As the Obama administration tries to steer America toward cleaner sources of energy, it would do well to consider the cautionary tale of this new-generation nuclear reactor site.
The massive power plant under construction on muddy terrain on this Finnish island was supposed to be the showpiece of a nuclear renaissance. The most powerful reactor ever built, its modular design was supposed to make it faster and cheaper to build. And it was supposed to be safer, too.
But things have not gone as planned.
After four years of construction and thousands of defects and deficiencies, the reactor’s 3 billion euro price tag, about $4.2 billion, has climbed at least 50 percent. And while the reactor was originally meant to be completed this summer, Areva, the French company building it, and the utility that ordered it, are no longer willing to make certain predictions on when it will go online.
While the American nuclear industry has predicted clear sailing after its first plants are built, the problems in Europe suggest these obstacles may be hard to avoid.
A new fleet of reactors would be standardized down to “the carpeting and wallpaper,” as Michael J. Wallace, the chairman of UniStar Nuclear Energy — a joint venture between EDF Group and Constellation Energy, the Maryland-based utility — has said repeatedly.
In the end, he insists, that standardization will lead to significant savings.
But early experience suggests these new reactors will be no easier or cheaper to build than the ones of a generation ago, when cost overruns — and then accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl — ended the last nuclear construction boom.
In Flamanville, France, a clone of the Finnish reactor now under construction is also behind schedule and overbudget.
In the United States, Florida and Georgia have changed state laws to raise electricity rates so that consumers will foot some of the bill for new nuclear plants in advance, before construction even begins.
“A number of U.S. companies have looked with trepidation on the situation in Finland and at the magnitude of the investment there,” said Paul L. Joskow, a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a co-author of an influential report on the future of nuclear power in 2003. “The rollout of new nuclear reactors will be a good deal slower than a lot of people were assuming.”
For nuclear power to have a high impact on reducing greenhouse gases, an average of 12 reactors would have to be built worldwide each year until 2030, according to the Nuclear Energy Agency at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Right now, there are not even enough reactors under construction to replace those that are reaching the end of their lives.
And of the 45 reactors being built around the world, 22 have encountered construction delays, according to an analysis prepared this year for the German government by Mycle Schneider, an energy analyst and a critic of the nuclear industry. He added that nine do not have official start-up dates.
Most of the new construction is underway in countries like China and Russia, where strong central governments have made nuclear energy a national priority. India also has long seen nuclear as part of a national drive for self-sufficiency and now is seeking new nuclear technologies to reduce its reliance on imported uranium.
By comparison, “the state has been all over the place in the United States and Europe on nuclear power,” Mr. Joskow said.
The United States generates about one-fifth of its electricity from a fleet of 104 reactors, most built in the 1960s and 1970s. Coal still provides about half the country’s power.
To streamline construction, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Washington has worked with the industry to approve a handful of designs. Even so, the schedule to certify the most advanced model from Westinghouse, a unit of Toshiba, has slipped during an ongoing review of its ability to withstand the impact of an airliner.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has also not yet approved the so-called EPR design under construction in Finland for the American market.
This month, the United States Energy Department produced a short list of four reactor projects eligible for some loan guarantees. In the 2005 energy bill, Congress provided $18.5 billion, but the industry’s hope of winning an additional $50 billion worth of loan guarantees evaporated when that money was stripped from President Obama’s economic stimulus bill.
The industry has had more success in getting states to help raise money. This year, authorities permitted Florida Power & Light to start charging millions of customers several dollars a month to finance four new reactors. Customers of Georgia Power, a subsidiary of the Southern Co., will pay on average $1.30 a month more in 2011, rising to $9.10 by 2017, to help pay for two reactors expected to go online in 2016 or later.
But resistance is mounting. In April, Missouri legislators balked at a preconstruction rate increase, prompting the state’s largest electric utility, Ameren UE, to suspend plans for a $6 billion copy of Areva’s Finnish reactor.
Areva, a conglomerate largely owned by the French state, is heir to that nation’s experience in building nuclear plants. France gets about 80 percent of its power from 58 reactors. But even France has not completed a new reactor since 1999.
After designing an updated plant originally called the European Pressurized Reactor with German participation during the 1990s, the French had trouble selling it at home because of a saturated energy market as well as opposition from Green Party members in the then-coalition government.
So Areva turned to Finland, where utilities and energy-hungry industries like pulp and paper had been lobbying for 15 years for more nuclear power. The project was initially budgeted at $4 billion and Teollisuuden Voima, the Finnish utility, pledged it would be ready in time to help the Finnish government meet its greenhouse gas targets under the Kyoto climate treaty, which runs through 2012Areva promised electricity from the reactor could be generated more cheaply than from natural gas plants. Areva also said its model would deliver 1,600 megawatts, or about 10 percent of Finnish power needs.
In 2001, the Finnish parliament narrowly approved construction of a reactor at Olkiluoto, an island on the Baltic Sea. Construction began four years later.
Serious problems first arose over the vast concrete base slab for the foundation of the reactor building, which the country’s Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority found too porous and prone to corrosion. Since then, the authority has blamed Areva for allowing inexperienced subcontractors to drill holes in the wrong places on a vast steel container that seals the reactor.
In December, the authority warned Anne Lauvergeon, the chief executive of Areva, that “the attitude or lack of professional knowledge of some persons” at Areva was holding up work on safety systems.
Today, the site still teems with 4,000 workmen on round-the-clock shifts. Banners from dozens of subcontractors around Europe flutter in the breeze above temporary offices and makeshift canteens. Some 10,000 people speaking at least eight different languages have worked at the site. About 30 percent of the workforce is Polish, and communication has posed significant challenges.
Areva has acknowledged that the cost of a new reactor today would be as much as 6 billion euros, or $8 billion, double the price offered to the Finns. But Areva said it was not cutting any corners in Finland. The two sides have agreed to arbitration, where they are both claiming more than 1 billion euros in compensation. (Areva blames the Finnish authorities for impeding construction and increasing costs for work it agreed to complete at a fixed price.)
Areva announced a steep drop in earnings last year, which it blamed mostly on mounting losses from the project.
In addition, nuclear safety inspectors in France have found cracks in the concrete base and steel reinforcements in the wrong places at the site in Flamanville. They also have warned Électricité de France, the utility building the reactor, that welders working on the steel container were not properly qualified.
On top of such problems come the recession, weaker energy demand, tight credit and uncertainty over future policies, said Caren Byrd, an executive director of the global utility and power group at Morgan Stanley in New York.
“The warning lights now are flashing more brightly than just a year ago about the cost of new nuclear,” she said.
And Jouni Silvennoinen, the project manager at Olkiluoto, said, “We have had it easy here.” Olkiluoto is at least a geologically stable site. Earthquake risks in places like China and the United States or even the threat of storm surges mean building these reactors will be even trickier elsewhere.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Refugees Join List of Climate-Change Issues
With their boundless vistas of turquoise water framed by swaying coconut palms, the Carteret Islands northeast of the Papua New Guinea mainland might seem the idyllic spot to be a castaway.
But sea levels have risen so much that during the annual king tide season, November to March, the roiling ocean blocks the view from one island to the next, and residents stash their possessions in fishing nets strung between the palm trees.
“It gives you the scary feeling that you don’t know what is going to happen to you, that any minute you will be floating,” Ursula Rakova, the head of a program to relocate residents, said by telephone. The chain could well be uninhabitable by 2015, locals believe, but two previous attempts to abandon it ended badly, when residents were chased back after clashing with their new neighbors on larger islands.
This dark situation underlies the thorny debate over the world’s responsibilities to the millions of people likely to be displaced by climate change.
There could be 200 million of these climate refugees by 2050, according to a new policy paper by the International Organization for Migration, depending on the degree of climate disturbances. Aside from the South Pacific, low-lying areas likely to be battered first include Bangladesh and nations in the Indian Ocean, where the leader of the Maldives has begun seeking a safe haven for his 300,000 people. Landlocked areas may also be affected; some experts call the Darfur region of Sudan, where nomads battle villagers in a war over shrinking natural resources, the first significant conflict linked to climate change.
In the coming days, the United Nations General Assembly is expected to adopt the first resolution linking climate change to international peace and security. The hard-fought resolution, brought by 12 Pacific island states, says that climate change warrants greater attention from the United Nations as a possible source of upheaval worldwide and calls for more intense efforts to combat it. While all Pacific island states are expected to lose land, some made up entirely of atolls, like Tuvalu and Kiribati, face possible extinction.
“For the first time in history, you could actually lose countries off the face of the globe,” said Stuart Beck, the permanent representative for Palau at the United Nations. “It is a security threat to them and their populations, which will have to be relocated, which is the security threat to the places where they go, among other consequences.”
The issue has inspired intense wrangling, with some nations accusing the islanders of both exaggerating the still murky consequences of climate change and trying to expand the mandate of the Security Council by asking it to take action.
“We don’t consider climate change is an issue of security that properly belongs in the Security Council; rather, it is a development issue that has some security aspects,” said Maged A. Abdelaziz, the Egyptian ambassador. “It is an issue of how to prevent certain lands, or certain countries, from being flooded.”
The island states are seeking a response akin to the effort against terrorism after the Sept. 11 attacks. “The whole system bent itself to the task, and that is what we want,” Mr. Beck said, adding that the Council should even impose sanctions on countries that fail to act. “If you really buy into the notion that the Suburban you are driving is causing these islands to go under, there ought to be a cop.”
As it is, the compromise resolution does not mention such specific steps, one of the reasons it is expected to pass. Britain, which introduced climate change as a Security Council discussion topic two years ago, supports it along with most of Europe, while other permanent Council members — namely, the United States, China and Russia — generally backed the measure once it no longer explicitly demanded Council action.
Scientific studies distributed by the United Nations or affiliated agencies generally paint rising seas as a threat. A 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, detailing shifts expected in the South Pacific, said rising seas would worsen flooding and erosion and threaten towns as well as infrastructure. Some fresh water will turn salty, and fishing and agriculture will wither, it said.
The small island states are not alone in considering the looming threat already on the doorstep. A policy paper released this month by Australia’s Defense Ministry suggests possible violent outcomes in the Pacific. While Australia should try to mitigate the humanitarian suffering caused by global warming, if that failed and conflict erupted, the country should use its military “as an instrument to deal with any threats,” said the paper.
Australia’s previous prime minister, John Howard, was generally dismissive of the problem, saying his country was plagued with “doomsayers.” But a policy paper called “Our Drowning Neighbors,” by the now governing Labor Party, said Australia should help meld an international coalition to address it. Political debates have erupted there and in New Zealand over the idea of immigration quotas for climate refugees. New Zealand established a “Pacific Access Category” with guidelines that mirror the rules for any émigré, opening its borders to a limited annual quota of some 400 able-bodied adults between the ages of 18 and 45 who have no criminal records.
But its position has attracted criticism for leaving out the young and the old, who have the least ability to relocate. Australia’s policy, by contrast, is to try to mitigate the circumstances for the victims where they are, rather than serving as their lifeboat.
The sentiment among Pacific Islanders suggests that they do not want to abandon their homelands or be absorbed into cultures where indigenous people already struggle for acceptance.
“It is about much more than just finding food and shelter,” said Tarita Holm, an analyst with the Palauan Ministry of Resources and Development. “It is about your identity.”
Ms. Rakova, on the Carteret Islands, echoes that sentiment. A year ago, her proposed relocation effort attracted just three families out of a population of around 2,000 people. But after last season’s king tides — the highest of the year — she is scrounging for about $1.5 million to help some 750 people relocate before the tides come again.
Jennifer Redfearn, a documentary maker, has been filming the gradual disappearance of the Carterets for a work called “Sun Come Up.” One clan chief told her he would rather sink with the islands than leave. It now takes only about 15 minutes to walk the length of the largest island, with food and water supplies shrinking all the time.
“It destroys our food gardens, it uproots coconut trees, it even washes over the sea walls that we have built,” Ms. Rakova says on the film. “Most of our culture will have to live in memory.”
But sea levels have risen so much that during the annual king tide season, November to March, the roiling ocean blocks the view from one island to the next, and residents stash their possessions in fishing nets strung between the palm trees.
“It gives you the scary feeling that you don’t know what is going to happen to you, that any minute you will be floating,” Ursula Rakova, the head of a program to relocate residents, said by telephone. The chain could well be uninhabitable by 2015, locals believe, but two previous attempts to abandon it ended badly, when residents were chased back after clashing with their new neighbors on larger islands.
This dark situation underlies the thorny debate over the world’s responsibilities to the millions of people likely to be displaced by climate change.
There could be 200 million of these climate refugees by 2050, according to a new policy paper by the International Organization for Migration, depending on the degree of climate disturbances. Aside from the South Pacific, low-lying areas likely to be battered first include Bangladesh and nations in the Indian Ocean, where the leader of the Maldives has begun seeking a safe haven for his 300,000 people. Landlocked areas may also be affected; some experts call the Darfur region of Sudan, where nomads battle villagers in a war over shrinking natural resources, the first significant conflict linked to climate change.
In the coming days, the United Nations General Assembly is expected to adopt the first resolution linking climate change to international peace and security. The hard-fought resolution, brought by 12 Pacific island states, says that climate change warrants greater attention from the United Nations as a possible source of upheaval worldwide and calls for more intense efforts to combat it. While all Pacific island states are expected to lose land, some made up entirely of atolls, like Tuvalu and Kiribati, face possible extinction.
“For the first time in history, you could actually lose countries off the face of the globe,” said Stuart Beck, the permanent representative for Palau at the United Nations. “It is a security threat to them and their populations, which will have to be relocated, which is the security threat to the places where they go, among other consequences.”
The issue has inspired intense wrangling, with some nations accusing the islanders of both exaggerating the still murky consequences of climate change and trying to expand the mandate of the Security Council by asking it to take action.
“We don’t consider climate change is an issue of security that properly belongs in the Security Council; rather, it is a development issue that has some security aspects,” said Maged A. Abdelaziz, the Egyptian ambassador. “It is an issue of how to prevent certain lands, or certain countries, from being flooded.”
The island states are seeking a response akin to the effort against terrorism after the Sept. 11 attacks. “The whole system bent itself to the task, and that is what we want,” Mr. Beck said, adding that the Council should even impose sanctions on countries that fail to act. “If you really buy into the notion that the Suburban you are driving is causing these islands to go under, there ought to be a cop.”
As it is, the compromise resolution does not mention such specific steps, one of the reasons it is expected to pass. Britain, which introduced climate change as a Security Council discussion topic two years ago, supports it along with most of Europe, while other permanent Council members — namely, the United States, China and Russia — generally backed the measure once it no longer explicitly demanded Council action.
Scientific studies distributed by the United Nations or affiliated agencies generally paint rising seas as a threat. A 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, detailing shifts expected in the South Pacific, said rising seas would worsen flooding and erosion and threaten towns as well as infrastructure. Some fresh water will turn salty, and fishing and agriculture will wither, it said.
The small island states are not alone in considering the looming threat already on the doorstep. A policy paper released this month by Australia’s Defense Ministry suggests possible violent outcomes in the Pacific. While Australia should try to mitigate the humanitarian suffering caused by global warming, if that failed and conflict erupted, the country should use its military “as an instrument to deal with any threats,” said the paper.
Australia’s previous prime minister, John Howard, was generally dismissive of the problem, saying his country was plagued with “doomsayers.” But a policy paper called “Our Drowning Neighbors,” by the now governing Labor Party, said Australia should help meld an international coalition to address it. Political debates have erupted there and in New Zealand over the idea of immigration quotas for climate refugees. New Zealand established a “Pacific Access Category” with guidelines that mirror the rules for any émigré, opening its borders to a limited annual quota of some 400 able-bodied adults between the ages of 18 and 45 who have no criminal records.
But its position has attracted criticism for leaving out the young and the old, who have the least ability to relocate. Australia’s policy, by contrast, is to try to mitigate the circumstances for the victims where they are, rather than serving as their lifeboat.
The sentiment among Pacific Islanders suggests that they do not want to abandon their homelands or be absorbed into cultures where indigenous people already struggle for acceptance.
“It is about much more than just finding food and shelter,” said Tarita Holm, an analyst with the Palauan Ministry of Resources and Development. “It is about your identity.”
Ms. Rakova, on the Carteret Islands, echoes that sentiment. A year ago, her proposed relocation effort attracted just three families out of a population of around 2,000 people. But after last season’s king tides — the highest of the year — she is scrounging for about $1.5 million to help some 750 people relocate before the tides come again.
Jennifer Redfearn, a documentary maker, has been filming the gradual disappearance of the Carterets for a work called “Sun Come Up.” One clan chief told her he would rather sink with the islands than leave. It now takes only about 15 minutes to walk the length of the largest island, with food and water supplies shrinking all the time.
“It destroys our food gardens, it uproots coconut trees, it even washes over the sea walls that we have built,” Ms. Rakova says on the film. “Most of our culture will have to live in memory.”
Microsoft’s Request: Use Bing, Don’t Google It
A year from now, if you hear someone say that — and actually understand what they mean — Bill Gates will be a happy billionaire.
That is because it will be a sign that Microsoft is finally making progress in its quest to challenge Google in the Internet search business.
Bing, the name Microsoft gave to the new search service it unveiled Thursday, is its answer to Google — a noun that once meant little but has become part of the language as a verb that is a synonym for executing a Web search. After months of, uh, searching, Microsoft settled on Bing to replace the all-too-forgettable Live Search, which itself replaced MSN Search.
Microsoft invested billions of dollars in those services and failed to slow Google’s rise, so a new name certainly can’t hurt.
Microsoft’s marketing gurus hope that Bing will evoke neither a type of cherry nor a strip club on “The Sopranos” but rather a sound — the ringing of a bell that signals the “aha” moment when a search leads to an answer.
The name is meant to conjure “the sound of found” as Bing helps people with complex tasks like shopping for a camera, said Yusuf Mehdi, senior vice president of Microsoft’s online audience business group.
And if Bing turns into a verb like, say, Xerox, TiVo or, well, Google, that would be nice too. Steven A. Ballmer, Microsoft’s chief executive, said Thursday that he liked Bing’s potential to “verb up.” Plus, he said, “it works globally, and doesn’t have negative, unusual connotations.”
Some branding experts said choosing the name Bing was a good start, but also the easiest part of the challenge facing the company, since most people turn to Google without even thinking about it.
Michael Cronan, whose consulting firm helped come up with brands like TiVo and Amazon’s Kindle, said Bing’s sound, brevity and “ing” ending were all positives.
“It has a promise that you are going to find what you are looking for, and that’s great,” Mr. Cronan said. “But its success is entirely wrapped up in the quality of the experience that Microsoft can deliver.”
Peter Sealey, a former chief marketing officer at the Coca-Cola Company, said Microsoft should have picked a name that more directly connotes search.
“Bing has no equity; it signals nothing,” Mr. Sealey said. “It is going to be an enormous expense to create an image for this thing called Bing.”
Google’s name is a play on the word googol, which is a 1 followed by 100 zeroes. The company has said the name speaks to its ambitious mission to organize all the world’s information.
Asked about Microsoft’s choice of name at a press conference on Wednesday, Sergey Brin, a Google co-founder, said he did not know enough about the new service to comment on it. Then he deadpanned: “We’ve been pretty happy with the name Google.”
Meanwhile, some tech people were already noting that Bing is also an unfortunate acronym: “But It’s Not Google.”
That is because it will be a sign that Microsoft is finally making progress in its quest to challenge Google in the Internet search business.
Bing, the name Microsoft gave to the new search service it unveiled Thursday, is its answer to Google — a noun that once meant little but has become part of the language as a verb that is a synonym for executing a Web search. After months of, uh, searching, Microsoft settled on Bing to replace the all-too-forgettable Live Search, which itself replaced MSN Search.
Microsoft invested billions of dollars in those services and failed to slow Google’s rise, so a new name certainly can’t hurt.
Microsoft’s marketing gurus hope that Bing will evoke neither a type of cherry nor a strip club on “The Sopranos” but rather a sound — the ringing of a bell that signals the “aha” moment when a search leads to an answer.
The name is meant to conjure “the sound of found” as Bing helps people with complex tasks like shopping for a camera, said Yusuf Mehdi, senior vice president of Microsoft’s online audience business group.
And if Bing turns into a verb like, say, Xerox, TiVo or, well, Google, that would be nice too. Steven A. Ballmer, Microsoft’s chief executive, said Thursday that he liked Bing’s potential to “verb up.” Plus, he said, “it works globally, and doesn’t have negative, unusual connotations.”
Some branding experts said choosing the name Bing was a good start, but also the easiest part of the challenge facing the company, since most people turn to Google without even thinking about it.
Michael Cronan, whose consulting firm helped come up with brands like TiVo and Amazon’s Kindle, said Bing’s sound, brevity and “ing” ending were all positives.
“It has a promise that you are going to find what you are looking for, and that’s great,” Mr. Cronan said. “But its success is entirely wrapped up in the quality of the experience that Microsoft can deliver.”
Peter Sealey, a former chief marketing officer at the Coca-Cola Company, said Microsoft should have picked a name that more directly connotes search.
“Bing has no equity; it signals nothing,” Mr. Sealey said. “It is going to be an enormous expense to create an image for this thing called Bing.”
Google’s name is a play on the word googol, which is a 1 followed by 100 zeroes. The company has said the name speaks to its ambitious mission to organize all the world’s information.
Asked about Microsoft’s choice of name at a press conference on Wednesday, Sergey Brin, a Google co-founder, said he did not know enough about the new service to comment on it. Then he deadpanned: “We’ve been pretty happy with the name Google.”
Meanwhile, some tech people were already noting that Bing is also an unfortunate acronym: “But It’s Not Google.”
Woman may have kept mother's body in freezer for 20 years
An elderly woman has been questioned by police after allegedly keeping her mother's body in a freezer for up to two decades, it emerged today. Police found the body wrapped in a black bin liner in a chest freezer at a semi-detached house in Sidcup, south-east London.
Officers interviewed Daulat Irani, 83, under caution after the body was discovered and identified as that of her mother Gulbai Freedoon Murzan, who was born in 1901. Police believe she may have been dead for up to 20 years.
Metropolitan police said the death was being treated as unexplained, rather than suspicious. Postmortem results are expected later this week.
It is understood that officers were called to the property in Park Mead on 10 May after being alerted by a neighbour, and forensic officers removed the corpse.
It is unclear why the body was kept in the freezer, but neighbours of the elderly woman suggested she may have been worried that immigration authorities would discover her mother had been living illegally in the UK.
A neighbour, who did not wish to be named, said Irani was a "very private person" who kept her garden in pristine condition. "Obviously it was shocking when the police came and told me what happened. They said they believed she had been in the freezer for more than 20 years," the neighbour told the Daily Mirror.
"I think it was an immigration thing because her mum was illegal and they didn't want anyone to know."
Ray Dyson, 77, who lives nearby, said Irani was a "nice old lady" who went quietly about her business. "This has all come as a bit of a shock. The first we knew was when two police cars and an officer in a full forensic bodysuit turned up. They taped off the garage and have now put a padlock on it."
Another neighbour believed Irani had confided in a friend, who had passed on the information to police. "I saw her after the police visited and she told me they questioned her for hours. I told her it wasn't surprising considering what they had found. She said the police were going to contact her again soon."
A police spokesman said: "We can confirm that we went to a residential address in Sidcup. Officers found the body of a woman. We believe we know the identity but await formal identification. The death is being treated as unexplained. An 83-year-old woman has been interviewed under caution but there have been no arrests."
Officers interviewed Daulat Irani, 83, under caution after the body was discovered and identified as that of her mother Gulbai Freedoon Murzan, who was born in 1901. Police believe she may have been dead for up to 20 years.
Metropolitan police said the death was being treated as unexplained, rather than suspicious. Postmortem results are expected later this week.
It is understood that officers were called to the property in Park Mead on 10 May after being alerted by a neighbour, and forensic officers removed the corpse.
It is unclear why the body was kept in the freezer, but neighbours of the elderly woman suggested she may have been worried that immigration authorities would discover her mother had been living illegally in the UK.
A neighbour, who did not wish to be named, said Irani was a "very private person" who kept her garden in pristine condition. "Obviously it was shocking when the police came and told me what happened. They said they believed she had been in the freezer for more than 20 years," the neighbour told the Daily Mirror.
"I think it was an immigration thing because her mum was illegal and they didn't want anyone to know."
Ray Dyson, 77, who lives nearby, said Irani was a "nice old lady" who went quietly about her business. "This has all come as a bit of a shock. The first we knew was when two police cars and an officer in a full forensic bodysuit turned up. They taped off the garage and have now put a padlock on it."
Another neighbour believed Irani had confided in a friend, who had passed on the information to police. "I saw her after the police visited and she told me they questioned her for hours. I told her it wasn't surprising considering what they had found. She said the police were going to contact her again soon."
A police spokesman said: "We can confirm that we went to a residential address in Sidcup. Officers found the body of a woman. We believe we know the identity but await formal identification. The death is being treated as unexplained. An 83-year-old woman has been interviewed under caution but there have been no arrests."
British man accused of £4.4m Ponzi scam in US
A British man faces jail in the US after being charged with a £4.4m investment fraud. Robert Tringham, 64, from Knebworth, Hertfordshire, is accused of running a Ponzi (pyramid) scheme in which investors were tricked into handing over millons of pounds. They believed they would receive high returns on their investments but instead Tringham allegedly used the money for his own gain.
Tringham, who lived in Diamond Bar, California, used some of the money to buy a home and Land Rover, the indictment filed by prosecutors in California alleges.
If convicted of the 11 counts against him, he could receive a maximum sentence of 170 years in prison.
The indictment states that Tringham has previously been convicted of deception, forgery and theft in the UK.
A complaint filed by US regulators in April accuses him of fraudulently raising at least $6.4m from four or more investors since 2006.
One client was promised returns of 2.5% a month (30% a year) by Tringham, the US Securities and Exchange Commission said. It also claims Tringham repeatedly refused requests from clients to redeem their investments.
Under the criminal indictment filed by the US attorney's office, Tringham faces charges that also include mail and wire fraud. In addition to fraud, Tringham is accused of failing to pay nearly $500,000 in income tax. He is due to appear in the Los Angeles district court on Monday.
Ponzi schemes were named after fraudster Charles Ponzi in the early 20th century. In the scheme, investors are offered high returns, but are in reality paid with money from subsequent investors rather than actual profits.
Tringham, who lived in Diamond Bar, California, used some of the money to buy a home and Land Rover, the indictment filed by prosecutors in California alleges.
If convicted of the 11 counts against him, he could receive a maximum sentence of 170 years in prison.
The indictment states that Tringham has previously been convicted of deception, forgery and theft in the UK.
A complaint filed by US regulators in April accuses him of fraudulently raising at least $6.4m from four or more investors since 2006.
One client was promised returns of 2.5% a month (30% a year) by Tringham, the US Securities and Exchange Commission said. It also claims Tringham repeatedly refused requests from clients to redeem their investments.
Under the criminal indictment filed by the US attorney's office, Tringham faces charges that also include mail and wire fraud. In addition to fraud, Tringham is accused of failing to pay nearly $500,000 in income tax. He is due to appear in the Los Angeles district court on Monday.
Ponzi schemes were named after fraudster Charles Ponzi in the early 20th century. In the scheme, investors are offered high returns, but are in reality paid with money from subsequent investors rather than actual profits.
MoD admits use of controversial 'enhanced blast' weapons in Afghanistan
British pilots in Afghanistan are firing an increasing number of "enhanced blast" thermobaric weapons, designed to kill everyone in buildings they strike, the Ministry of Defence has revealed.
Since the start of this year more than 20 of the US-designed missiles, which have what is officially described as a "blast fragmentation warhead", have been fired by pilots of British Apache attack helicopters. A total of 20 were also fired last year after they were bought by the MoD from the Americans last May.
The missiles are a variant of the AGM-114N Hellfire missile, described by the Pentagon as "designed to produce higher sustained blast pressure in multi-room structures.
It adds: "The enhanced blast from the … warhead is more effective against non-traditional targets; multi-room structures expected in military operations in urban terrain operations, caves, and fortified bunkers."
The missile's warhead is made with a mixture of chemicals rather than a simple blast mechanism.
"The thermobaric Hellfire missile can take out the first floor of a building without damaging the floors above, and is capable of reaching around corners," according to Global-Security.org, a US thinktank.
It describes the effects of the missile as "formidable". Unlike conventional warheads, it produces a sustained pressure wave. US forces have deployed the missiles in Iraq as well as Afghanistan.
Its wider use was disclosed by John Hutton, the defence secretary, in answer to a parliamentary answer from Nick Harvey, the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman. "Given the MoD's reluctance to admit they were even going to use these weapons, they now seem to be getting rather more trigger-happy," Harvey said yesterday. "If these controversial weapons are being fired on a weekly basis in Afghanistan, we need to know that they are being used according to strict rules of engagement.
"Human rights groups have serious concerns about the effect of these weapons in populated areas, and their legality seems to be a grey area. The last thing we need in this counter-insurgency campaign is the allegation that civilians are dying at the hands of some kind of terror weapon. Parliament must be reassured these are a weapon of last resort."
A UK defence official told the Guardian that the Hellfire missiles that British Apaches had been initially equipped with were lighter anti-tank weapons. They would simply make a "small hole" in a building and the enemy would run away unscathed, the official said.
The new US-designed weapon was "particularly designed to take down structures and kill everyone in the buildings".
The official said British pilots' rules of engagement were strict and everything a pilot sees from the cockpit is recorded.
Since the start of this year more than 20 of the US-designed missiles, which have what is officially described as a "blast fragmentation warhead", have been fired by pilots of British Apache attack helicopters. A total of 20 were also fired last year after they were bought by the MoD from the Americans last May.
The missiles are a variant of the AGM-114N Hellfire missile, described by the Pentagon as "designed to produce higher sustained blast pressure in multi-room structures.
It adds: "The enhanced blast from the … warhead is more effective against non-traditional targets; multi-room structures expected in military operations in urban terrain operations, caves, and fortified bunkers."
The missile's warhead is made with a mixture of chemicals rather than a simple blast mechanism.
"The thermobaric Hellfire missile can take out the first floor of a building without damaging the floors above, and is capable of reaching around corners," according to Global-Security.org, a US thinktank.
It describes the effects of the missile as "formidable". Unlike conventional warheads, it produces a sustained pressure wave. US forces have deployed the missiles in Iraq as well as Afghanistan.
Its wider use was disclosed by John Hutton, the defence secretary, in answer to a parliamentary answer from Nick Harvey, the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman. "Given the MoD's reluctance to admit they were even going to use these weapons, they now seem to be getting rather more trigger-happy," Harvey said yesterday. "If these controversial weapons are being fired on a weekly basis in Afghanistan, we need to know that they are being used according to strict rules of engagement.
"Human rights groups have serious concerns about the effect of these weapons in populated areas, and their legality seems to be a grey area. The last thing we need in this counter-insurgency campaign is the allegation that civilians are dying at the hands of some kind of terror weapon. Parliament must be reassured these are a weapon of last resort."
A UK defence official told the Guardian that the Hellfire missiles that British Apaches had been initially equipped with were lighter anti-tank weapons. They would simply make a "small hole" in a building and the enemy would run away unscathed, the official said.
The new US-designed weapon was "particularly designed to take down structures and kill everyone in the buildings".
The official said British pilots' rules of engagement were strict and everything a pilot sees from the cockpit is recorded.
Tory paid daughter to rent flat
Senior Tory MP Bill Cash paid his daughter £15,000 in rent from Parliamentary expenses despite owning a flat closer to Parliament.
Mr Cash named a London flat owned by his daughter Laetitia as his second home in 2004-5 and claimed for rental payments, the Daily Telegraph revealed.
Mr Cash told the paper that "what is lawful is appropriate" but he would repay the money if required to.
Three further MPs are standing down after criticism of their expenses.
'Within the rules'
Conservative MPs Julie Kirkbride and Christopher Fraser and Labour's Margaret Moran said on Thursday they would not defend their seats at the next election although all insisted they had not done anything wrong.
Mr Fraser said he was standing down for personal reasons to care for his ill wife.
In its latest batch of disclosures about MPs' expenses, the Telegraph said Mr Cash rented a property from his daughter - an aspiring MP - in London despite owning a property closer to Westminster himself.
MPs are currently not allowed to rent properties from family members but the rules were only changed in July 2006 - after Mr Cash rented from his daughter.
He designated her flat as his second home and claimed more than £15,000 in rental payments given to her - equivalent to about £1,200 a month.
Ms Cash - who herself stood as a Tory candidate at the last general election and hopes to do so at the next election - later sold the property for a £48,000 profit, the newspaper added.
The arch eurosceptic, who has been an MP for 25 years, told the BBC that he had shown the tenancy agreement to the Commons authorities and it had been approved.
He also said that he had never claimed any allowances for his much larger principal residence in Shropshire, which would have cost the taxpayer much more.
He also stressed that, while living with his daughter, he had not rented out his own London property.
Mr Cash said he was happy for his arrangements to be examined by the Tories' internal scrutiny panel which is looking at all expenses claims made by MPs in the past four years.
Justifying claims
Tory leader David Cameron has said all his MPs must justify their expenses claims to their constituents as public anger over the issue led to some MPs to step down.
Among further allegations made by the Telegraph, the newspaper said Labour MP Nigel Griffiths claimed £3,600 for a digital TV and radio set so that he could keep up with news developments in his constituency in Scotland.
It said the Edinburgh MP's claim was rejected but that Mr Griffiths made other claims which were approved for decorating his second home, including one for £9,250 in 2004.
Mr Griffiths said the Commons authorities had turned down the claim for a TV and radio and he had bought the items without spending any public money.
Mr Cash named a London flat owned by his daughter Laetitia as his second home in 2004-5 and claimed for rental payments, the Daily Telegraph revealed.
Mr Cash told the paper that "what is lawful is appropriate" but he would repay the money if required to.
Three further MPs are standing down after criticism of their expenses.
'Within the rules'
Conservative MPs Julie Kirkbride and Christopher Fraser and Labour's Margaret Moran said on Thursday they would not defend their seats at the next election although all insisted they had not done anything wrong.
Mr Fraser said he was standing down for personal reasons to care for his ill wife.
In its latest batch of disclosures about MPs' expenses, the Telegraph said Mr Cash rented a property from his daughter - an aspiring MP - in London despite owning a property closer to Westminster himself.
MPs are currently not allowed to rent properties from family members but the rules were only changed in July 2006 - after Mr Cash rented from his daughter.
He designated her flat as his second home and claimed more than £15,000 in rental payments given to her - equivalent to about £1,200 a month.
Ms Cash - who herself stood as a Tory candidate at the last general election and hopes to do so at the next election - later sold the property for a £48,000 profit, the newspaper added.
The arch eurosceptic, who has been an MP for 25 years, told the BBC that he had shown the tenancy agreement to the Commons authorities and it had been approved.
He also said that he had never claimed any allowances for his much larger principal residence in Shropshire, which would have cost the taxpayer much more.
He also stressed that, while living with his daughter, he had not rented out his own London property.
Mr Cash said he was happy for his arrangements to be examined by the Tories' internal scrutiny panel which is looking at all expenses claims made by MPs in the past four years.
Justifying claims
Tory leader David Cameron has said all his MPs must justify their expenses claims to their constituents as public anger over the issue led to some MPs to step down.
Among further allegations made by the Telegraph, the newspaper said Labour MP Nigel Griffiths claimed £3,600 for a digital TV and radio set so that he could keep up with news developments in his constituency in Scotland.
It said the Edinburgh MP's claim was rejected but that Mr Griffiths made other claims which were approved for decorating his second home, including one for £9,250 in 2004.
Mr Griffiths said the Commons authorities had turned down the claim for a TV and radio and he had bought the items without spending any public money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)