Nuclear Security Summit, a start, but limited
What the summit did not address in any detail was the likelier and more easily achievable possibility that a terrorist organisation might obtain highly radioactive material and attach it to a conventional, crudely made dirty bomb that could still spread lethal material over a wide area.
World takes aim at nukes , THE AUSTRALIAN, Brad Norington, April 16, 2010 Obama’s plan, endorsed at the summit by all attending countries including Australia, is to conduct an enormous accounting exercise with the objective of securing all nuclear materials across the world during the next four years.A 12-point communique not only affirmed the responsibility of countries to maintain security of nuclear materials under their control. It also agreed to the goal of stopping “non-state actors” from obtaining the information or technology required to use nuclear materials for malicious purposes……
A further nuclear security summit has been scheduled for Seoul in 2012 to check progress.
If Obama succeeds in prompting a large-scale lockdown of nuclear materials, this week’s summit could turn out to be significant moment in redefining the global order and combating the scourge of terrorism in the modern age……
There are weaknesses, however, in the commitments given by nations this week.
Chief among them, apart from the ambitious four-year timeframe, is the lack of anything legally binding or a regime of enforcement.
Obama acknowledged at a media conference at the summit’s end that the agreement was voluntary and its success would depend on goodwill…..
As evidence of likely success, he singled out Ukraine, Chile and Mexico for their willingness to give up their entire stockpiles of highly enriched uranium, and Canada for giving up a significant portion.
Other nations, such as Pakistan and Argentina, agreed to measures to prevent nuclear smuggling and strengthen port security.
Russia used the occasion to announce it would close its last weapons-grade plutonium production reactor.
The US and Russia signed an agreement for each to eliminate about 70 tonnes of plutonium or enough for 17,000 nuclear weapons…..
Obama focused the attention of countries on securing materials that could be used by al-Qa’ida to construct a nuclear weapon.
What the summit did not address in any detail was the likelier and more easily achievable possibility that a terrorist organisation might obtain highly radioactive material and attach it to a conventional, crudely made dirty bomb that could still spread lethal material over a wide area.
In hindsight, events manipulated by the Obama White House in the lead-up to the summit look very much timed to encourage other nations to think seriously about their contributions to making the world a safer place. That was as far as it went. World takes aim at nukes | The Australian
Conflict of interest between nuclear disarmament and the uranium industry?
Christina Macpherson's websites & blogs
by Christina Macpherson, 12 April 2010, Wonder what AREVA, BHP Billiton, Cameco, Paladin, Allinace Resources, Mega Uranium etc will think about this? The idea of nuclear power expanding – but not needing uranium mining any more!
Barack Obama’s Nuclear summit plan – to re-start the program to use decommissioned nuclear weapons fuel in commercial nuclear plants - could mean the end of the uranium industry?
Romanian government’s secret plans for nuclear reactors in earthquake zone
Greenpeace 8 April 2010 Romania has currently one nuclear power plant with two functional reactors in Cernavoda (South-East of Romania). Cernavoda is situated in an area with high earthquake risk. The Romanian Government plans to build two more nuclear reactors (Cernavoda 3 and 4). These reactors are of an outdated Canadian design, the CANDU 6.
The Romanian government proposes yet another nuclear power plant in the North of the country, in Transilvania. It announced that it chose three sites on the Somes River, but keeps the information secret because of fear for protests.
Please sign the petition here:
http://www.greenpeace.org/romania/campaigns/nucleare/signthepetition
NUCLEAR POWER and PEACE – the ultimate “con”
Faced with the reality that nuclear power plants are closing down faster than they are being built the nuclear lobby has come up with some desperate slogans aimed at resuscitating the industry. First they’ll “solve” energy shortage, then “solve” Climate Change. And now – they’ll solve nuclear non proliferation !
The irony is that the nuclear industry’s best hope is in its original aim – to produce nuclear weapons. While the USA and Russia piously claim that they’ reduce their total of 49, 000 nuclear bombs to a mere 30,000, and France, UK, China, India, Israel also hang on to their nukes, other countries (and Al Qaeda) aim to get nuclear weapons too.
Nevertheless, the worldwide nuclear lobby has the gall to claim that the spread of “civil” nuclear power will limit the risks of nuclear terrorism and nuclear weapons spread – Nuclear Power and Peace – our theme for April 2010
“Peaceful Nuclear Power” – it’s an oxymoron
Harmonious relationships between people and nations cannot survive in a nuclear power society, with its atmosphere of secrecy, surveillance , suspicion, fear, and ever-present real danger. Nuclear Power and Peace – our theme for April 2010
Canadian doctors protest uranium mining, threaten to resign
Anti-uranium doctors renew threat to resign, March 22, 2010 CBC News Nearly two-dozen doctors in Sept-Îles, Que., are renewing their threats to resign and leave the province after the government rejected calls for a moratorium on uranium mining and exploration in the region. Read more »
The very secret costs of nuclear power
Hidden Costs of the nuclear industry – Secrecy about Nuclear Costs
The secrecy surrounding nuclear industry costs has two main aspects:
1. Nuclear power is intrinsically connected to nuclear weapons, and the costs of these are kept very much hidden by all states.
2.In States where the government runs the nuclear industry, the true costs are well hidden. (Spare a thought for the USA – warts and all, the USA, in trying to run a privatised nuclear industry, does allow public flow of information about THE MONEY.) – The true costs of nuclear power – our theme for March 2010
Depleted uranium in Utah violates laws
Politics Up Close: HEAL Utah on Depleted Uranium Study |
KCPW03.05.2010 by Jeff Robinson, Governor Gary Herbert has struck a deal to keep additional depleted uranium out of the state for now. But thousands of drums of it are already here, some buried, some about to be buried in the west desert at EnergySolutions facility. But a new report commissioned by the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah says this violates federal and state law on low-level waste disposal. We’re joined by Executive Director Vanessa Pierce and Dr. Arjun Makhijani with the Institute for Environmental and Energy Research.
Politics Up Close: HEAL Utah on Depleted Uranium Study | KCPW
Uranium industry in financial doldrums
Spot Uranium Remains Under Downward Pressure ninemsn 23/02/2010 By Rudi Filapek-Vandyck Spot uranium prices continue their descent as buyers seem in no hurry and with sellers offering ever more aggressive price cuts to get deals done. The past week, ending Friday, saw a few deals being concluded, but also a further cut to TradeTech’s weekly price benchmark.
Obama passes nuclear risks on to taxpayer
Obama asks taxpayers to shoulder nuclear risk MNN – Mother Nature Network, by Karl Burkart, 23 Feb 2010 Banks won’t touch them they are so financially risky. So why does Obama want U.S. taxpayers to fund nuclear plants when there is a 50% chance they will fail? Sun, Feb 21 2010
Whether you are Republican or Democrat, pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear, you probably will agree with me that it is wrong to ask the American taxpayers to fund an investment that is so risky it has a 50 percent chance of failing. Read more »
Columbia River endangered by radioactive nuclear waste
Analysis warns Hanford cleanup would take decades washingtonpost.com The Associated Press
February 10, 2010;
PORTLAND, Ore. — A federal proposal for cleaning up the nation’s most contaminated nuclear site says radioactive contaminants from the sprawling Hanford nuclear reservation could threaten the Columbia River for thousands of years. Read more »
Expert advises shutdown of leaking Yankee Nuclear Plant
Nuclear Expert Says Yankee Should Shut Down VPR News: 02/10/1 John Dillon – Montpelier, Vt. An expert on nuclear power hired by the Legislature says Vermont Yankee should shut down voluntarily to stop its radiation leaks. Read more »
Uranium mining marriage between South Korea and France
KEPCO Partners with Areva in Uranium Mining The Chosun Ilbo (English Edition): Daily News from Korea 8 Feb 2010 KEPCO has joined hands with France’s Areva SA to develop uranium mines around the world. The Korean power monopoly said Sunday that it signed an agreement on Thursday with Areva for the joint development project. Read more »
Sustainable energy: energy efficiency and renewables
Why doesn’t Energy Efficiency get a better press than expensive, impractical nuclear power?
Europe’s ‘supergrid’ paves way for baseload renewable energy
Getting connected: Europe’s green energy ‘supergrid ‘By Matt Ford, for CNNJ anuary 31, 2010 It is a criticism frequently leveled at those promoting wind or solar power as an alternative to fossil fuels: what happens when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine?Well, now there is a smart answer, at least in Europe — we’ll simply and instantly switch to another source of clean, green power. Read more »
SEARCH for particular names or topics at the SEARCH BOX at very bottom of this sidebar
- AUDIO About San Onofre Nuclear plant. Nuclear Regulatory Commission – NRC: Lapdog or Watchdog? http://www.fairewinds.org/content/nrc-lapdog-or-watchdog
- and this Japan’s nuclear safety record criticised by regulator http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/radio/program/connect-asia/japans-nuclear-safety-record-criticised-by-regulator/1132464
- VIDEO: Great Haste Made Great Waste at Hanford http://fairewinds.org/podcast/great-haste-made-great-waste-at-hanford
- and this VIDEO Printing Australia’s Largest Solar Cells
http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/19/printing-australias-largest-solar-cells/#I2hPrL1dDL6WTXwD.99 - and this VIDEO: Japan to open nuclear plant http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3761126.ht
From Fukushima to New York: Continuing Dangers of Nuclear PowerEVENTS
San Onofre at the No Nukes Brink: It’s Time to Take Action & WIN!!!
http://www.nukefree.org/stop-san-onofre-re-start-call-petition-now
Women and nuclear radiation – Mary Olson speaks
Mary Olson, from Nuclear Information and Resource Service, spoke at the New York symposium on Fukushima’s effects, March 2013.
Here are some highlights:
Mary Olson discussed the findings of the latest National Academy of Sciences Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation ( BEIR VII) , illustrated by this graph:
This lifespan graph shows increased cancer risk by exposure to a given amount of radiation, The pink line shows the risk for girls, the blue line for boys. Look at left hand part of the graph. It covers from zero to 5 years, and includes pre birth. We see a striking difference between the blue line and the pink line. The nuclear regulators assume that the risk shown here at age 40 – in the blue line- is the same for every individual regardless of age or gender. Yet, even at ages 40 – 60 the cancer risk from radiation is significantly more for women, than for men.
The cancer danger from ionising radiation depends on the type of radiation, the amount, and the duration of the exposure. But it also depends on who is exposed. Radiation exposure endangers some individuals more than others. In order, the most vulnerable are:
Primary germ cells/ Embryo
Foetus
Children
Elders
Some genotypes
Females – both juvenile and adult
All of the world’s scientific authorities agree that there is no safe dose of radiation. That includes the WHO, EPA, NRC, and national Academy of Science.
The standards for permissable levels of ionising radiation were originally written to cover doctors using radiation, then were intended for the purpose of sending military into radiological areas. Yet these standads, based on a 30 year old man, are applied to everyone.
Over 100 years, man’s activities have increased the background radiation by 25%
The ratio of cancer risks from radiation for males and females is 3 to 2. That is for every 2 males who get cancer from ionising radiation, there are 3 females. In reports from BEIR and the Lifespan study of Hiroshima survivors only external radiation is considered, not internal radiation. The risk for females is being underestimated in reports and in regulations about radiation
The World Health Organisation is the first big agency to acknowledge this difference in radiation risk between males and females, in its latest report. WHO is also saying that there is 70% higher risk of thyroid cancer for little girls exposed to radiation.
Studies are continuing, and animal studies, too, are showing this gender difference. We must move towards prevention and precaution as the basis of policy. Sadly, it is too late for a lot of prevention. We need to cahnge the priorities – to protect first, study second
And we need to get a whole lot more women motivated to get involved.
-
Archives
- May 2013 (391)
- April 2013 (383)
- March 2013 (392)
- February 2013 (424)
- January 2013 (502)
- December 2012 (460)
- November 2012 (520)
- October 2012 (522)
- September 2012 (492)
- August 2012 (546)
- July 2012 (362)
- June 2012 (312)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- people
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety and incidents
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina background info
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- general
- rare earths
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
