1. WERNER HEISENBERG'S 1941 COPENHAGEN VISIT to Niels Bohr, the scientist closely identified with the theory of nuclear fission. New on the Web carries a letter from Dr Klaus Gottstein, a physicist who worked with Heisenberg from 1950 to 1970. It tries to shed some light on the mysterious visit during WW-II that formed the basis of the prize-winning play "Copenhagen" and a special symposium at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington on March 2, 2002. Did Heisenberg try to spy on Allied efforts to build the bomb or even persuade Bohr to join the German effort? Or, having concluded that Germany was unable to build a nuclear bomb, did he want to persuade Bohr to ask his American and British colleagues to desist from work on such a bomb? Or, as Gottstein argues, was Heisenberg concerned about protecting Bohr and his Institute while letting him know that there was no real bomb effort underway in Germany? I met both scientists after WW-II but they didn't confide in me. You will have to decide for yourself what was the real purpose of the Copenhagen visit.

2. NEWS FROM EUROPE: Denmark threatens not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol unless it can negotiate better terms with the European Union

3. WHAT TO DO ABOUT SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL? YUCCA MOUNTAIN LOOMS LARGE. BUT THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES.

4. HEALTH EFFECTS FROM NUCLEAR TEST FALLOUT? Prof Robert Park, author of Voodoo Science, sees no evidence.

5. GREENPEACE CAMPAIGN KILLS CANADIANS

6. NATIONAL ACADEMY NO LONGER HOLDS AGENT ORANGE RESPONSIBLE FOR CANCER

****************************************************************
2. THE NEW CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT IN DENMARK, headed by Anders Fogh Rasmussen (not to confused with the defeated Socialist premier, also named Rasmussen) threatens not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol unless it can gain better terms under the "bubble" reduction of greenhouse gases of the European Union. Denmark is supposed to reduce emissions by 21% from its 1990 level! So reports the German weekly Der Spiegel, adding that the German environment minister doesn't take the threat seriously.

In the meantime, Rasmussen has appointed Bjorn Lomborg, the former Greenpeacenik turned critic of Kyoto, to head a governmental Institute for Environmental Assessment.

***********************************************************

3. WHAT TO DO ABOUT SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL? There are choices

Last week, as expected, President Bush approved the underground storage of spent fuel at the Yucca site in Nevada, raising a predictable outcry from Nevada politicians and "concerned" Enviros that would like to use this issue to close down nuclear reactors nationwide.

Rule 1: Don't refer to Yucca as a "nuclear waste dump." It is a carefully engineered underground storage site and spent fuel is not "waste.' It will be a valuable resource that should be recycled once uranium prices rise.

Rule 2: Don't believe scare stories by Yucca opponents. It is safe - even with the ridiculously strict radiation standards imposed by the EPA. And so is the road or rail transport of fuel in specially designed casks. But having said this, it is likely that Enviros will stir up fears to block such shipments.

Therefore: Put a token amount into Yucca -- just to prove that it can be done. This will remove a chief argument that opponents of nuclear power have been using. Leave the rest of the fuel at the reactor sites where it is now and where it will be perfectly safe for decades - by which time reprocessing will become an economic necessity.

Or: Change reactor design. Our colleague Gordon Prather reminds us that the Integral Fast Reactor (developed at the Argonne National Lab until stopped by Clinton) reprocesses the spent fuel on-site into new fuel. It's all done robotically and recycling extends the uranium resource by a factor of 200. What's more, IFR technology could also use up as fuel the 100 tons of plutonium from US and Russian warheads. Truly - beating swords into plowshares!

*************************************************************

4. FALLOUT: "EVERYONE HAS BEEN EXPOSED TO FALLOUT FROM TESTING."

So what? A wildly irresponsible study from the Center of Disease Control estimates that fallout from testing will result in 11,000 cancer deaths. Would you believe zero? Atmospheric testing was dumb, and any testing now is dumber. But the CDC study assumes a linear, no-threshold model, which is clearly wrong. There is no evidence that low levels cause cancer and even some evidence that low radiation levels may stimulate the body's protective mechanisms.

**************************************************************

5. DID ATTACKS ON CHLORINE FACILITATE WALKERTON TRAGEDY?

The Toronto Free Press's "True Green Report" recently posed that question. The article noted that Stan Koebel, water works manager for the town of Walkerton, testified that he "heard" that chlorine was bad, using that as an excuse to justify not adding the required amount of chlorine needed to properly disinfect the town's water supply. A 1999 E. Coli outbreak in Walkerton killed seven people and sickened thousands. Investigators later determined that there was insufficient chlorine in the town's water supply to protect against the deadly bacteria. The Free Press column blamed Koebel's belief on "Greenpeace's decade long campaign to smear the reputation of chlorine," and sharply criticized Greenpeace Canada efforts to ban chlorine-containing products.

*****************************************************************

6. NAS RECONSIDERS AGENT ORANGE-CANCER LINK: A National Academy of Sciences panel is backing away from its conclusion last year that the children of veterans exposed to Agent Orange may have an increased chance of leukemia. After reviewing additional data, including a corrected Australian study, the Institute of Medicine issued a Press Release on February 27, 2002, concluding that there is not enough evidence to establish a connection between exposure and development of acute myelogenous leukemia. The panel reviewed a corrected Australian study as well as two small studies of pesticide exposure from Norway and Germany that had not been included in the earlier analysis. The Associated Press reports that when revised, the report found that the incidence of the disease among the children of exposed veterans was slightly elevated, but within the range of normal variation. For more information and the report on IOM, please refer to http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309083389?opendocument