile
that huge is not comforting. "Ongoing compliance inspections will test Russia's
sincerity in living up to treaty obligations. But forget about getting anything
close to nonpartisan verification. Only Pentagon yes men, State Department
hacks, self-interested ACDA spokesmen, and politicians enamored of a bipartisan
fixation for arms control know for sure--and they're not talking. "Government
officials in Washington and Moscow retain a monopoly in reporting START
compliance. "Investigative reporters have effectively been disarmed by the
arms control process. The free speech standards for the START process are
those of a former police state, rather than those of an open society." Other
Russian nuclear submarines in Murmansk are also bombs waiting to go off.
"The situation has become far more dangerous as a result of the economic
crisis," adds Nils Bohmer, a nuclear physics research scientist with Bellona,
a Norwegian organization specializing in nuclear questions, which has an
office in Murmansk. "The Russians have more to think about than the nuclear
pollution all around them. Their main concern is where their next meal is
coming from. If you are in charge of a laid-up nuclear submarine and you
are now into the fifth month of not being paid, your mind is not on the job.
To make the current crisis worse there has been a bad potato harvest in the
rest of Russia. Potatoes are now better guarded than nuclear materials."
Dangerous sites lie close to dwellings. From the foot of a giant concrete
statue of a Soviet soldier that commemorates the defeat of Germany in the
Second World War you can look down on one such hazard. An ageing Hotel-class
submarine at a quayside in Murmansk fjord is so dangerous that no one dare
move it for fear of causing a nuclear explosion. The submarine is only 300
meters from a block of flats. The population of Murmansk is 370,000. Further
down the fjord is the Lepse, a retired service ship on which 640 spent nuclear
fuel assemblies are stored. Workers used sledgehammers to force fuel assemblies
into containers they did not fit, damaging most. The entire area is radioactive.
If the Lepse were to capsize there could be an explosion that releases half
the lethal radioactivity recorded after the Chernobyl disaster. A "Chernobyl
in slow motion", according to Bohmer, is taking place at Andreeva Bay, a
desolate spot only 40km from the Norwegian border. Here 21,000 spent fuel
assemblies, enough for 90 nuclear reactors, and 12,000 cubic meters of solid
and liquid radioactive waste are stored in concrete bunkers. "The concrete
is very poor," said Bohmer. "Every autumn they used to fill the cracks to
stop rain water entering. But this year they have no money. From October
snow will get in, turn to ice and expand. The danger is that there will be
leakages into the sea where fish are caught that are sold within the European
Union." Many of the submarines have been withdrawn from service under the
Start International disarmament treaties. In accordance with Start, the
submarines are cut in two, the missile compartments removed and the two halves
welded loosely together. Air is pumped in to keep the submarines afloat,
but tell-tale bubbles rising to the surface around them show that many are
leaking. In addition to the submarines themselves, nuclear rubbish is stored
at 11 sites in the Kola peninsula. This includes at least four SS-21 missiles,
20 medium and short-range nuclear weapons and nuclear warheads. Crews stationed
on laid-up submarines are often unfit, untrained or incompetent. Security
is lax. "A terrorist could use nuclear fuel to make a dirty bomb by mixing
it with Semtex," said Thomas Nilsen, a Bellona researcher. "If you mixed
two kilograms of strontium-90 with Semtex and exploded it in London most
of the city would have to be evacuated for two to three years." The despair
in the Russian submarine fleet has produced a disturbing increase in incidents.
On 11 September a sailor went berserk on a modern Akula-class nuclear submarine
and killed eight people before shooting himself. Six days earlier three people
were taken hostage at a nuclear test site at Novaya Zemlja in the Arctic.
Two weeks ago two people were killed in an incident on board a Russian submarine
in the Black Sea and an interior guard at Russia's nuclear reprocessing plant
at Mayak in Siberia killed three colleagues. But the utter lack of confidence
in safety standards was revealed last May when there was an explosion on
board a submarine loaded with 16 nuclear warheads in the Barents Sea after
water leaked into the missile compartment. As the submarine limped towards
Severomorsk, near Murmansk, the headquarters of the northern fleet, wild
rumors spread. The city fathers fled to the hills. Kindergartens were evacuated.
Police started taking iodine pills. Norwegian intelligence noted that after
the incident no Russian missile submarines put to sea for three months. Norway
and the United States have signed agreements with Russia to help clean up
the nuclear mess. Norway has set aside $50 million to build a waste processing
plant and the European Commission has also provided funding. But the total
cost of cleaning the Kola peninsula is $1.5 billion, according to Nikolay
Yegerov, Russia's deputy atomic energy minister. So far only 16 submarines
have been dismantled, none to international safety standards. The West's
efforts are further hampered by the refusal to allow outside experts onto
submarine bases. The fleet still has 67 operational nuclear submarines and
clings to the vestiges of its former formidable reputation. As an immediate
priority this winter Norway has offered to pay for plastic coverings at Andreeva
Bay to prevent radioactive leakage into the sea. But the project is deadlocked.
Despite many promises, not a single foreigner has been allowed on to the
site; a videotape was considered inadequate. Corruption is so widespread
in Russia that Norway insists that wherever funds are provided its experts
must verify that they are being spent as promised. The Russians also insist
on levying a 50 percent tax on all equipment to be used to clean up the
peninsula. Though a civilian nuclear power plant in Kola, considered as dangerous
as Chernobyl, has finally been made safer with western help, a new generator
was held on the border for two years because the Russians tried to charge
tax on it. As long ago as 1995 it was agreed that two western companies,
SGN of France and British Nuclear Fuels, would carry out a study to determine
how to remove the spent nuclear fuel from the Lepse using robots. But the
project has gone no further. No matter how bad the winter - and expectations
are that it will be grim - no one is expecting that large numbers of Russians
will try to flee to Norway. The Russians have a seemingly limitless capacity
to absorb suffering. In any case, the Russian border police have tight control
over the short frontier with Norway. But a nuclear accident would be a different
matter, says Ommund Hegghelm, the state secretary at the Norwegian defense
ministry. "Russians are incredibly loyal to their country. The only thing
that could produce a refugee problem would be a nuclear catastrophe. When
things happen in the nuclear field the margin between catastrophe and pure
luck is very small." If foreign reports are to be believed, that luck ran
out November 5. Sources: Ian Mather in Murmansk, Asian News Service, Col.
Michael R. Boldrick (USAF, ret.) Information about other Siberian nuclear
accident sites -http://www.american.edu/projects/mandala/TED/sibn
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: Siberian Nuclear Explosion
Date: 7/19/00 10:17:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Hi, Kent,
I've been trying to track down the source of the story you posted your site regarding the nuclear explosion in Siberia since I saw the story on Syzygy news the other day. Apparently the Ian Mather is a British correspondent and Col. Michael R. Boldrick is an actual person from what I have found out so far. The url at the bottom of the story may be the following, but missing the entire address:
http://www.american.edu/projects/mandala/TED/sibnuke.htm
As you can see, the information is very similar, minus the nuclear explosion killing thousands.
Also, check out these:
http://www.lightparty.com/Misc/RussianNuke.html
http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/bibs/nbc/nbc9.htm
http://www.american.edu/projects/mandala/TED/
Need more sleuths working on this. I can't see how an explosion like that wouldn't have been picked up on IDC, although I don't know how to go back and check it for that date. If anyone else has more info, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, it appears to be unverifiable and could possibly be a hoax.
Regards,
Denise
-------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: Follow-up on that Russian
nuke story......could the f
Date: 7/19/00 1:06:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Hi Kent,
>
>The story I was pointing out seems to be a rumour circulating that
there
has
>been a nuclear "accident" at one of the ICBM sites in eastern Siberia.
Now
>if this is indeed true, then the Russian media is covering it up big
time.
>Also if it is true, then it may explain a few things....like the recent
>arrest and take-over of the state-run media. Perhaps the journalist
>arrested was attempting to report on the accident? Perhaps the media
knows
>too and is being threatened because of it?
>
>But what intriqued me the most was the report last year of a major
Siberian
>forest fire that was apparently wrecking havoc over millions of
hectares,
>and no one was fighting the fire! Could it be that this forest fire got
>started by the nuclear accident?
>
>All I have are questions and assumptions at this point....but I will
be
>following this story as it develops.
>
>As far as the files go that I sent you, they weren't zipped in any way
and
>merely included links to Quickening News (Art Bell) and one ABC story
pulled
>from the Christian Science Monitor site. The other links were to an
>earthwatch news web site. I merely pulled what I thought may link
recent
>environmental upheavals to the siberian disaster (as yet unconfirmed).
For
>example I remember hearing or reading some time ago how Mushrooms play
some
>role in alleviating or containing radiation. Perhaps the widespread
>mushroom poisoning going on in Russia is related to the nuclear
accident?
>
>Anyhow here are the URL's. http://news.efc-inc.com/
>http://www.artbell.com/quicknews.html
http://www.coolboard.com/msgshow.cfm/msgboard=252542690207830&msg=9557121694
756&page=1&idDispSub=942650565756253
>
ANON
>
>>Unfortunately the zipped files are almost unreadable. Do you have
a URL
>that
>>you are trying to point to?
>>
>>Kent
>
>Problem Called an Ecological Disaster
>Russias Forests Aflame
>Huge fires have been raging unchecked in the Siberian Far East for
three
>months, devastating vast tracts of primeval forest.
>
>By Judith Matloff
>The Christian Science Monitor
>K H A B O R O V S K, Russia, Oct. 15 The smoke here was so thick
that it
>resembled a heavy fog. Its acrid smell spread to villages more than
1,000
>miles away.
> To escape the forest inferno, many animals headed into the city.
>Startled residents in one apartment building found a brown bear in
their
>lobby.
> The Siberian taiga is a pristine woodland of conifers, stretching 1.3
>million square miles to Russias Far East Pacific coast. Comprising
nearly
a
>quarter of the planets timber reserves, the taiga is twice the
size of the
>Amazon rain forest. It is one of the earths great lungs, generating
oxygen
>and extracting pollutants, while providing a refuge for endangered
tigers,
>bears, and birds.
> But huge fires have been raging unchecked in the Siberian Far East for
>three months, devastating vast tracts of primeval forest. United
Nations
>experts who visited Sakhalin island and Khabarovsk, near the Chinese
border,
>this week called it a global catastrophe.
> Forest fires of such a scale fall in the category of worldwide
>ecological disasters, the U.N. experts said.
> They bear consequences not only for the ecosystem of frontier
>countries with Russia but also for a large part of the Northern
Hemisphere,
>the U.N. statement added.
> These 2.2 billion acres of woodland serve as sinks that
soak up
>carbon gases that add to global warming. The forests host diverse plant
and
>animal life and make up the traditional homelands of nearly 200,000
>indigenous people.