Vasil’ev school №76

The Project:

Nuclear Renaissance: Risks versus Benefits

Pupil: Ekaterina Pushneva,

10 «А» grade,

Vasil’ev school № 76, Lesnoy.

Teacher: Galina Romanova,

Vasil’ev school № 76, Lesnoy.

2007/2008

Benchmark II

In Benchmark II our task is to examine the objectives from the point of view of the scientific and environmental; social and cultural; economic; political and geopolitical domains to gain a comprehensive understanding and comparison of national and international controls of nuclear energy, the spread (proliferation) of nuclear energy in the world today, and some of the issues involved with the use and spread of nuclear energy.

Contents:

Benchmark 2.1……………………………………………………….4

The history of IAEA………………………………………………….4

The role of IAEA in the world………………………………………..7

The history of Rosatom……………………………………………….8

The goal………………………………………………………………9

Structure……………………………………………………………..11

Economics…………………………………………………………..11

Authority…………………………………………………………….14

Conclusions…………………………………………………………15

‘‘Atoms for peace’’………………………………………………….16

Bibliography………………………………………………………...26

Benchmark 2.2……………………………………………………..27

The nuclear power renaissance……………………………………..27

That is necessary for development of nuclear energy……………...27

Consequences of possession of nuclear energy…………………….28

Act of terrorism in Israel……………………………………………29

Bibliography………………………………………………………...30

Benchmark 2.3……………………………………………………..31

Accidents……………………………………………………………31

The Three Mile Island………………………………………………31

Chernobyl…………………………………………………………..34

Bibliography………………………………………………………...38

Benchmark 2.1

In this part of Benchmark II, part 1 our task is to demonstrate an understanding of national and international controls of nuclear energy, to explain the laws and organizations that monitor nuclear energy in your own country, multi- lateral treaties and international organizations related to nuclear energy.

History of the IAEA

http://www.iaea.org/About/history.html

The IAEA was created in 1957 in response to the deep fears and expectations resulting from the discovery of nuclear energy. Its fortunes are uniquely geared to this controversial technology that can be used either as a weapon or as a practical and useful tool.

The Agency's genesis was US President Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace" address to the General Assembly of the United Nations on 8 December 1953. These ideas helped to shape the IAEA Statute, which 81 nations unanimously approved in October 1956. The Statute outlines the three pillars of the Agency's work - nuclear verification and security, safety and technology transfer.

In the years following the Agency's creation, the political and technical climate had changed so much that by 1958 it had become politically impracticable for the IAEA to begin work on some of the main tasks foreseen in its Statute. But in the aftermath of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, the USA and the USSR began seeking common ground in nuclear arms control.

In 1961 the IAEA opened its Laboratory in Seibersdorf, Austria, creating a channel for cooperative global nuclear research. That year the Agency signed a trilateral agreement with Monaco and the Oceanographic Institute headed by Jacques Cousteau for research on the effects of radioactivity in the sea, an action that eventually lead to the creation of the IAEA's Marine Environment Laboratory.

As more countries mastered nuclear technology, concern deepened that they would sooner or later acquire nuclear weapons, particularly since two additional nations had "joined the club", France in 1960 and China in 1964. The safeguards prescribed in the IAEA's Statute, designed chiefly to cover individual nuclear plants or supplies of fuel, were clearly inadequate to deter proliferation. There was growing support for international, legally binding, commitments and comprehensive safeguards to stop the further spread of nuclear weapons and to work towards their eventual elimination.

This found regional expression in 1968, with the approval of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The NPT essentially freezes the number of declared nuclear weapon States at five (USA, Russia, UK, France and China). Other States are required to forswear the nuclear weapons option and to conclude comprehensive safeguards agreements with the IAEA on their nuclear materials.

The 1970s showed that the NPT would be accepted by almost all of the key industrial countries and by the vast majority of developing countries. At the same time the prospects for nuclear power improved dramatically. The technology had matured and was commercially available, and the oil crisis of 1973 enhanced the attraction of the nuclear energy option. The IAEA's functions became distinctly more important. But the pendulum was soon to swing back. The first surge of worldwide enthusiasm for nuclear power lasted barely two decades. By the early 1980s, the demand for new nuclear power plants had declined sharply in most Western countries, and it shrank nearly to zero in these countries after the 1986 Chernobyl accident.

In 1988 the IAEA and UN Food and Agricultural Organization joined forces with other agencies to eradicate New World Screwworm - which spreads a deadly livestock disease. The radiation-based technology to eradicate the worm was developed at the Agency's Seibersdorf Laboratory.

In 1991, the discovery of Iraq's clandestine weapon programme sowed doubts about the adequacy of IAEA safeguards, but also led to steps to strengthen them, some of which were put to the test when the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) became the second country that was discovered violating its NPT safeguards agreement. The Three Mile Island accident and especially the Chernobyl disaster persuaded governments to strengthen the IAEA’s role in enhancing nuclear safety.

In the early 1990s, the end of the Cold War and the consequent improvement in international security virtually eliminated the danger of a global nuclear conflict. Broad adherence to regional treaties underscored the nuclear weapon free status of Latin America, Africa and South East Asia, as well as the South Pacific. The threat of proliferation in some successor States of the former Soviet Union was averted; in Iraq and the DPRK the threat was contained.

In 1995, the NPT was made permanent and in 1996 the UN General Assembly approved and opened for signature a comprehensive test ban treaty. While military nuclear activities were beyond the IAEA's statutory scope, it was now accepted that the Agency might properly deal with some of the problems bequeathed by the nuclear arms race - verification of the peaceful use or storage of nuclear material from dismantled weapons and surplus military stocks of fissile material, determining the risks posed by the nuclear wastes of nuclear warships dumped in the Arctic, and verifying the safety of former nuclear test sites in Central Asia and the Pacific.

In recent years, the Agency's work has taken on some urgent added dimensions. Among them are countermeasures against the threat of nuclear terrorism, the focus of a new multi-faceted Agency action plan.

The role of IAEA in the world

http://images.yandex.ru/

Series of IAEA regional seminars for governmental decision-makers is encouraging more countries to place all their nuclear activities and materials under strengthened safeguards, a step that would enable the IAEA to verify their commitments against the further spread of nuclear weapons. In late February, a seminar was held for African countries in Burkina Faso, and more seminars are scheduled in Namibia, Vienna, and Jamaica.

The seminars aim to deepen understanding about safeguards, and how and why agreements are concluded, in the context of peaceful nuclear cooperation, security, and non-proliferation. Sessions typically include expert overviews and panel discussions on the role of safeguards and how they have been strengthened through additional protocols and other measures. Most IAEA safeguards agreements are concluded pursuant to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The Treaty obligates States to conclude comprehensive safeguards agreements with the IAEA covering all their nuclear material and activities. The Agency's safeguards system is also foreseen as the means of verifying compliance with regional Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (NWFZ) Treaties, including the one in Africa known as the Pelindaba Treaty.

The seminar in Burkina Faso was held in Ouagadougou, with financial support from France and Japan, for States of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), plus Equatorial Guinea and Gabon. More than 25 participants from 10 West African countries participated. Minister Alphonse Bonou of Burkina Faso called on all States of ECOWAS to bring into force and implement the instruments that would strengthen the non-proliferation regime, in particular the Pelindaba Treaty and the necessary IAEA safeguards agreements and additional protocols. The Minister recalled the importance of South-South cooperation and the participants' recommendation that the ECOWAS Secretariat, in addition to its responsibilities with regard to stemming the spread of small arms, play a greater role in promoting the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons among its members.

Over the past year, IAEA safeguards agreements and additional protocols in the African region entered into force for Burkina Faso, Madagascar, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In addition, such legal instruments were submitted by Gabon, Togo, and Niger for approval of the IAEA Board. It is expected that a number of countries of West Africa - an important uranium producing region - will follow these steps to bring their own safeguards agreements and additional protocols into force in the near future. All African States are NPT Parties and 50 of them have signed the Pelindaba Treaty. Most of them use peaceful nuclear applications to address development problems in agriculture, health, water resources and other fields.

The history of Rosatom

http://images.yandex.ru/

The Federation Council, Russia’s upper house of parliament, approved the law approving the unification of Russia’s nuclear agency under one roof, creating a giant “state corporate” monopoly industry for all things atomic on November 23d.

The Federal Atomic Energy Agency (Rosatom) was created on March 9th 2004 in place of the abolished Ministry of Atomic Energy (Minatom). As a structure, Rosatom occupied one of the lowest places on the totem pole of the federal state bodies, along side the agencies for tourism, fitness and sports.

It was thus that one of the most powerful ministries in the government was reduced to an agency with limited functions and possibilities. Many organisations of the former ministry were turned into joint stock companies, unitary enterprises, regional and local organisations and business structures and other types of private property.

At the end of 2005, Sergei Kiriyenko, a career bureaucrat friendly to business interests, who served as prime minister for a mere five months in 1998 during the era of former President Boris Yeltsin’s tumultuous cabinet shuffles, was appointed to head Rosatom. By all indications, the appointment of Kiriyenko, who had been outside nuclear industry circles, seemed to have the makings of radical realignments within Rosatom. Starting with his first day on the job, Kiriyenko announced that the aims of his new team would be to restore the glory days of Mindredmash, the notorious secret super-industry of Soviet times that had under its purview all things nuclear. The goal was puzzling, as the resurrection of such a Soviet behemoth would be impossible today.

Following the recent adoption of the law "On the State Atomic Corporation Rosatom" (hereafter Rosatom) and after other shuffles in the Russian atomic energy, it is possible to draw some conclusions.

The Goal

Sergei Kiriyenko defines his goal as follows: "Within Russia, the goal of Rosatom is to arrange a normal market. Rosatom is interested in developing the market – the more participants the better. And on the world market, Rosatom will be just one of the players on the market."

The goal of creating the Corporation as declared is rather pompous: "The Corporation is created and acts toward the goal of carrying out government policies, the realisation of normative regulation, provision of government services and management of government property in the sphere of the use of atomic energy, the development and safe functioning of organisations in the atomic electric energy sector and the nuclear weapons complex, to guarantee nuclear and radiation safety, non-proliferation of nuclear materials or technology, the development of atomic science, engineering and education, and the realisation of international cooperation in this sphere."

As such the Corporation is officially created to conduct state policy in the atomic energy sphere. On the other hand, the reorganisation of Rosatom has gone the way of the creation of yet another powerful business by the creation of a privatised nuclear industry.

It is worth noting that in the 90s, juicy portions of Russian industry, like oil, gas, metallurgy and others were privatised in sweetheart deals, and today there is virtually no possibility of participating in these industries. Therefore, those who were not able to snatch up fundamental resources in time are today looking to different areas and possibilities. Nuclear energy remained one un-privatised field.

It is understood today that privatisation cannot take place a la the methods of Anatoly Chubais – whose scandal tarred free market approach as Yeltsin’s chief of staff still draws howls of corruption a decade later – and the nuclear industry is no exception. The formation of a “state-Corporation” is therefore the most acceptable route. And for Kiriyenko himself, it is an opportunity to get catapulted to higher echelons. At present, Kiriyenko is not even a member of the government – as were ministers of Minatom and Midsredmash. According to the new law, the head of the Corporation is appointed by the Russian president, and responsibility ends with him. The Corporation is not a part of the government apparatus and exists by virtue of a specially adopted law. The law allows for the privatisation outside the usual channels and with minimal government participation.

At the same time, the “state corporation” method of privatisation doesn’t look entirely complete and therefore many experts evaluate the institution of government corporations as an intermediate step toward a full-scale privatisation. The substance of such privatisation is clear: to turn state property into non-commercial partnerships without membership (non-commercial organisations, or NCOs) with a single founder (the state), the status of which is described by a custom tailored federal law. This is the most important point on which business can stake their claims – what will come further remains to be seen. For instance, in the United States, Germany and other western countries, the nuclear energy, including weapon programmes, is private. Today we are seeing how property passed to a state corporation (an NGO) ceases to be owned and becomes the property of the Corporation. Perhaps there will come a time when the state company Rosatom will be reformed as a private-state or even an entirely private corporation.

Structure

The new Corporation – the revamped Rosatom – gathers under its roof all structures of the atomic industry, beginning with uranium mining and its enrichment to decommissioning nuclear installations and disposal of radioactive waste.

The Corporation’s structure is composed of three branches – the nuclear energy complex (Atomenergoprom), the nuclear weapons complex (NWC) and the branch that oversees nuclear and radiation safety and fundamental science.

The law also says that by decree of the president and the government, various enterprises and organisations with all their property will be transferred under the auspices of the Corporation in the capacity of a property investment of the Russian Federation.

Economics

As seen in the structure, the fundamental economic hope for the Corporation will be Atomenergoprom, which will include the concerns Rosenergoatom, Russia’s nuclear utility – along with all of Russia’s nuclear power plants – Russia’s nuclear fuel producer TVEL, and a number of other lucrative enterprises.

The responsibility of dealing with spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and radioactive waste – both overdue problems – is rather artfully removed from Atomenergoprom’s mandate, and assigned to the nuclear and radiation safety and fundamental science division. Apparently, the assumption is that Atomenergoprom, by receiving government property, gets to get down to the business of making money with a clean slate and does not have to answer for its previous activities. The responsibility for these overdue problems (interring spent fuel and radioactive waste, contaminated territories, people’s ruined health) is taken over by the government and international programmes with in the framework of the federal target plan called “Nuclear and Radiation Safety.” In other words, Kiriyenko has laid this problem at the feet of Russian and international taxpayers. The nuclear and radiation safety division will deal with problem enterprises, such as the Zheleznogorsk site, SevRAO (responsible for nuclear clean-up on the Kola Peninsula), DalRAO (responsible for nuclear clean-up in the Russian Far East).

The nuclear weapons complex is also financed by the budget – that is by taxpayers. This division gets such unprofitable enterprises as the Mayak Chemical Combine.

The law on the Corporation also envisions financing from the budget of state orders, measures for safety, fundamental sciences and all federal target programmes that have been adopted until 2015.

The law also envisions that the Corporation will create special reserve funds and will carry out management of these funds. The special reserve funds will include:

• A fund for financing expenses to guarantee nuclear, radiation, technological and fire safety, maintenance and equipping accident and emergency services, and financing their work toward preventing and cleaning up emergencies;

• A fund to finance expenses for physical protection, accounting and control of nuclear materials, radioactive substances and radioactive waste;

• A fund to finance decommissioning of nuclear facilities, radiation sources, storage points for nuclear materials, radioactive substances and radioactive waste, and scientific research and structural engineering for fortifying the safety of nuclear installations;

• A fund for modernisation of the organisations of the nuclear energy industry and the nuclear weapons complex, the development of atomic science and engineering, engineering and scientific work and the realisation of other investment programmes.

The law stipulates that special reserve funds of the Corporation will be financed by organisations dealing that do especially dangerous radiological and nuclear work or are dangerous nuclear and radiological installations.

The one thing remaining unclear is how much time it will take to build up the funds sufficient to decommission at least one nuclear power plant.

The law establishes that financial programme support for the activities of the Corporation for the long term will be realised by:

• the Corporation’s income;

• Federal budget subsidies;

• budget funds earmarked for national defence;

• property investments of the Russian Federation from the Russian state budget;

• supplements from the Corporation’s special reserve funds;

• other means of the Corporation and its subsidiary bodies.

As is apparent from the adopted articles of the law, the financing of the created Corporation is, at its heart, in one way or another tied to state budget. In the next 10 to 15 years it is more than likely that the created accounts won’t contain anything. What kind of profits the activities of the Corporation can be expected to draw is still too early to predict.

Authority

The law on the Corporation has significantly expanded the power of the nuclear authority and its management.

First, as noted, the Corporation does not fall under the purview of the government, and its management is named (and sacked) by the president. Aside from this, the Corporation, with the help of the law that it itself created, has solved for itself three fundamental issues – acquiring special status, including the practical impossibility of interfering in its matters, acquisition of government property, and constant access distribution of state investments (for example, via federal target programmes).

Second, the law significantly magnifies the power of the Corporation in the sphere of licensing and control over the activities of entities engaged in development, preparation, experimentation, transport, storage, liquidation and dismantlement of nuclear weapons and military nuclear energy installations. This authority was previously the purview of the Ministry of Defence. Aside from that, the law assigned the Corporation responsibility for assuring government control for the safety of nuclear materials transport, for radiological installations, and also for taking measures to warn of nuclear and radiological disasters. As such, we see significant expansion and monopolisation of by the Corporation of oversight functions in comparison with the authority of the Federal Atomic Energy Agency. In the decree forming that agency, it was clearly shown that it had no oversight authority. The Corporation acquired not only the departmental control over oversight, but state control as well. The inspection of the Ministry of Defence is left with oversight functions only for its own sites.

The law has also given the Corporation wide authority to protect information. It can be expected that the Corporation will become less transparent and more inaccessible for civil society insight. Such opaque practices are already exemplified by Russian oil and gas companies like Gazprom and Lukoil.

Conclusions

1. The nuclear industry in Russia will be gathered under the umbrella of the State Atomic Corporation (Rosatom) to become a large state monopoly with a specially tailored legal status. The Corporation will embrace around 130 enterprises, including Rosenergoatom, which operates all 10 Russian nuclear power plants.

Sergei Kiriyenko, the current head of Rosatom, has managed not only to resurrect the Soviet Minsredmash, but has created an even more powerful structure. The Corporation has become the owner of vast chunks of state property, but does not answer to the cabinet. Formally, the state can take back all the property, but only if the Corporation does not sell this property to the private hands (which, according to the law, the Corporation can do).

Having an absolute monopoly in Russia, Rosatom aims at becoming a powerful competitor to Westinghouse, Areva, Siemens, General Electric and other giant western nuclear peddlers.

2. The nuclear monopolist Rosatom will largely live off the federal budget and sales of uranium for the 10 to 15 years to come. At the same time the Corporation will employ political lobbying to squeeze investments into the promised 10 new reactor units from the aluminium, gas and oil businesses.

3. It seems like the solution to the problems of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive management will be further postponed. The Corporation plans to receive funding from the federal budget to tackle the issue. The decision to create funds aimed at funding decommissioning and dismantlement is the right decision but ineffective, as the funds will remain empty for the foreseeable future. The Corporation has thus – in the tradition of Minsredmash and every Russian nuclear power ministry or agency to follow - put aside the issues related to the safe management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste.

4. The reshuffling of oversight and regulatory functions, as well as licensing responsibilities as suggested by the new law on the Corporation do not contribute to increased safety. New legal possibilities that the Corporation obtained to classify information can lead to decreased transparency and less public control.

Atoms for Peace

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwightdeisenhoweratomsforpeace.html

When Secretary General Hammarskjold’s invitation to address this General Assembly reached me in Bermuda, I was just beginning a series of conferences with the Prime Ministers and Foreign Ministers of Great Britain and of France. Our subject was some of the problems that beset our world.

During the remainder of the Bermuda Conference, I had constantly in mind that ahead of me lay a great honor. That honor is mine today, as I stand here, privileged to address the General Assembly of the United Nations.

At the same time that I appreciate the distinction of addressing you, I have a sense of exhilaration as I look upon this Assembly. Never before in history has so much hope for so many people been gathered together in a single organization. Your deliberations and decisions during these somber years have already realized part of those hopes.

But the great tests and the great accomplishments still lie ahead. And in the confident expectation of those accomplishments, I would use the office which, for the time being, I hold, to assure you that the Government of the United States will remain steadfast in its support of this body. This we shall do in the conviction that you will provide a great share of the wisdom, of the courage, and the faith which can bring to this world lasting peace for all nations, and happiness and well-being for all men.

Clearly, it would not be fitting for me to take this occasion to present to you a unilateral American report on Bermuda. Nevertheless, I assure you that in our deliberations on that lovely island we sought to invoke those same great concepts of universal peace and human dignity which are so cleanly etched in your Charter. Neither would it be a measure of this great opportunity merely to recite, however hopefully, pious platitudes.

I therefore decided that this occasion warranted my saying to you some of the things that have been on the minds and hearts of my legislative and executive associates, and on mine, for a great many months -- thoughts I had originally planned to say primarily to the American people.

I know that the American people share my deep belief that if a danger exists in the world, it is a danger shared by all; and equally, that if hope exists in the mind of one nation, that hope should be shared by all.

Finally, if there is to be advanced any proposal designed to ease even by the smallest measure the tensions of today’s world, what more appropriate audience could there be than the members of the General Assembly of the United Nations. I feel impelled to speak today in a language that in a sense is new, one which I, who have spent so much of my life in the military profession, would have preferred never to use. That new language is the language of atomic warfare.

The atomic age has moved forward at such a pace that every citizen of the world should have some comprehension, at least in comparative terms, of the extent of this development, of the utmost significance to everyone of us. Clearly, if the peoples of the world are to conduct an intelligent search for peace, they must be armed with the significant facts of today’s existence.

My recital of atomic danger and power is necessarily stated in United States terms, for these are the only incontrovertible facts that I know. I need hardly point out to this Assembly, however, that this subject is global, not merely national in character.

On July 16, 1945, the United States set off the world’s first atomic explosion.

Since that date in 1945, the United States of America has conducted forty-two test explosions. Atomic bombs today are more than twenty-five times as powerful as the weapons with which the atomic age dawned, while hydrogen weapons are in the ranges of millions of tons of TNT equivalent.

Today, the United States stockpile of atomic weapons, which, of course, increases daily, exceeds by many times the total [explosive] equivalent of the total of all bombs and all shells that came from every plane and every gun in every theatre of war in all the years of World War II.

A single air group, whether afloat or land based, can now deliver to any reachable target a destructive cargo exceeding in power all the bombs that fell on Britain in all of World War II. In size and variety, the development of atomic weapons has been no less remarkable. The development has been such that atomic weapons have virtually achieved conventional status within our armed services.

In the United States, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and the Marine Corps are all capable of putting this weapon to military use. But the dread secret and the fearful engines of atomic might are not ours alone.

In the first place, the secret is possessed by our friends and allies, Great Britain and Canada, whose scientific genius made a tremendous contribution to our original discoveries and the designs of atomic bombs.

The secret is also known by the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union has informed us that, over recent years, it has devoted extensive resources to atomic weapons. During this period the Soviet Union has exploded a series of atomic advices -- devices, including at least one involving thermo-nuclear reactions. If at one time the Unites States possessed what might have been called a monopoly of atomic power, that monopoly ceased to exist several years ago.

Therefore, although our earlier start has permitted us to accumulate what is today a great quantitative advantage, the atomic realities of today comprehend two facts of even greater significance.

First, the knowledge now possessed by several nations will eventually be shared by others, possibly all others.

Second, even a vast superiority in numbers of weapons, and a consequent capability of devastating retaliation, is no preventive, of itself, against the fearful material damage and toll of human lives that would be inflicted by surprise aggression. The free world, at least dimly aware of these facts, has naturally embarked on a large program of warning and defense systems. That program will be accelerated and expanded. But let no one think that the expenditure of vast sums for weapons and systems of defense can guarantee absolute safety for the cities and citizens of any nation. The awful arithmetic of the atomic bomb does not permit of any such easy solution. Even against the most powerful defense, an aggressor in possession of the effective minimum number of atomic bombs for a surprise attack could probably place a sufficient number of his bombs on the chosen targets to cause hideous damage.

Should such an atomic attack be launched against the United States, our reactions would be swift and resolute. But for me to say that the defense capabilities of the United States are such that they could inflict terrible losses upon an aggressor, for me to say that the retaliation capabilities of the Unites States are so great that such an aggressor’s land would be laid waste, all this, while fact, is not the true expression of the purpose and the hope of the United States.

To pause there would be to confirm the hopeless finality of a belief that two atomic colossi are doomed malevolently to eye each other indefinitely across a trembling world. To stop there would be to accept hope -- helplessly the probability of civilization destroyed, the annihilation of the irreplaceable heritage of mankind handed down to use generation from generation, and the condemnation of mankind to begin all over again the age-old struggle upward from savagery toward decency, and right, and justice. Surely no sane member of the human race could discover victory in such desolation.

Could anyone wish his name to be coupled by history with such human degradation and destruction? Occasional pages of history do record the faces of the “great destroyers,” but the whole book of history reveals mankind’s never-ending quest for peace and mankind’s God-given capacity to build.

It is with the book of history, and not with isolated pages, that the United States will ever wish to be identified. My country wants to be constructive, not destructive. It wants agreements, not wars, among nations. It wants itself to live in freedom and in the confidence that the people of every other nation enjoy equally the right of choosing their own way of life.

So my country’s purpose is to help us move out of the dark chamber of horrors into the light, to find a way by which the minds of men, the hopes of men, the souls of men everywhere, can move forward toward peace and happiness and well-being.

In this quest, I know that we must not lack patience. I know that in a world divided, such as ours today, salvation cannot be attained by one dramatic act. I know that many steps will have to be taken over many months before the world can look at itself one day and truly realize that a new climate of mutually peaceful confidence is abroad in the world. But I know, above all else, that we must start to take these steps now.

The United States and its allies, Great Britain and France, have, over the past months, tried to take some of these steps. Let no one say that we shun the conference table. On the record has long stood the request of the United States, Great Britain, and France to negotiate with the Soviet Union the problems of a divided Germany. On that record has long stood the request of the same three nations to negotiate an Austrian peace treaty. On the same record still stands the request of the United Nations to negotiate the problems of Korea.

Most recently we have received from the Soviet Union what is in effect an expression of willingness to hold a four-Power meeting. Along with our allies, Great Britain and France, we were pleased to see that his note did not contain the unacceptable pre-conditions previously put forward. As you already know from our joint Bermuda communiquй, the United States, Great Britain, and France have agreed promptly to meet with the Soviet Union.

The Government of the United States approaches this conference with hopeful sincerity. We will bend every effort of our minds to the single purpose of emerging from that conference with tangible results towards peace, the only true way of lessening international tension. We never have, we never will, propose or suggest that the Soviet Union surrender what is rightfully theirs. We will never say that the people of Russia are an enemy with whom we have no desire ever to deal or mingle in friendly and fruitful relationship.

On the contrary, we hope that this coming conference may initiate a relationship with the Soviet Union which will eventually bring about a free intermingling of the peoples of the East and of the West -- the one sure, human way of developing the understanding required for confident and peaceful relations.

Instead of the discontent which is now settling upon Eastern Germany, occupied Austria, and the countries of Eastern Europe, we seek a harmonious family of free European nations, with none a threat to the other, and least of all a threat to the peoples of the Russia. Beyond the turmoil and strife and misery of Asia, we seek peaceful opportunity for these peoples to develop their natural resources and to elevate their lives.

These are not idle words or shallow visions. Behind them lies a story of nations lately come to independence, not as a result of war, but through free grant or peaceful negotiation. There is a record already written of assistance gladly given by nations of the West to needy peoples and to those suffering the temporary effects of famine, drought, and natural disaster. These are deeds of peace. They speak more loudly than promises or protestations of peaceful intent.

But I do not wish to rest either upon the reiteration of past proposals or the restatement of past deeds. The gravity of the time is such that every new avenue of peace, no matter how dimly discernible, should be explored. There is at least one new avenue of peace which has not yet been well explored -- an avenue now laid out by the General Assembly of the Unites Nations.

In its resolution of November 18th, 1953 this General Assembly suggested -- and I quote -- “that the Disarmament Commission study the desirability of establishing a sub-committee consisting of representatives of the Powers principally involved, which should seek in private an acceptable solution and report such a solution to the General Assembly and to the Security Council not later than September 1, of 1954.”

The United States, heeding the suggestion of the General Assembly of the United Nations, is instantly prepared to meet privately with such other countries as may be “principally involved,” to seek “an acceptable solution” to the atomic armaments race which overshadows not only the peace, but the very life of the world. We shall carry into these private or diplomatic talks a new conception.

The United States would seek more than the mere reduction or elimination of atomic materials for military purposes. It is not enough to take this weapon out of the hands of the soldiers. It must be put into the hands of those who will know how to strip its military casing and adapt it to the arts of peace.

The United States knows that if the fearful trend of atomic military build-up can be reversed, this greatest of destructive forces can be developed into a great boon, for the benefit of all mankind. The United States knows that peaceful power from atomic energy is no dream of the future. That capability, already proved, is here, now, today. Who can doubt, if the entire body of the world’s scientists and engineers had adequate amounts of fissionable material with which to test and develop their ideas, that this capability would rapidly be transformed into universal, efficient, and economic usage?

To hasten the day when fear of the atom will begin to disappear from the minds of people and the governments of the East and West, there are certain steps that can be taken now. I therefore make the following proposals:

The governments principally involved, to the extent permitted by elementary prudence, to begin now and continue to make joint contributions from their stockpiles of normal uranium and fissionable materials to an international atomic energy agency. We would expect that such an agency would be set up under the aegis of the United Nations.

The ratios of contributions, the procedures, and other details would properly be within the scope of the “private conversations” I have referred to earlier.

The United States is prepared to undertake these explorations in good faith. Any partner of the United States acting in the same good faith will find the United States a not unreasonable or ungenerous associate.

Undoubtedly, initial and early contributions to this plan would be small in quantity. However, the proposal has the great virtue that it can be undertaken without the irritations and mutual suspicions incident to any attempt to set up a completely acceptable system of world-wide inspection and control.

The atomic energy agency could be made responsible for the impounding, storage, and protection of the contributed fissionable and other materials. The ingenuity of our scientists will provide special, safe conditions under which such a bank of fissionable material can be made essentially immune to surprise seizure.

The more important responsibility of this atomic energy agency would be to devise methods whereby this fissionable material would be allocated to serve the peaceful pursuits of mankind. Experts would be mobilized to apply atomic energy to the needs of agriculture, medicine, and other peaceful activities. A special purpose would be to provide abundant electrical energy in the power-starved areas of the world. Thus the contributing Powers would be dedicating some of their strength to serve the needs rather than the fears of mankind.

The United States would be more than willing -- it would be proud to take up with others “principally involved” the development of plans whereby such peaceful use of atomic energy would be expedited.

Of those “principally involved” the Soviet Union must, of course, be one. I would be prepared to submit to the Congress of the United States, and with every expectation of approval, any such plan that would, first, encourage world-wide investigation into the most effective peacetime uses of fissionable material, and with the certainty that they [the investigators] had all the material needed for the conduct of all experiments that were appropriate; second, begin to diminish the potential destructive power of the world’s atomic stockpiles; third, allow all peoples of all nations to see that, in this enlightened age, the great Powers of the earth, both of the East and of the West, are interested in human aspirations first rather than in building up the armaments of war; fourth, open up a new channel for peaceful discussion and initiate at least a new approach to the many difficult problems that must be solved in both private and public conversations, if the world is to shake off the inertia imposed by fear and is to make positive progress toward peace.

Against the dark background of the atomic bomb, the United States does not wish merely to present strength, but also the desire and the hope for peace.

The coming months will be fraught with fateful decisions. In this Assembly, in the capitals and military headquarters of the world, in the hearts of men everywhere, be they governed or governors, may they be the decisions which will lead this world out of fear and into peace.

To the making of these fateful decisions, the United States pledges before you, and therefore before the world, its determination to help solve the fearful atomic dilemma -- to devote its entire heart and mind to find the way by which the miraculous inventiveness of man shall not be dedicated to his death, but consecrated to his life.

I again thank the delegates for the great honor they have done me in inviting me to appear before them and in listening me -- to me so courteously.

Bibliography

1). http://www.iaea.org/About/history.html

2). http://images.yandex.ru/

3).http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwightdeisenhoweratomsforpeace.html

4). http://www.bellona.org/position_papers/rosatom_corporation

Benchmark 2.2

In this part of Benchmark II, part 2 our task is to demonstrate an understanding of the international spread of nuclear energy to countries in the world that have not had nuclear energy before, to provide of the reasons why these countries are pursing nuclear energy and whether this pursuit might contribute to the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

The nuclear power renaissance

Growth in current nuclear states:	Interest among non-nuclear states:
China, Pakistan, India, South Korea.	Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia.

The causes of interest for nuclear power:

1).Peaceful one – to have a great sources for needs of its population;

2).Military one – to have stability on the international scene, to defend its borders and its policy.

That is necessary for development of nuclear energy :

1). The role of the top management of the country in decision-making about the creation of a bomb or a reactor and realization of the project;

2). Organizational forms of management of the project; a combination of scientific and administrative management;

3). The concentration of efforts and material resources on the major state problem;

4). The development of fundamental science, the attraction of talented scientists;

5). The presence of the powerful defensive industry with the highly skilled staff;

6). The active participation of investigation;

7). The creation of minimally necessary conditions for work;

8). Enthusiasm, the spirit of creativity; the highest feeling of responsibility;

9). Other factors.

The consequences of possession of nuclear energy:

1). It raises the status in the world political hierarchy;

2).It prevents dictatorship of other countries;

3).It constrains aggression, promotes a political dialogue in the case of urgent problems;

4). It conducts to senselessness of attempts of the achievement of political goals by means of military force;

5).It demands a new approach in relationship between the countries;

6).It compensates decreasing in fighting opportunities of other forces.

The act of terrorism in Israel

http://news.mail.ru/incident/1591562

http://news.mail.ru/incident/1591562

As a result of explosion three persons were lost 3 (two terrorists) not less than 10 person have received heavy wounds.

In Dimonu two terrorists have got. One has blown up in shopping center, about cafe. The second terrorist has been shot by police captain Kobi Morom who has seen its run aside an epicentre of explosion later some minutes after incident. On one of versions, as well as in January of the last year, the terrorist-condemned man has got into Israel from territory of Egypt.

Let's note, that it is the first act of terrorism accomplished in city near which the nuclear reactor is located.

Conclusion

In this part we have shared our opinion about countries (nuclear and non- nuclear) willing to have nuclear energy or to use it more. We have tried to give some necessary factors for developing nuclear energy in a country. We have described the consequences of having nuclear energy. We wanted to show that nuclear energy is not only a great source of energy but sometimes a cause of problems (the situation in Israel). Terrorists can use not only nuclear weapon but even nuclear reactors to intimidated the population. A country possessing nuclear power should be strong enough to protect its population from the negative effects of it.

Bibliography

1). http://news.mail.ru/incident/1591562

2).www.vesti.ru/doc.html

Benchmark 2.3

In this part of Benchmark II, part 3 our task is to demonstrate an understanding of the international challenges related to nuclear energy, the issues of benefits and risks, safety and security, the issues of waste management, and the issue of nuclear terrorism.

Accidents

The Three Mile Island

The Three Mile Island accident was the most significant accident in the history of the American commercial nuclear power generating industry. It resulted, however, in no immediate deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community which can be attributed to the accident. Public reaction to the event was probably influenced by at least three factors: first; the release – a few weeks before the accident – of a popular movie called "The China Syndrome", concerning an accident at a nuclear reactor; secondly, what was felt to be a lack of official information in the initial phases of the accident; and lastly, many of the statements made by political and social activists long opposed to nuclear power. Whatever the sources of the local fear and outrage, public reaction to the event is judged by some epidemiologists to have induced stresses in the local population that could have caused adverse health effects.

The accident began on Wednesday, March 28, 1979, and ultimately resulted in a partial core meltdown in Unit 2 of the nuclear power plant of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania near Harrisburg.

Jack Herbein, Metropolitan Edison's then Vice President for Power Generation initially and erroneously called the accident "a normal aberration." The scope and complexity of this reactor accident became clear over the course of five days, as a number of agencies at the local, state and federal levels tried to solve the problem and decide whether the on-going accident required a full emergency evacuation of the local community, if not the entire area to the west/southwest. In the end, the reactor was brought under control, although full details of the accident were not discovered until much later.

Although 25,000 people lived within five miles (8 km) of the site at the time of the accident, no identifiable injuries due to radiation occurred, and a government report concluded that "There will either be no case of cancer or the number of cases will be so small that it will never be possible to detect them. The same conclusion applies to the other possible health effects."

The accident, however, led to serious economic and public relations consequences for the US nuclear industry, and the cleanup process was slow and costly. It also initiated a protracted decline in the public popularity of nuclear power, exemplifying for many the worst fears about nuclear technology. Later, under less emotional circumstances, this was all put in a more factual perspective for the public[neutrality disputed] – both when it became clear that no one was killed or injured in this particular reactor accident, and by the relative comparison of TMI to the extremely severe meltdown and substantial loss of life resulting from the Chernobyl disaster.

Shortly after the Three Mile Island reactor accident in 1979, the physicist Edward Teller was featured in a two-page ad by Dresser Industries proclaiming himself as "the only victim of Three-Mile Island" on account of his having a heart attack while trying to lobby for nuclear power (he blamed the heart attack on Jane Fonda and Ralph Nader, not the reactor). It first ran on July 31, 1979 in the Wall Street Journal.

Above is a duplicate ad which ran on October 16, 1979, in the Washington Post (the WSJ ad microfilm was not of very good quality in comparison). The only change from the original is the small box in the lower-right corner was simply the Dresser Industries logo in the original ad. The copyright holder is likely Dresser Industries.

Because it is a reproduction of a historically relevant advertisement at a resolution large enough just to encourage its legibility, and because its use does not conceiveable defraud the copyright holder, I assert that its use on the non-profit English language Wikipedia falls under the fair use clause of U.S. copyright law.

http://www.bellona.org/position_papers/rosatom_corporation

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Nuclear_Power_History.png

Chernobyl

http://images.yandex.ru/yandsearch?text=Chernobyl&stype=image

http://images.yandex.ru/yandsearch?text=Chernobyl&stype=image

On April 26, 1986 the worst catastrophe in nuclear history occurred in the station at Chernobyl, Ukraine. The failure of the system was caused by the attempt of technicians to install a security system (two years after the plant started working). Technically, the failure of reactor No. 4 was described as follows:

http://images.yandex.ru/yandsearch?text=Chernobyl&stype=image

"The technicians shut down the reactor's emergency water-cooling system, its emergency shut-down system, its power regulating system, and they withdrew almost all of the control rods from its core, while allowing the reactor to run at seven percent power. These mistakes were compounded by some others, and at 1:23 a.m. on April 26 the chain reaction in the core went out of control. Several explosions and a large fireball that followed blew off the heavy steel and concrete lid of the reactor. This and an ensuing fire in the graphite reactor core released large amounts of radioactive materials into the atmosphere where it was carried great distances by air currents."

Briefly the direct cause of the accident was that the technicians let the reactor run on very low power which was dangerous.

http://atomstroyexport.ru/nuclear_market/foto/item189/

http://atomstroyexport.ru/nuclear_market/foto/item191/

Two people died immediately from the explosion and 29 from radiation. About 200 others became seriously ill from the radiation; some of them later died. It was estimated that eight years after the accident 8,000 people had died from diseases due to radiation (about 7,000 of them from the Chernobyl cleanup crew). Doctors think that about 10,000 others will die from cancer. the most frightening fact is that children who were not born when the catastrophe occurred inherited diseases from their parents.

http://atomstroyexport.ru/nuclear_market/foto/item185/

http://atomstroyexport.ru/nuclear_market/foto/item186/

The radioactive energy released at Chernobyl was two times bigger than that created by the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War Second. The radioactivity was spread by the wind mostly over Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia but there are traces of it as far as Italy and France.

At first the Soviet government tried to conceal the accident at Chernobyl from the world but radiation was detected at Swedish monitoring stations. the Soviet government was forced to admit that there had been an accident at the Chernobyl nuclear plant. But this was acknowledged two days after the catastrophe and only then did the evacuation of people, living in the Chernobyl area begin. If the Soviet government hadn't tried to conceal the radiation, probably some of those who died could have been saved.

Even if the people are aware of the danger many have returned to live in their old homes. Statistics show that more than half of the returnees died but we can't be sure if the cause is radioactivity or age, because most of those who returned were old people.

After the accident a sarcophagus was built over reactor No. 4 to stop emitting radiation. However, severe cracks have formed in the shell and there is a danger that it wouldn't resist an earthquake or very strong winds. Many western countries insist upon the closing of the Chernobyl station. However, four billion dollars are needed to build a new sarcophagus over reactor No. 4 and to shut down the station. Since the accident in 1986, many countries tried to stop the building of nuclear plants and to close those already existing. But while safety measures were taken in Western nuclear plants, nuclear plants are still operating like before in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Thus, there is still danger of another catastrophe.

Bibliography

1)http://oii.org/html/story.html

2). http://atomstroyexport.ru/nuclear_market/foto

3). http://images.yandex.ru/yandsearch?text=Chernobyl&stype=image

4). Andrew Nagorski, The zone of alienation, in: Newsweek, April 22, 1996, page 57
5). Inherited damage is found in Chernobyl area children - The New York Times, No. 50,407, Thursday, April 25, 1996, Page A-8
6). Judith Perera, Chernobyl workers face an uncertain future, in: World of work, 1996, No. 15, page 4-5
7). Chernobyl, in: Scholastic Update (Teacher's edition), Vol. 126, No. 13,  April 15, 1994, Page 8,11
8). Chernobyl's lingering legacy, in: US. News and World Report, April 25, 1994, Page 20-21
9). Chernobyl, in: National Geographic, Vol. 186. No. 2, 1994, page 100-116
10). Chernobyl accident, art. in: Encyclopedia Britanica, Micropaedia, 15th edition, 1994, Vol. 3, page 171