Return to Transcripts main page

Next@CNN

Oil Will Make or Break Iraq's Recovery; Asian Airports Employ Technology to Spot SARS; Why Are California's Sea Otters Dying?

Aired May 04, 2003 - 17:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Today on NEXT@CNN, oil is what is going to make or break economic recovery in Iraq. We're going to look at how the restoration of Iraq's oil industry is going to affect your pocketbook.
We'll also check out technology that Asian airports are using now to spot feverish folks who might be carrying the SARS virus.

And experts work to solve a mystery. Why are sea otters off of the California coast dying?

We have that and a whole lot more on NEXT.

Welcome to NEXT@CNN for this Sunday, May 4. I'm Anderson Cooper. Thanks for joining us today.

Now that Saddam Hussein's regime is gone and major combat operations are over in Iraq, attention has turned to rebuilding the country. The oil business, unquestionably, is going to drive the economy of the new Iraq, but how to get it flowing again and who is going to pay to get the industry back on its feet?

Joining us now to talk about oil and Iraq, Edward Chow, a visiting fellow at the Carnegie Endowment of International Peace and a former executive at the Chevron Corporation. Thanks very much for being with us, Edward.

Iraq certainly has huge reserves of oil. It's got the second largest oil reserves in the world, I think, right behind Saudi Arabia. Why aren't more oil companies rushing in to take part in the development?

EDWARD CHOW, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT: Well, there are a number of different reasons. First of all, we have to remember that Iraq essentially put itself on an embargo. First, by starting the Iran- Iraq war, and then, of course, the invasion of Kuwait. So they've excluded themselves, the Saddam Hussein government had from the international oil community for the past 20 years or so with very limited involvement of the international community.

COOPER: But now that the regime is gone, why aren't more jumping on the bandwagon?

CHOW: Well, because there are a number of things that still need to be done. One is to get production going right away, which we are doing. The American occupying forces are working very quickly to restore production and to get it going at the one to 2 million barrels per day level. So that for both domestic demand as well as to get export going.

COOPER: Is there a fear of instability? Is that sort of holding up the works?

CHOW: Well, there's fear of the international authority under which oil companies would come in and invest in a major way. And there are no, at this point, understanding or determination of what contractual terms there are going to be under which oil companies might come and invest in Iraq. Of course, you have to remember that we're talking about a region not only in Iraq, but in the Persian Gulf as a whole that has nationalized the oil industry in the past 20, 30 years. So, you know, and a new set of rules of the game would have to be established first.

COOPER: Let's talk about some of the steps that it's going to take to get things flowing, to get the oil flowing again. You already said production facilities are being upgraded. And I guess U.S. taxpayers are footing the bill for it at this stage of the game. What's the next step beyond that?

CHOW: The next step beyond that is to get production back up to prewar levels, which is in the two to three million barrels per day range.

COOPER: Pre-1991 war levels?

CHOW: That's pre-1991, as well as recent production levels had been at around 2 million barrels per day. So it would take, I would guess, two to three-years to revive, to restore the production capacity to be able to sustain that level of production.

COOPER: What about searching out for new oil reserves?

CHOW: That's when the interesting developments yet to be determined presumably by a new Iraqi government. We're looking at doing that probably in three to five year's time frame. It's not something that's going to get started right away. For one thing, it would take some political consensus on the part of a newly established Iraqi government to, as I said, set the rules of the game for inviting oil companies in.

COOPER: So bottom line, we're still talking several years, you said two to three years just to get production up to pre-1991 levels.

CHOW: And probably three to five years beyond that before new production increases in production after four, five, six million barrels per day level that people talk about can be realized.

COOPER: Edward Chow, appreciate you joining us. Thanks very much.

CHOW: You're welcome. COOPER: Well, staying on the subject of Iraq right now, I want to talk about weapons. Some weapon systems helped make the war a quick success for coalition forces, but some weapons didn't work so well. Regardless, you pay for all of them. So, let's find out if you got your money's worth.

Eric Adams is the aviation and military editor for "Popular Science" magazine. And he joins us now from our Washington bureau. Now, Eric, in the first Gulf War, we heard an awful lot about the Patriot anti-missile system. How did it do this time around?

ERIC ADAMS, "POPULAR SCIENCE MAGAZINE": This time around the Patriots, they were very successful in actually shooting down missiles. The new version, the PAC-3 is the most successful anti- missile technology ever developed. Unfortunately, it also brought down two allied aircraft -- a Royal Air Force Tornado and an F-18, resulting in three deaths. So, before it gets fielded again, they are going to have to find out why that happened, whether it was a technological error or a targeting error.

COOPER: So, at this point, they don't know the answer to that?

ADAMS: No, they're still investigating.

COOPER: OK. Let's talk about the Apache Longbow, it's a heavier version. It's a newer version of the Apache. I think it's got a lot more armor, better radar. How did it do?

ADAMS: Unfortunately, and the first time it really saw any action, a flight of about 30 or 40 aircraft went out, and 33 of them were shot by small arms fire and disabled substantially enough they had to turn around. One, if you remember, was actually shot down. And it became essentially a propaganda tool for the Iraqis for several days. So the radar works, and the armament works, but it, unfortunately, it's vulnerable to small arms fire. In the helicopter's defense, it wasn't designed for the flat terrain that it was in. It was designed for very terrain-rich environments, where it is able to maneuver through valleys and target and fire missiles up over mountain tops and down the other side to attack tanks and other vehicles.

COOPER: I've got to say on the face of it, that doesn't sound all that great. You've got this heavily armored helicopter that is vulnerable to small arms fire. Is it going to be used in the future? And if so, I guess its use is going to be pretty limited.

ADAMS: I don't know that its use will be limited. It might be used -- they might have more discretion about when they are going to use it and in what types of environment. It just turns out that this was a brand new weapon, they wanted to see how it did perform. Unfortunately, it didn't quite perform the way they wanted it to. They may not use it under those exact same scenarios in the future. But it certainly is very lethal and very capable helicopter that will see action in the future.

COOPER: All right, Global Hawk and Predator, we saw an awful lot of that in this conflict in Iraq. We've also seen it operated in Yemen, also in Afghanistan. How's the development of those two?

ADAMS: Well, the Predator is just doing fantastic. It continues to fly. This time, they all fly with hell fire missiles whereas before only a few had those, and it's performed marvelously in the war. The Global Hawk is a completely new type of the same unmanned aerial vehicle. It has higher altitude, greater range, and greater payload capabilities. And even though it's not formally in service right now, they rushed two of them into service and it performed very well in the war. It actually helped an F-18 target a battery that was partially obscured underneath a bridge all within 20 minutes, and from the moment of recognition to the actual attack that destroyed it.

COOPER: And that kind of real-time intelligence, that's invaluable.

ADAMS: It is. And actually 20 minutes is long by the Global Hawk standards, because it's a new weapon, they had a man in the loop verifying every step. And in the future, it's going to be a fully autonomous vehicle.

COOPER: Almost out of time. The MOAB got a lot of publicity, a lot of attention. Not much information though about whether it was really used, right?

ADAMS: That's right. There were two MOABS, mothers of all bombs, as they were informally known. One of them was used in a test in Florida. And they sent one to Iraq. The Air Force is not talking about whether or not they actually deployed it.

COOPER: All right, Eric Adams, appreciate it. It was interesting. Thanks very much.

ADAMS: Thank you.

COOPER: Well, coming up next, a happy but belated homecoming for three space travelers back from the international space station. It was a little bit of a bumpy ride, but they are home safe and sound.

Also, a sad farewell to a New Hampshire icon. Just because it's solid as a rock doesn't mean it's going to last forever. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: I want to take a look at some NEXT news headlines right now.

Lots of anti-spam initiatives this week. Three of the biggest Internet service providers announced that they are going to work together to track down people who send junk e-mail. You can hear the cheers going across the nation right now.

Virginia passed a tough anti-spam law that lets authorities seize assets earned from spamming, believe it or not. And several lawmakers propose federal anti-spam legislation. And the FTC, the Federal Trade Commission, held a conference on spam. And you're going to be shocked, shocked tell you. They learned that now the FTC estimates two-thirds of spam messages are false in some ways. Shocking.

Dozens of countries near the equator were on the alert earlier this week because of a satellite that was falling back to earth, but the remains of the Dutch-Italian BeppoSax satellite plummeted harmlessly into the Pacific on Tuesday. It was launched back in 1996 to study x-ray radiation.

A name change to tell you about. An asteroid discovered in 1993 has been named after Mr. Rogers. That's right, the beloved TV show host who died in February. Now, the international astronomical union made the decision. They are the ones in charge of naming asteroids and comets. Up until this week, the Mr. Rogers asteroid was known simply as number 26858. And just in case you are wondering, Mars and Jupiter are the planets in its neighborhood.

NASA says one of the science experiments from the space shuttle "Columbia" has been found and it's in relatively good shape. Hard to imagine but it still contains living worms. They are the off spring of the worms that were on the shuttle which disintegrated on February 1, minutes before it was supposed to land. The worm experiment was found several weeks ago in Texas, but NASA did not open the containers until just this week.

Two astronauts and a cosmonaut who spend the last five months on the international space station are safely back on earth today. We mentioned that a little bit earlier in the program. Their arrival, however, was not without drama.

Miles O'Brien has the story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MILES O'BRIEN, CNN SPACE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): One hundred and sixty two days after they left earth atmosphere and the pull of gravity behind, the six crew of the international space station came back, but nowhere near where or when planned. The Russian Soyuz rocket they rode back to earth landed 285 miles short of its intended target. It took an armada of Russian aircraft more than 2.5 hours to find capsule and crew safe and sound.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm going to miss flying as I do my work, floating from place to place here in the station. I'm going to miss the food, and I'm going to miss the spectacular views. You just can't beat looking out the window and seeing our planet. We live on the most beautiful place probably in the universe.

O'BRIEN: Ken Bowersox and Don Pettit became the first NASA astronauts to return to earth onboard a Russian Soyuz. A record they would gladly have passed on if they had had a choice. The expedition six crew missed their shuttle ride home when NASA grounded the fleet after the "Columbia" accident. Until they fly again, NASA is relying on Russia to launch crews of two to restaff the station every six months.

ED LU, ASTRONAUT: The Soyuz ride was great. It was quite an experience. It's much smaller in the shuttle, of course, but it's a lot more maneuverable. It's more like a sports car as compared to the shuttle, which is sort of like a big old station wagon. But the docking went smoothly and things are going great so far. These guys are showing us around. We're learning about the space station, all the things that they never teach you in training. And we're having a good time so far. We're looking forward to the next six months.

O'BRIEN: The new station crew, NASA astronaut Ed Lu and Russian cosmonaut Yuri Malenchenko launched into orbit last Friday on the launch pad where human space travel began 42 years ago. Instead of building, they will be tending, keeping the lights on and the dream alive. The exiting science officer Don Pettit was glad to see the station wasn't being abandoned, despite a mere 11 hours of science that will be conducted on board each week.

DON PETTIT, SCIENCE OFFICER: I think one of the key things about the space station as an international program is having many, many international partners all working together and keeping the human presence in space. And that is probably more important than the absolute magnitude of the amount of science you get done.

O'BRIEN: For NASA, the safe return of the expedition six crew is a big relief, particularly after the delay in finding the capsule, finding out what caused it to land so far off course will be crucial before another Soyuz can safely fly.

Miles O'Brien, CNN.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: With the landmark that said New Hampshire to generations of tourists is sadly no more. The Old Man of the Mountain was still showing his craggy profile last week but things looked different in the granite state on Saturday morning.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER (voice-over): That was then. And this is now. After thousands of years of keeping sentinel over the state of New Hampshire, the Old Man of the Mountain is gone. In the end, he likely fell victim to the same natural forces that forged him. In the words of one park official, quote, "We always thought it was the hand of God holding him up, and he let go." That it happened now should come as no surprise. For nearly a century, the state had used cables and epoxy to keep the face from collapsing from erosion and the natural freeze-and-thaw cycle. And those who did the work warned a collapse was inevitable.

To get an idea of just how important the old man of the mountain was to the people of New Hampshire, you have to realize that since the early 1800s, that's right, the early 1800s, millions of tourists have traveled just to see it. And take a look at your spare change. The old man's profile appears on the state's quarter. Not to mention its license plate, state road signs and every sort of souvenir or tourist knickknack you can think of. While the old man's nose, mouth and other parts of his face are just rubble now, we may not have seen the last of him. New Hampshire's Governor Craig Benson says the face should be restored.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: It's going to be difficult to do, however. Plenty more coming up on "NEXT@CNN," including the lowdown on a new music service that the recording industry is hoping is going to help stop all that online music sharing.

Also a story about otters who are dwindling in number.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Well, on Monday, Apple Computers unveiled a new digital music service called the iTunes Music Store. Now, downloaders and file swappers will have to pay to buy the song to get their groove on, it's 99 cents.

Yesterday, I chatted with technology correspondent Daniel Sieberg about exactly how Apple plans to make its mark.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DANIEL SIEBERG, CNN TECHNOLOGY CORRESPONDENT: The difference here is that Apple is offering tunes for $1 apiece or 99 cents, to be exact. You go to the iTunes Web site, you download the software. You can get each song for about 99 cents. There are about 200,000 songs currently in their library of songs. They have partnered with all five of the major recording labels to offer people this music online.

Now, a lot of analysts are saying it may not be the perfect way to go about it, but they are saying it's an advance from what we've seen in the past from a lot of these legitimate and legal sites that are already out. And they've put fewer restrictions on the files. And that is, I think, really key. And a lot of analysts have said is the key to the service is there aren't as many restrictions on the files. In other words, you can burn them on to a CD, or put them on your MP3 player. So, strong end of the gate for Apple, certainly.

COOPER: But there are plenty of sites still out there that you can download music for free. How is Apple going to convince people to pay 99 cents a song?

SIEBERG: Right, some of the sites that already out there like you mentioned, PressPlay, MusicNet, which CNN's parent company AOL Time Warner is a part of, we should mention, listen.com. These sites have been out there for a little while. But analysts have said they were slow to pick up on what consumers wanted. Napster originally started getting popular almost four years ago. So, consumers who were online and looking for digital music, they know what they want. So, analysts were saying that these sites were trying to wedge consumers into too much of what they were trying to put out, rather than allowing consumers to go after what they want.

COOPER: Now, we all know Napster was shut down, but there are other free download services out there that people are using. How can these still continue?

SIEBERG: Well, the competition is going to be tough because the sites like you mentioned, Grogster, Kazaa, Morpheus they are still out there. They are free. Sites like Apple's iTunes, and PressPlay, MusicNet, the key to all of this, analysts say, it has to be easy to use. They have to be relatively inexpensive. And they have to be basically just someplace where people can go to get all of the digital music that they want. And this is all part of the recording industry's strategy to combat piracy.

We've seen the recording industry say, repeatedly, that they blame online piracy for a drop in sales, and that they're going to have to do a lot try and combat this. Apple with its iTune service is going to have to open it up, obviously. Right now, it's just for Apple users. They say in the future that it will be for Windows users. And it also doesn't offer a subscription fee, which a few of the others ones do. So, it's a little bit new, a little different model than we've seen in the past.

And, again, the competition will be stiff with the sites that offer or allow illegal trading to go on, in addition to the sites that are already out there, the legal ones. So, it's going to be this battle going on back and forth for a while.

COOPER: Let's just talk briefly about stopping the piracy. For a long time, the recording industry was going after the pirating web sites. It now seems there may be a strategy to go after some of the end users.

SIEBERG: Right. Exactly. That seems to be the strategy right now. For example, we saw this week there was a settlement between four university students and the recording industry. These students were accused of sharing files within their campus. And we also saw that there were instant messages sent to 200,000 Kazaa and Grogster users that just popped up. And the recording industry said, we know who you are. You are not anonymous. We could come after you.

And this comes on the heels of a U.S. District Court ruling that said sites like Kazaa, or Grogster and Morpheus are not responsible for any content that is being shared on their site. They can't be held responsible, much like a VCR or something like that. That is what the court ruled. So, the recording industry is, in a sense, scaring or going after the individual user, and literally trying to send them a message.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: This is something for free loading downloaders to think about for sure, facing possible prosecution. Daniel Sieberg, thanks a lot for that.

Coming up in the next half hour of NEXT@CNN, we're going to look at the weaponry of another country in the so-called axis of evil, North Korea, it is no Iraq. We'll show you why.

We'll also show you how they're looking for SARS victims at several airports in Asia.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWSBREAK)

COOPER: With Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction no longer center stage, there is more focus on what North Korea's dictator may have in the works, and the threats there go beyond nuclear weapons.

Joining us now to talk about North Korea's military capability is Carolyn McGiffert from the Center for Strategic and International Studies. She is in our Washington bureau. Carolyn, thanks very much for being with us.

CAROLYN MCGIFFERT, CSIS: Thanks for having me.

COOPER: North Korea is being handled by the U.S. very differently than Saddam Hussein's Iraq was. How much of that is due to the potential or the nuclear potential of North Korea? And how much of it is because of the well-known conventional capabilities of the North Korean regime?

MCGIFFERT: I think that the conventional threat is a significant one. It's a serious one that we have to take very seriously. I think it has a lot do with the different approach that the Bush administration has taken towards Iraq versus North Korea. The North Korean conventional threat is huge. North Korea has the capability of launching a massive attack, conventional attack, excuse me, against the south and causing an unacceptable level of damage in terms of physical damage and casualties. And in this sense, is holding the south and the U.S. troops there hostage.

COOPER: Let's talk numbers very briefly -- 923,000 members of the North Korean army. I think 85,000 in their air force, 46,000 in their navy. Those are massive numbers. And as you say, they're basically holding Seoul hostage.

MCGIFFERT: Absolutely. The North, South Korean border is the most highly fortified border in the world with about two million troops on either side of the line, 1.1 of which are in the north. It's a significant threat. And mostly for Seoul, there are 23 million citizens in Seoul. And, of course, the U.S. troops that are based there. The vast majority of our 37,000 troops are based in Seoul or north of Seoul, between Seoul and the DMZ. That said, while the north has a significant capability to hurt Seoul and the metropolitan areas around there, they do not have the capability to successfully invade the south, and any action with its conventional weapons on the part of the north would instigate an immediate reaction on the part of the U.S. and South Korean forces and would, inevitably, result in a military action that would end the North Korean regime.

COOPER: There are a lot of people say, look in Iraq, talking tough, and projecting force and overthrowing the regime worked pretty well in Iraq. At least it has thus far. Why wouldn't that work against North Korea. How do you think U.S. actions in Iraq are being interpreted by the North Korean regime?

MCGIFFERT: I think there are two lessons that have been drawn by Iraq. On the North Korean side, I think the lesson that they have drawn is the United States is very serious about its doctrine of preemption. That it will when it feels necessary take action, that it does not feel that it needs to come to the table and negotiate with regimes that it does not approve of. And I think on the U.S. side, the same lesson has been drawn, which it does not need to talk to dictators. And, therefore, the positions on both sides I believe have hardened as a result of the Iraqi war. But again, the reason that the United States actually did come to the table last week is in large part because of the conventional threat that the north poses to the south.

COOPER: Does the United States know what works against North Korea? What they respond to? Do we know, is it diplomacy? Is it force?

MCGIFFERT: I think there's a lot of unknowns about North Korea. I think that the United States generally underestimates the strength and rationality of the Kim Jong Il regime. That said, it's unclear about what works with them.

COOPER: Do you think it's a rational regime? Do you think they can be dealt with rationally?

MCGIFFERT: I think they certainly look at the world differently than we do, but as they identify their interests, which I think the primary one is regime survival, they will act in the way that they believe will accomplish that goal. And therefore, over the past year, in particular, they have been doing anything to try to get the United States' attention, including admitting the restarting of its nuclear program, including the tests on the eve of the South Korean president's inauguration, including the MiG flights that was the first threat to a routine U.S. reconnaissance flight in March in over three decades. So I think that they are trying to get the United States' attention. And I think that the United States should use a combination of diplomatic and backed by real military capability, which we have.

COOPER: OK. We're going to have to leave it there. Carolyn McGiffert, appreciate you joining us. Thanks very much.

MCGIFFERT: Thank you.

COOPER: It's a confusing situation. It's hard to figure out exactly what works against North Korea. I appreciate you adding your ideas. Thanks very much.

MCGIFFERT: Thank you.

COOPER: Well, Asian countries are using thermal imaging cameras to single out travelers with fever which is, of course, an early symptom of SARS. The question is, is that an effective way to contain the virus? For more on the technology, let's go to Kristie Lu Stout in Hong Kong -- Kristie. KRISTIE LU STOUT, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Thanks, Anderson. Well, cameras have become a hot item in the fight against SARS.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

STOUT (voice-over): A tsunami of travelers, each hour up to 10,000 people pass through these gates between Hong Kong and southern China, the world's epicenter of SARS. And to keep another carrier from crossing the border, infrared cameras have been called into action screening faces flushed with fever, a key sign of the illness.

(on camera): There are 33 thermal infrared scanners here at the low (ph) checkpoint between Hong Kong and China. It's a fast and non- intrusive way of screening waves of people.

(voice-over): The camera is essentially a heat detector. It measures the infrared energy released from the body. Green light, you're good to go. Red light, you have a temperature over 100, and will be steered to a nursing station for more tests. Health authorities are also looking into a handheld version to single out the sick.

DR. THOMAS CHUNG, HONG KONG HEALTH DEPT: We have been exploring the capability of the handheld screener, because the mechanism or the principle is the same. We detect the temperature by measuring the infrared around the subject or around the people.

STOUT: A growing number of countries are using infrared devices to weed out suspected SARS carriers. Arrivals in Singapore are greeted with live video of blue and green blobs taken from this thermal camera. It takes a thermograph or a color reading of body temperature. If the monitors see red, the feverish passenger is pulled aside. But its creator admits there's a way around the system.

LEE KAH LUP, ST ELECTRONICS: Perhaps like if you use a cold towel to wipe your face before you come out in front of the camera, you probably will be cool to the camera, because it actually picks up your skin temperature.

STOUT: In infrared cameras can also make false positives, more seriously, it can skip certain carriers.

DR. T.H. LAM, HONG KONG UNIVERSITY: You may also not being able to screen people who have no fever but may be already having the disease at the early stage, right? So there's no way at the moment using this equipment to detect these people.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

STOUT: Labs around the world are racing to create a fast and reliable test for SARS. In the meantime, Hong Kong is sticking to the technology it has on hand. Plans are underway for 300 thermal scanners to be installed at the boarder.

Anderson, back to you. COOPER: Kristie, it's obvious Hong Kong officials want people to know these cameras are there. We saw a lot of cameras taking pictures of the cameras. It's a big story. Do these cameras, have they actually caught anyone with SARS, or is this largely sort of officials trying to get the message out they're doing all they can?

STOUT: Actually, from the health department here in Hong Kong, as of Friday, right now it's early Monday morning, health authorities have said they have yet to nab any SARS carriers using these border control methods. That being said, however, the travelers who I talked to at the border -- for example, travelers from mainland China -- say they feel safer that they feel safer that it's there. And it could very well turn into a new fact of international travel along with the metal detector.

COOPER: I know Canadian officials in Toronto are even thinking about doing it there. Kristie, thanks very much. I appreciate the report.

Well, Coming up, these otters that you're about to see are the lucky ones. A lot of their relatives have died off and a lot of them are still dying off the California coast. We're going to talk with one of the experts trying to find out exactly why this is happening. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Well, now a look at NEXT news headlines.

California, once again, reigns supreme over the American Lung Association's annual list of America's smoggiest cities. Los Angeles, Fresno, Bakersfield, the Visale area and Houston, Texas make up the top five, followed by Sacramento and Merced, California, Atlanta, Georgia, Knoxville, Tennessee, and Charlotte, North Carolina. Now on the upside, Bellingham, Washington is ranked as having the cleanest air. American Lung says nearly half of all Americans, more than 137 million people breathe unhealthy amounts of smog.

Hundreds of people broke down the gates to a bombing range on the Puerto Rican island of Vieques, that was on Thursday. They were celebrating the U.S. Navy transfer of the facility to federal wildlife officials. Island residents blame nearly 60 years of bombing for environmental damage and high cancer rates. The range will now become a wildlife refuge.

Florida's manatees could be extinct if the state doesn't get tough with boaters, according to a federal report. Boats and personal watercraft killed a record 95 manatees last year alone. And the report says if that mortality rate continues, within 100 years, there won't be enough manatees to sustain the population.

Better news for another marine mammal. This dolphin was found ailing a month and half ago in Florida's Crystal River. The problem, he should have been in salt water. So the moat marine lab in Sarasota, Florida caught him, nursed him back to health and released him off Florida's Gulf coast near a pod of other dolphins. And it appears he jumped for joy at the reunion.

Well, a less happy story right now. Sea otters are dying in record numbers off the California coast. Almost 100 have died, or at least 100 dead animals have washed ashore since January, now half of them in the past month alone.

One person working to stop the decline is Steve Shumek from the Otter Project in Monterey Bay. Steve, thanks very much for joining us.

STEVE SHUMEK, THE OTTER PROJECT: Thank you.

We've known or scientists have known that for years that the otter population is declining, but it seems like all of a sudden there's this is die-off in the last couple of months. Why?

SHUMEK: Well, there's lot of reasons why. Why is no mystery. We know that about 40 percent of all sea otter mortality is due to disease. And it's due to a variety of diseases. Then, we also know that some of these diseases are coming from land. So it's kind of biological pollution. Then, we also know that sea otters are carrying around really high levels of chemical contaminants that can make them susceptible to disease. So sea otters are swimming around in a thickening soup of disease. And they are not able to fight it off.

COOPER: But are the numbers suddenly rapidly increasing?

SHUMEK: We think that we are having a die-off right now, but out off six out of the past seven years, the sea otter population has declined. So, you know, since 1995, it's been going downhill and this is just an acceleration of what has already been happening.

COOPER: And, ominously, this is not just old otters or very young otters.

SHUMEK: No, this is across all age groups. And where in a normal wildlife population you have very young animals dying and then you have very old animals dying, in the sea otter population, the prime reproductive adults are also dying. And you can't do that for very long without losing it.

COOPER: You know, there are a lot of people who are going to be watching this and say, look, they're really cute to look at, I love the video. I'm sorry they're dying, but really what's the big deal?

SHUMEK: Well, sea otters are really critical to the ocean ecosystem. In other words, especially the kelp forest ecosystem along the coast of California. California's kelp forests as one of the most diverse ecosystems on earth, and they are one of the most productive ecosystems on earth. So, if we want to preserve biological diversity and biological productivity, we have to keep our sea otters.

COOPER: You also called them an indicator species. What does that mean?

SHUMEK: Most important is that the sea otters are kind of a report card of how we are doing protecting the ocean. And right now, we're failing. We are failing miserably.

COOPER: Only about a minute left, Steve. In your opinion, what should be done?

SHUMEK: Well, there are lots of things that we can do, but right before Congress right this very moment, there is a bill being debated between Democrats and Republicans to ban a class of chemicals called POPS, persistent organic pollutants. And the Bush administration is actually trying to undermine these efforts together with chemical companies. So Republicans and Democrats are trying to pass a bill, and it needs to be passed. And it's called the POPS legislation, and it would ban pollutants.

COOPER: A lot of people say, though, this is bad for business.

SHUMEK: Well, a lot of these are banned around the world already. And the United States may not be the most progressive country on earth when it comes to protecting our environment and we need to get with it.

COOPER: All right, we are going to have to leave it there. Steve Shumek, appreciate you joining us. Thanks very much.

SHUMEK: Thank you.

COOPER: Well, still ahead on NEXT@CNN, automakers are trying to rev up their sales. I'm going to tell you why some say their strategy could end up costing lives.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: You don't hear Hendrix very much on CNN, do you?

The need for speed. You might wonder, does anybody really need a car that can go 150 miles per hour? Apparently, some people think they do.

Our Patty Davis has been looking into the new emphasis on horsepower and speed -- Patty.

PATTY DAVIS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Anderson, muscle cars are back. And, this time, automakers are trying to sell them not to just young people but to families.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DAVIS (voice-over): Struggling with sputtering sales, automakers are working to rev them up with SUVs like this souped up Saturn Vue Redline with a 250-horsepower engine.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This will get you from here to 60 in approximately seven seconds.

This torqued up Dodge Ram SRT-10.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The more horsepower the better. I like to go fast, come on, man. fast.

SCOTT BROWN, CHRYSLER SPOKESMAN: The Ram will go 0 to 60 in around five seconds, top speed of 150 miles per hour.

DAVIS: Muscle cars and trucks for families were the buzz of the New York auto show last month. There's even one for more staid Cadillac lovers. CTSV has 400 horsepower and can go 155 miles an hour. Why do drivers really want to be able to go that fast considering it's against the law? Since these cars aren't yet being sold, carmakers say they don't know if people will test the limits.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I still have a little fire in my belly. I still like to be able to step on the gas and zoom a little bit.

BROWN: People want to say they can go that fast. You know, on the weekends if they're racing, yes, there's a certain group of people that want that performance.

DAVIS: Muscle cars have always been popular. Big in the 1960s, automakers say high-performance vehicles are much safer now due to front and side air bags and anti-lock brakes. But with speed a factor in nearly 30 percent of fatal crashes, the insurance industry says selling speed is irresponsible.

BRIAN O'NEIL, INS. INST. FOR HWY SAFETY: There's no question that cars today are much safer when they're in serious crashes than they were a decade ago. But, of course, if people are also driving a lot faster, that means that more of the crashes will be at higher severity and will be offsetting some of the benefits of those safety gains.

DAVIS: They point to an increase in fatal crashes as the speed limit goes up. Although high-performance costs big bucks in some cars, others like this souped up Saturn Ion Redline will cost just $20,000.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DAVIS: Safety advocates worry putting cheaper speedy cars within the reach of younger risk-taking drivers could push traffic fatalities higher yet -- Anderson.

COOPER: Right, so automakers are getting accused of encouraging drivers to drive faster. What do they say in response?

DAVIS: Well, these cars really should come with "Do not try this at home" warning labels on them. But these automakers are saying no, we're not really encouraging them, we're giving them the option. We're giving them the possibility of doing it. They need to be responsible. The people who drive these cars and buy these cars need to be responsible. You need to stick with the speed limits, but they say Americans want this option of at least saying I can go that fast -- Anderson.

DAVIS: So, it's all about bragging rights. That's what the automakers are saying. DAVIS: I guess, it's American cowboy coming to the road.

COOPER: All right. Well, if you're going to talk the talk, guess it's good to be able to walk the walk or drive the drive.

Patty Davis, thanks very much.

That's all the time we have for now.

But before we go, here's a peek at what's coming up on NEXT week.

Does North Korea have a nuclear weapon? We're going to look at images of Korean nuclear facilities for possible evidence. That's going to be really interesting.

That and a whole lot more coming up next week on NEXT@CNN.

Hope you'll join us.

Coming up, next right now, at 6 p.m. Easter "CNN LIVE SUNDAY" with live coverage of the Laci Peterson memorial service.

That's going to be followed by "PEOPLE ON THE NEWS" at 7:00 p.m. Eastern, profiling North Korea's Kim Jong Il, as well as Vice President Dick Cheney.

And after that, at 8:00 Eastern, "CNN PRESENTS" "In the Line of Fire."

I'm Anderson Cooper, thanks for watching.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com





Employ Technology to Spot SARS; Why Are California's Sea Otters Dying?>


Aired May 4, 2003 - 17:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Today on NEXT@CNN, oil is what is going to make or break economic recovery in Iraq. We're going to look at how the restoration of Iraq's oil industry is going to affect your pocketbook.
We'll also check out technology that Asian airports are using now to spot feverish folks who might be carrying the SARS virus.

And experts work to solve a mystery. Why are sea otters off of the California coast dying?

We have that and a whole lot more on NEXT.

Welcome to NEXT@CNN for this Sunday, May 4. I'm Anderson Cooper. Thanks for joining us today.

Now that Saddam Hussein's regime is gone and major combat operations are over in Iraq, attention has turned to rebuilding the country. The oil business, unquestionably, is going to drive the economy of the new Iraq, but how to get it flowing again and who is going to pay to get the industry back on its feet?

Joining us now to talk about oil and Iraq, Edward Chow, a visiting fellow at the Carnegie Endowment of International Peace and a former executive at the Chevron Corporation. Thanks very much for being with us, Edward.

Iraq certainly has huge reserves of oil. It's got the second largest oil reserves in the world, I think, right behind Saudi Arabia. Why aren't more oil companies rushing in to take part in the development?

EDWARD CHOW, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT: Well, there are a number of different reasons. First of all, we have to remember that Iraq essentially put itself on an embargo. First, by starting the Iran- Iraq war, and then, of course, the invasion of Kuwait. So they've excluded themselves, the Saddam Hussein government had from the international oil community for the past 20 years or so with very limited involvement of the international community.

COOPER: But now that the regime is gone, why aren't more jumping on the bandwagon?

CHOW: Well, because there are a number of things that still need to be done. One is to get production going right away, which we are doing. The American occupying forces are working very quickly to restore production and to get it going at the one to 2 million barrels per day level. So that for both domestic demand as well as to get export going.

COOPER: Is there a fear of instability? Is that sort of holding up the works?

CHOW: Well, there's fear of the international authority under which oil companies would come in and invest in a major way. And there are no, at this point, understanding or determination of what contractual terms there are going to be under which oil companies might come and invest in Iraq. Of course, you have to remember that we're talking about a region not only in Iraq, but in the Persian Gulf as a whole that has nationalized the oil industry in the past 20, 30 years. So, you know, and a new set of rules of the game would have to be established first.

COOPER: Let's talk about some of the steps that it's going to take to get things flowing, to get the oil flowing again. You already said production facilities are being upgraded. And I guess U.S. taxpayers are footing the bill for it at this stage of the game. What's the next step beyond that?

CHOW: The next step beyond that is to get production back up to prewar levels, which is in the two to three million barrels per day range.

COOPER: Pre-1991 war levels?

CHOW: That's pre-1991, as well as recent production levels had been at around 2 million barrels per day. So it would take, I would guess, two to three-years to revive, to restore the production capacity to be able to sustain that level of production.

COOPER: What about searching out for new oil reserves?

CHOW: That's when the interesting developments yet to be determined presumably by a new Iraqi government. We're looking at doing that probably in three to five year's time frame. It's not something that's going to get started right away. For one thing, it would take some political consensus on the part of a newly established Iraqi government to, as I said, set the rules of the game for inviting oil companies in.

COOPER: So bottom line, we're still talking several years, you said two to three years just to get production up to pre-1991 levels.

CHOW: And probably three to five years beyond that before new production increases in production after four, five, six million barrels per day level that people talk about can be realized.

COOPER: Edward Chow, appreciate you joining us. Thanks very much.

CHOW: You're welcome. COOPER: Well, staying on the subject of Iraq right now, I want to talk about weapons. Some weapon systems helped make the war a quick success for coalition forces, but some weapons didn't work so well. Regardless, you pay for all of them. So, let's find out if you got your money's worth.

Eric Adams is the aviation and military editor for "Popular Science" magazine. And he joins us now from our Washington bureau. Now, Eric, in the first Gulf War, we heard an awful lot about the Patriot anti-missile system. How did it do this time around?

ERIC ADAMS, "POPULAR SCIENCE MAGAZINE": This time around the Patriots, they were very successful in actually shooting down missiles. The new version, the PAC-3 is the most successful anti- missile technology ever developed. Unfortunately, it also brought down two allied aircraft -- a Royal Air Force Tornado and an F-18, resulting in three deaths. So, before it gets fielded again, they are going to have to find out why that happened, whether it was a technological error or a targeting error.

COOPER: So, at this point, they don't know the answer to that?

ADAMS: No, they're still investigating.

COOPER: OK. Let's talk about the Apache Longbow, it's a heavier version. It's a newer version of the Apache. I think it's got a lot more armor, better radar. How did it do?

ADAMS: Unfortunately, and the first time it really saw any action, a flight of about 30 or 40 aircraft went out, and 33 of them were shot by small arms fire and disabled substantially enough they had to turn around. One, if you remember, was actually shot down. And it became essentially a propaganda tool for the Iraqis for several days. So the radar works, and the armament works, but it, unfortunately, it's vulnerable to small arms fire. In the helicopter's defense, it wasn't designed for the flat terrain that it was in. It was designed for very terrain-rich environments, where it is able to maneuver through valleys and target and fire missiles up over mountain tops and down the other side to attack tanks and other vehicles.

COOPER: I've got to say on the face of it, that doesn't sound all that great. You've got this heavily armored helicopter that is vulnerable to small arms fire. Is it going to be used in the future? And if so, I guess its use is going to be pretty limited.

ADAMS: I don't know that its use will be limited. It might be used -- they might have more discretion about when they are going to use it and in what types of environment. It just turns out that this was a brand new weapon, they wanted to see how it did perform. Unfortunately, it didn't quite perform the way they wanted it to. They may not use it under those exact same scenarios in the future. But it certainly is very lethal and very capable helicopter that will see action in the future.

COOPER: All right, Global Hawk and Predator, we saw an awful lot of that in this conflict in Iraq. We've also seen it operated in Yemen, also in Afghanistan. How's the development of those two?

ADAMS: Well, the Predator is just doing fantastic. It continues to fly. This time, they all fly with hell fire missiles whereas before only a few had those, and it's performed marvelously in the war. The Global Hawk is a completely new type of the same unmanned aerial vehicle. It has higher altitude, greater range, and greater payload capabilities. And even though it's not formally in service right now, they rushed two of them into service and it performed very well in the war. It actually helped an F-18 target a battery that was partially obscured underneath a bridge all within 20 minutes, and from the moment of recognition to the actual attack that destroyed it.

COOPER: And that kind of real-time intelligence, that's invaluable.

ADAMS: It is. And actually 20 minutes is long by the Global Hawk standards, because it's a new weapon, they had a man in the loop verifying every step. And in the future, it's going to be a fully autonomous vehicle.

COOPER: Almost out of time. The MOAB got a lot of publicity, a lot of attention. Not much information though about whether it was really used, right?

ADAMS: That's right. There were two MOABS, mothers of all bombs, as they were informally known. One of them was used in a test in Florida. And they sent one to Iraq. The Air Force is not talking about whether or not they actually deployed it.

COOPER: All right, Eric Adams, appreciate it. It was interesting. Thanks very much.

ADAMS: Thank you.

COOPER: Well, coming up next, a happy but belated homecoming for three space travelers back from the international space station. It was a little bit of a bumpy ride, but they are home safe and sound.

Also, a sad farewell to a New Hampshire icon. Just because it's solid as a rock doesn't mean it's going to last forever. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: I want to take a look at some NEXT news headlines right now.

Lots of anti-spam initiatives this week. Three of the biggest Internet service providers announced that they are going to work together to track down people who send junk e-mail. You can hear the cheers going across the nation right now.

Virginia passed a tough anti-spam law that lets authorities seize assets earned from spamming, believe it or not. And several lawmakers propose federal anti-spam legislation. And the FTC, the Federal Trade Commission, held a conference on spam. And you're going to be shocked, shocked tell you. They learned that now the FTC estimates two-thirds of spam messages are false in some ways. Shocking.

Dozens of countries near the equator were on the alert earlier this week because of a satellite that was falling back to earth, but the remains of the Dutch-Italian BeppoSax satellite plummeted harmlessly into the Pacific on Tuesday. It was launched back in 1996 to study x-ray radiation.

A name change to tell you about. An asteroid discovered in 1993 has been named after Mr. Rogers. That's right, the beloved TV show host who died in February. Now, the international astronomical union made the decision. They are the ones in charge of naming asteroids and comets. Up until this week, the Mr. Rogers asteroid was known simply as number 26858. And just in case you are wondering, Mars and Jupiter are the planets in its neighborhood.

NASA says one of the science experiments from the space shuttle "Columbia" has been found and it's in relatively good shape. Hard to imagine but it still contains living worms. They are the off spring of the worms that were on the shuttle which disintegrated on February 1, minutes before it was supposed to land. The worm experiment was found several weeks ago in Texas, but NASA did not open the containers until just this week.

Two astronauts and a cosmonaut who spend the last five months on the international space station are safely back on earth today. We mentioned that a little bit earlier in the program. Their arrival, however, was not without drama.

Miles O'Brien has the story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MILES O'BRIEN, CNN SPACE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): One hundred and sixty two days after they left earth atmosphere and the pull of gravity behind, the six crew of the international space station came back, but nowhere near where or when planned. The Russian Soyuz rocket they rode back to earth landed 285 miles short of its intended target. It took an armada of Russian aircraft more than 2.5 hours to find capsule and crew safe and sound.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm going to miss flying as I do my work, floating from place to place here in the station. I'm going to miss the food, and I'm going to miss the spectacular views. You just can't beat looking out the window and seeing our planet. We live on the most beautiful place probably in the universe.

O'BRIEN: Ken Bowersox and Don Pettit became the first NASA astronauts to return to earth onboard a Russian Soyuz. A record they would gladly have passed on if they had had a choice. The expedition six crew missed their shuttle ride home when NASA grounded the fleet after the "Columbia" accident. Until they fly again, NASA is relying on Russia to launch crews of two to restaff the station every six months.

ED LU, ASTRONAUT: The Soyuz ride was great. It was quite an experience. It's much smaller in the shuttle, of course, but it's a lot more maneuverable. It's more like a sports car as compared to the shuttle, which is sort of like a big old station wagon. But the docking went smoothly and things are going great so far. These guys are showing us around. We're learning about the space station, all the things that they never teach you in training. And we're having a good time so far. We're looking forward to the next six months.

O'BRIEN: The new station crew, NASA astronaut Ed Lu and Russian cosmonaut Yuri Malenchenko launched into orbit last Friday on the launch pad where human space travel began 42 years ago. Instead of building, they will be tending, keeping the lights on and the dream alive. The exiting science officer Don Pettit was glad to see the station wasn't being abandoned, despite a mere 11 hours of science that will be conducted on board each week.

DON PETTIT, SCIENCE OFFICER: I think one of the key things about the space station as an international program is having many, many international partners all working together and keeping the human presence in space. And that is probably more important than the absolute magnitude of the amount of science you get done.

O'BRIEN: For NASA, the safe return of the expedition six crew is a big relief, particularly after the delay in finding the capsule, finding out what caused it to land so far off course will be crucial before another Soyuz can safely fly.

Miles O'Brien, CNN.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: With the landmark that said New Hampshire to generations of tourists is sadly no more. The Old Man of the Mountain was still showing his craggy profile last week but things looked different in the granite state on Saturday morning.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER (voice-over): That was then. And this is now. After thousands of years of keeping sentinel over the state of New Hampshire, the Old Man of the Mountain is gone. In the end, he likely fell victim to the same natural forces that forged him. In the words of one park official, quote, "We always thought it was the hand of God holding him up, and he let go." That it happened now should come as no surprise. For nearly a century, the state had used cables and epoxy to keep the face from collapsing from erosion and the natural freeze-and-thaw cycle. And those who did the work warned a collapse was inevitable.

To get an idea of just how important the old man of the mountain was to the people of New Hampshire, you have to realize that since the early 1800s, that's right, the early 1800s, millions of tourists have traveled just to see it. And take a look at your spare change. The old man's profile appears on the state's quarter. Not to mention its license plate, state road signs and every sort of souvenir or tourist knickknack you can think of. While the old man's nose, mouth and other parts of his face are just rubble now, we may not have seen the last of him. New Hampshire's Governor Craig Benson says the face should be restored.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: It's going to be difficult to do, however. Plenty more coming up on "NEXT@CNN," including the lowdown on a new music service that the recording industry is hoping is going to help stop all that online music sharing.

Also a story about otters who are dwindling in number.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Well, on Monday, Apple Computers unveiled a new digital music service called the iTunes Music Store. Now, downloaders and file swappers will have to pay to buy the song to get their groove on, it's 99 cents.

Yesterday, I chatted with technology correspondent Daniel Sieberg about exactly how Apple plans to make its mark.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DANIEL SIEBERG, CNN TECHNOLOGY CORRESPONDENT: The difference here is that Apple is offering tunes for $1 apiece or 99 cents, to be exact. You go to the iTunes Web site, you download the software. You can get each song for about 99 cents. There are about 200,000 songs currently in their library of songs. They have partnered with all five of the major recording labels to offer people this music online.

Now, a lot of analysts are saying it may not be the perfect way to go about it, but they are saying it's an advance from what we've seen in the past from a lot of these legitimate and legal sites that are already out. And they've put fewer restrictions on the files. And that is, I think, really key. And a lot of analysts have said is the key to the service is there aren't as many restrictions on the files. In other words, you can burn them on to a CD, or put them on your MP3 player. So, strong end of the gate for Apple, certainly.

COOPER: But there are plenty of sites still out there that you can download music for free. How is Apple going to convince people to pay 99 cents a song?

SIEBERG: Right, some of the sites that already out there like you mentioned, PressPlay, MusicNet, which CNN's parent company AOL Time Warner is a part of, we should mention, listen.com. These sites have been out there for a little while. But analysts have said they were slow to pick up on what consumers wanted. Napster originally started getting popular almost four years ago. So, consumers who were online and looking for digital music, they know what they want. So, analysts were saying that these sites were trying to wedge consumers into too much of what they were trying to put out, rather than allowing consumers to go after what they want.

COOPER: Now, we all know Napster was shut down, but there are other free download services out there that people are using. How can these still continue?

SIEBERG: Well, the competition is going to be tough because the sites like you mentioned, Grogster, Kazaa, Morpheus they are still out there. They are free. Sites like Apple's iTunes, and PressPlay, MusicNet, the key to all of this, analysts say, it has to be easy to use. They have to be relatively inexpensive. And they have to be basically just someplace where people can go to get all of the digital music that they want. And this is all part of the recording industry's strategy to combat piracy.

We've seen the recording industry say, repeatedly, that they blame online piracy for a drop in sales, and that they're going to have to do a lot try and combat this. Apple with its iTune service is going to have to open it up, obviously. Right now, it's just for Apple users. They say in the future that it will be for Windows users. And it also doesn't offer a subscription fee, which a few of the others ones do. So, it's a little bit new, a little different model than we've seen in the past.

And, again, the competition will be stiff with the sites that offer or allow illegal trading to go on, in addition to the sites that are already out there, the legal ones. So, it's going to be this battle going on back and forth for a while.

COOPER: Let's just talk briefly about stopping the piracy. For a long time, the recording industry was going after the pirating web sites. It now seems there may be a strategy to go after some of the end users.

SIEBERG: Right. Exactly. That seems to be the strategy right now. For example, we saw this week there was a settlement between four university students and the recording industry. These students were accused of sharing files within their campus. And we also saw that there were instant messages sent to 200,000 Kazaa and Grogster users that just popped up. And the recording industry said, we know who you are. You are not anonymous. We could come after you.

And this comes on the heels of a U.S. District Court ruling that said sites like Kazaa, or Grogster and Morpheus are not responsible for any content that is being shared on their site. They can't be held responsible, much like a VCR or something like that. That is what the court ruled. So, the recording industry is, in a sense, scaring or going after the individual user, and literally trying to send them a message.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: This is something for free loading downloaders to think about for sure, facing possible prosecution. Daniel Sieberg, thanks a lot for that.

Coming up in the next half hour of NEXT@CNN, we're going to look at the weaponry of another country in the so-called axis of evil, North Korea, it is no Iraq. We'll show you why.

We'll also show you how they're looking for SARS victims at several airports in Asia.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWSBREAK)

COOPER: With Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction no longer center stage, there is more focus on what North Korea's dictator may have in the works, and the threats there go beyond nuclear weapons.

Joining us now to talk about North Korea's military capability is Carolyn McGiffert from the Center for Strategic and International Studies. She is in our Washington bureau. Carolyn, thanks very much for being with us.

CAROLYN MCGIFFERT, CSIS: Thanks for having me.

COOPER: North Korea is being handled by the U.S. very differently than Saddam Hussein's Iraq was. How much of that is due to the potential or the nuclear potential of North Korea? And how much of it is because of the well-known conventional capabilities of the North Korean regime?

MCGIFFERT: I think that the conventional threat is a significant one. It's a serious one that we have to take very seriously. I think it has a lot do with the different approach that the Bush administration has taken towards Iraq versus North Korea. The North Korean conventional threat is huge. North Korea has the capability of launching a massive attack, conventional attack, excuse me, against the south and causing an unacceptable level of damage in terms of physical damage and casualties. And in this sense, is holding the south and the U.S. troops there hostage.

COOPER: Let's talk numbers very briefly -- 923,000 members of the North Korean army. I think 85,000 in their air force, 46,000 in their navy. Those are massive numbers. And as you say, they're basically holding Seoul hostage.

MCGIFFERT: Absolutely. The North, South Korean border is the most highly fortified border in the world with about two million troops on either side of the line, 1.1 of which are in the north. It's a significant threat. And mostly for Seoul, there are 23 million citizens in Seoul. And, of course, the U.S. troops that are based there. The vast majority of our 37,000 troops are based in Seoul or north of Seoul, between Seoul and the DMZ. That said, while the north has a significant capability to hurt Seoul and the metropolitan areas around there, they do not have the capability to successfully invade the south, and any action with its conventional weapons on the part of the north would instigate an immediate reaction on the part of the U.S. and South Korean forces and would, inevitably, result in a military action that would end the North Korean regime.

COOPER: There are a lot of people say, look in Iraq, talking tough, and projecting force and overthrowing the regime worked pretty well in Iraq. At least it has thus far. Why wouldn't that work against North Korea. How do you think U.S. actions in Iraq are being interpreted by the North Korean regime?

MCGIFFERT: I think there are two lessons that have been drawn by Iraq. On the North Korean side, I think the lesson that they have drawn is the United States is very serious about its doctrine of preemption. That it will when it feels necessary take action, that it does not feel that it needs to come to the table and negotiate with regimes that it does not approve of. And I think on the U.S. side, the same lesson has been drawn, which it does not need to talk to dictators. And, therefore, the positions on both sides I believe have hardened as a result of the Iraqi war. But again, the reason that the United States actually did come to the table last week is in large part because of the conventional threat that the north poses to the south.

COOPER: Does the United States know what works against North Korea? What they respond to? Do we know, is it diplomacy? Is it force?

MCGIFFERT: I think there's a lot of unknowns about North Korea. I think that the United States generally underestimates the strength and rationality of the Kim Jong Il regime. That said, it's unclear about what works with them.

COOPER: Do you think it's a rational regime? Do you think they can be dealt with rationally?

MCGIFFERT: I think they certainly look at the world differently than we do, but as they identify their interests, which I think the primary one is regime survival, they will act in the way that they believe will accomplish that goal. And therefore, over the past year, in particular, they have been doing anything to try to get the United States' attention, including admitting the restarting of its nuclear program, including the tests on the eve of the South Korean president's inauguration, including the MiG flights that was the first threat to a routine U.S. reconnaissance flight in March in over three decades. So I think that they are trying to get the United States' attention. And I think that the United States should use a combination of diplomatic and backed by real military capability, which we have.

COOPER: OK. We're going to have to leave it there. Carolyn McGiffert, appreciate you joining us. Thanks very much.

MCGIFFERT: Thank you.

COOPER: It's a confusing situation. It's hard to figure out exactly what works against North Korea. I appreciate you adding your ideas. Thanks very much.

MCGIFFERT: Thank you.

COOPER: Well, Asian countries are using thermal imaging cameras to single out travelers with fever which is, of course, an early symptom of SARS. The question is, is that an effective way to contain the virus? For more on the technology, let's go to Kristie Lu Stout in Hong Kong -- Kristie. KRISTIE LU STOUT, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Thanks, Anderson. Well, cameras have become a hot item in the fight against SARS.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

STOUT (voice-over): A tsunami of travelers, each hour up to 10,000 people pass through these gates between Hong Kong and southern China, the world's epicenter of SARS. And to keep another carrier from crossing the border, infrared cameras have been called into action screening faces flushed with fever, a key sign of the illness.

(on camera): There are 33 thermal infrared scanners here at the low (ph) checkpoint between Hong Kong and China. It's a fast and non- intrusive way of screening waves of people.

(voice-over): The camera is essentially a heat detector. It measures the infrared energy released from the body. Green light, you're good to go. Red light, you have a temperature over 100, and will be steered to a nursing station for more tests. Health authorities are also looking into a handheld version to single out the sick.

DR. THOMAS CHUNG, HONG KONG HEALTH DEPT: We have been exploring the capability of the handheld screener, because the mechanism or the principle is the same. We detect the temperature by measuring the infrared around the subject or around the people.

STOUT: A growing number of countries are using infrared devices to weed out suspected SARS carriers. Arrivals in Singapore are greeted with live video of blue and green blobs taken from this thermal camera. It takes a thermograph or a color reading of body temperature. If the monitors see red, the feverish passenger is pulled aside. But its creator admits there's a way around the system.

LEE KAH LUP, ST ELECTRONICS: Perhaps like if you use a cold towel to wipe your face before you come out in front of the camera, you probably will be cool to the camera, because it actually picks up your skin temperature.

STOUT: In infrared cameras can also make false positives, more seriously, it can skip certain carriers.

DR. T.H. LAM, HONG KONG UNIVERSITY: You may also not being able to screen people who have no fever but may be already having the disease at the early stage, right? So there's no way at the moment using this equipment to detect these people.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

STOUT: Labs around the world are racing to create a fast and reliable test for SARS. In the meantime, Hong Kong is sticking to the technology it has on hand. Plans are underway for 300 thermal scanners to be installed at the boarder.

Anderson, back to you. COOPER: Kristie, it's obvious Hong Kong officials want people to know these cameras are there. We saw a lot of cameras taking pictures of the cameras. It's a big story. Do these cameras, have they actually caught anyone with SARS, or is this largely sort of officials trying to get the message out they're doing all they can?

STOUT: Actually, from the health department here in Hong Kong, as of Friday, right now it's early Monday morning, health authorities have said they have yet to nab any SARS carriers using these border control methods. That being said, however, the travelers who I talked to at the border -- for example, travelers from mainland China -- say they feel safer that they feel safer that it's there. And it could very well turn into a new fact of international travel along with the metal detector.

COOPER: I know Canadian officials in Toronto are even thinking about doing it there. Kristie, thanks very much. I appreciate the report.

Well, Coming up, these otters that you're about to see are the lucky ones. A lot of their relatives have died off and a lot of them are still dying off the California coast. We're going to talk with one of the experts trying to find out exactly why this is happening. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Well, now a look at NEXT news headlines.

California, once again, reigns supreme over the American Lung Association's annual list of America's smoggiest cities. Los Angeles, Fresno, Bakersfield, the Visale area and Houston, Texas make up the top five, followed by Sacramento and Merced, California, Atlanta, Georgia, Knoxville, Tennessee, and Charlotte, North Carolina. Now on the upside, Bellingham, Washington is ranked as having the cleanest air. American Lung says nearly half of all Americans, more than 137 million people breathe unhealthy amounts of smog.

Hundreds of people broke down the gates to a bombing range on the Puerto Rican island of Vieques, that was on Thursday. They were celebrating the U.S. Navy transfer of the facility to federal wildlife officials. Island residents blame nearly 60 years of bombing for environmental damage and high cancer rates. The range will now become a wildlife refuge.

Florida's manatees could be extinct if the state doesn't get tough with boaters, according to a federal report. Boats and personal watercraft killed a record 95 manatees last year alone. And the report says if that mortality rate continues, within 100 years, there won't be enough manatees to sustain the population.

Better news for another marine mammal. This dolphin was found ailing a month and half ago in Florida's Crystal River. The problem, he should have been in salt water. So the moat marine lab in Sarasota, Florida caught him, nursed him back to health and released him off Florida's Gulf coast near a pod of other dolphins. And it appears he jumped for joy at the reunion.

Well, a less happy story right now. Sea otters are dying in record numbers off the California coast. Almost 100 have died, or at least 100 dead animals have washed ashore since January, now half of them in the past month alone.

One person working to stop the decline is Steve Shumek from the Otter Project in Monterey Bay. Steve, thanks very much for joining us.

STEVE SHUMEK, THE OTTER PROJECT: Thank you.

We've known or scientists have known that for years that the otter population is declining, but it seems like all of a sudden there's this is die-off in the last couple of months. Why?

SHUMEK: Well, there's lot of reasons why. Why is no mystery. We know that about 40 percent of all sea otter mortality is due to disease. And it's due to a variety of diseases. Then, we also know that some of these diseases are coming from land. So it's kind of biological pollution. Then, we also know that sea otters are carrying around really high levels of chemical contaminants that can make them susceptible to disease. So sea otters are swimming around in a thickening soup of disease. And they are not able to fight it off.

COOPER: But are the numbers suddenly rapidly increasing?

SHUMEK: We think that we are having a die-off right now, but out off six out of the past seven years, the sea otter population has declined. So, you know, since 1995, it's been going downhill and this is just an acceleration of what has already been happening.

COOPER: And, ominously, this is not just old otters or very young otters.

SHUMEK: No, this is across all age groups. And where in a normal wildlife population you have very young animals dying and then you have very old animals dying, in the sea otter population, the prime reproductive adults are also dying. And you can't do that for very long without losing it.

COOPER: You know, there are a lot of people who are going to be watching this and say, look, they're really cute to look at, I love the video. I'm sorry they're dying, but really what's the big deal?

SHUMEK: Well, sea otters are really critical to the ocean ecosystem. In other words, especially the kelp forest ecosystem along the coast of California. California's kelp forests as one of the most diverse ecosystems on earth, and they are one of the most productive ecosystems on earth. So, if we want to preserve biological diversity and biological productivity, we have to keep our sea otters.

COOPER: You also called them an indicator species. What does that mean?

SHUMEK: Most important is that the sea otters are kind of a report card of how we are doing protecting the ocean. And right now, we're failing. We are failing miserably.

COOPER: Only about a minute left, Steve. In your opinion, what should be done?

SHUMEK: Well, there are lots of things that we can do, but right before Congress right this very moment, there is a bill being debated between Democrats and Republicans to ban a class of chemicals called POPS, persistent organic pollutants. And the Bush administration is actually trying to undermine these efforts together with chemical companies. So Republicans and Democrats are trying to pass a bill, and it needs to be passed. And it's called the POPS legislation, and it would ban pollutants.

COOPER: A lot of people say, though, this is bad for business.

SHUMEK: Well, a lot of these are banned around the world already. And the United States may not be the most progressive country on earth when it comes to protecting our environment and we need to get with it.

COOPER: All right, we are going to have to leave it there. Steve Shumek, appreciate you joining us. Thanks very much.

SHUMEK: Thank you.

COOPER: Well, still ahead on NEXT@CNN, automakers are trying to rev up their sales. I'm going to tell you why some say their strategy could end up costing lives.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: You don't hear Hendrix very much on CNN, do you?

The need for speed. You might wonder, does anybody really need a car that can go 150 miles per hour? Apparently, some people think they do.

Our Patty Davis has been looking into the new emphasis on horsepower and speed -- Patty.

PATTY DAVIS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Anderson, muscle cars are back. And, this time, automakers are trying to sell them not to just young people but to families.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DAVIS (voice-over): Struggling with sputtering sales, automakers are working to rev them up with SUVs like this souped up Saturn Vue Redline with a 250-horsepower engine.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This will get you from here to 60 in approximately seven seconds.

This torqued up Dodge Ram SRT-10.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The more horsepower the better. I like to go fast, come on, man. fast.

SCOTT BROWN, CHRYSLER SPOKESMAN: The Ram will go 0 to 60 in around five seconds, top speed of 150 miles per hour.

DAVIS: Muscle cars and trucks for families were the buzz of the New York auto show last month. There's even one for more staid Cadillac lovers. CTSV has 400 horsepower and can go 155 miles an hour. Why do drivers really want to be able to go that fast considering it's against the law? Since these cars aren't yet being sold, carmakers say they don't know if people will test the limits.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I still have a little fire in my belly. I still like to be able to step on the gas and zoom a little bit.

BROWN: People want to say they can go that fast. You know, on the weekends if they're racing, yes, there's a certain group of people that want that performance.

DAVIS: Muscle cars have always been popular. Big in the 1960s, automakers say high-performance vehicles are much safer now due to front and side air bags and anti-lock brakes. But with speed a factor in nearly 30 percent of fatal crashes, the insurance industry says selling speed is irresponsible.

BRIAN O'NEIL, INS. INST. FOR HWY SAFETY: There's no question that cars today are much safer when they're in serious crashes than they were a decade ago. But, of course, if people are also driving a lot faster, that means that more of the crashes will be at higher severity and will be offsetting some of the benefits of those safety gains.

DAVIS: They point to an increase in fatal crashes as the speed limit goes up. Although high-performance costs big bucks in some cars, others like this souped up Saturn Ion Redline will cost just $20,000.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DAVIS: Safety advocates worry putting cheaper speedy cars within the reach of younger risk-taking drivers could push traffic fatalities higher yet -- Anderson.

COOPER: Right, so automakers are getting accused of encouraging drivers to drive faster. What do they say in response?

DAVIS: Well, these cars really should come with "Do not try this at home" warning labels on them. But these automakers are saying no, we're not really encouraging them, we're giving them the option. We're giving them the possibility of doing it. They need to be responsible. The people who drive these cars and buy these cars need to be responsible. You need to stick with the speed limits, but they say Americans want this option of at least saying I can go that fast -- Anderson.

DAVIS: So, it's all about bragging rights. That's what the automakers are saying. DAVIS: I guess, it's American cowboy coming to the road.

COOPER: All right. Well, if you're going to talk the talk, guess it's good to be able to walk the walk or drive the drive.

Patty Davis, thanks very much.

That's all the time we have for now.

But before we go, here's a peek at what's coming up on NEXT week.

Does North Korea have a nuclear weapon? We're going to look at images of Korean nuclear facilities for possible evidence. That's going to be really interesting.

That and a whole lot more coming up next week on NEXT@CNN.

Hope you'll join us.

Coming up, next right now, at 6 p.m. Easter "CNN LIVE SUNDAY" with live coverage of the Laci Peterson memorial service.

That's going to be followed by "PEOPLE ON THE NEWS" at 7:00 p.m. Eastern, profiling North Korea's Kim Jong Il, as well as Vice President Dick Cheney.

And after that, at 8:00 Eastern, "CNN PRESENTS" "In the Line of Fire."

I'm Anderson Cooper, thanks for watching.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com





Employ Technology to Spot SARS; Why Are California's Sea Otters Dying?>