TODAY, Nuclear power stopping climate change? IT’S THE OTHER WAY AROUND!
Climate change makes the nuclear industry EVEN MORE DANGEROUS!
Bad enough that nuclear facilities run the risk of catastrophic nuclear meltdown. Admittedly, that is a risk for some, but not all nuclear facilities, and it is a very rare event.
But while the probability of such an event is rare, the consequences of such an event are severe. That is why nuclear facilities can’t get insurance
Bad enough that nuclear facilities, even when running well, release low level ionising radiation, which increases the risk of cancer for millions of people. Bad enough that nuclear workers have a higher risk and rate of cancer and other radiation-associated diseases.
Bad enough that the nuclear industry’s only real raison d’etre is to produce nuclear weapons, thus endangering the whole world.
But now we’ve got climate change.
This week’s news carries not only the wildfire danger to nuclear facilities, but also some of the drastic risks of sea level rise- Buried Nuclear Waste From the Cold War Could Resurface as Ice Sheets Melt. And that’s only one of the “water effects” of global heating.
On the one hand – there’s the danger of sea surges, rising sea levels, floods. On the other hand – the shortage of water when nuclear reactors require continuous huge amounts of water for cooling. ( Do they think of this as they bound into the Artificial Intelligence Age, with its plans for huge data farms powered by nuclear?)
It sure is time, as a global human community, that we really took global heating seriously.
It’s also time to put a stop to this nefarious nuclear industry – before climate change puts a stop to it, in a very nasty way.
Texas: Disaster declaration issued and nuclear weapons plant shut down as wildfires spread
Sky News, Reemul Balla, 28 Feb 24
A disaster declaration has been issued for dozens of counties in northern Texas as raging wildfires forced evacuations in several towns and a nuclear weapons plant to shut down.
Republican governor Greg Abbott proclaimed 60 counties were in a state of disaster and called for extra emergency services to support local firefighters in tackling the blazes………………………………………………………………………….
Pantex nuclear facility paused operations until further notice due to an out-of-control fire approaching its Panhandle site near Amarillo.
Its 16,000-acre site is home to the plant that builds and disassembles America’s nuclear weapons.
“The fire near Pantex is not contained,” the company said. “Response efforts have shifted to evacuations.”
Pantex confirmed there was no fire on the site as emergency services continued to monitor the situation.
It added “all employees” had been accounted for and “non-essential personnel” were no longer on site………………………………………………………………………………………. more https://news.sky.com/story/texas-disaster-declaration-issued-and-nuclear-weapons-plant-shut-down-as-wildfires-spread-13082651
Leaked Russian military files reveal its nuclear strike rules
A doctrine for tactical nuclear weapons is outlined in training scenarios, including for a possible invasion by China.
Max Seddon and Chris Cook, Feb 29, 2024
ladimir Putin’s forces have rehearsed using tactical nuclear weapons at an early stage of conflict with a major world power, according to leaked Russian military files that include training scenarios for an invasion by China.
The classified papers, seen by the Financial Times, describe a threshold for using tactical nuclear weapons that is lower than Russia has publicly admitted, according to experts who reviewed and verified the documents.
The cache consists of 29 secret Russian military files drawn up between 2008 and 2014, including scenarios for war-gaming and presentations for naval officers, which discuss operating principles for the use of nuclear weapons.
Criteria for a potential nuclear response range from an enemy incursion on Russian territory to more specific triggers, such as the destruction of 20 per cent of Russia’s strategic ballistic missile submarines.
“This is the first time that we have seen documents like this reported in the public domain,” said Alexander Gabuev, director of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Centre in Berlin. “They show that the operational threshold for using nuclear weapons is pretty low if the desired result can’t be achieved through conventional means.”
Russia’s tactical nuclear weapons, which can be delivered by land or sea-launched missiles or from aircraft, are designed for limited battlefield use in Europe and Asia, as opposed to the larger “strategic” weapons intended to target the US. Modern tactical warheads can still release significantly more energy than the weapons dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima in 1945.
Deep suspicions of China
Although the files date back 10 years and more, experts say they remain relevant to current Russian military doctrine. The documents were shown to the FT by Western sources.
The defensive plans expose deeply held suspicions of China among Moscow’s security elite even as Putin began forging an alliance with Beijing, which as early as 2001 included a nuclear no-first-strike agreement.
In the years since, Russia and China have deepened their partnership, particularly since Xi Jinping took power in Beijing in 2012……………………………………………………………………………………………..
more https://www.afr.com/world/europe/leaked-russian-files-reveal-nuclear-strike-rules-20240229-p5f8mz—
Fish v. electricity: Could Salem nuclear plant be shut down?
Delaware Live KARL BAKER FEBRUARY 16, 2024
A judge in an obscure administrative court in Trenton, N.J., is set to hand down a ruling that could end a challenge to the Salem nuclear plant’s ability to pump billions of gallons of water out of the Delaware River each day.
The case, which strikes at the heart of the mid-Atlantic electricity ecosystem, pits a tenacious environmental group against one of the region’s largest energy companies, and its ultimate resolution could impact electricity prices for Delawareans, the health of birds and fish in the Delaware estuary, and President Joe Biden’s most ambitious energy initiative to date.
In short, it’s the region’s biggest environmental battle that you’ve probably never heard of.
At issue is the way in which the Salem Nuclear Generating Station’s two reactors cool steam created by the heat of nuclear fission. Currently, the plant pumps cold water from the Delaware River through a system of pipes that lead it to the steam, which is then cooled back to a liquid form.
The river water then returns to the estuary, but at far higher temperatures than when it was pumped in.
In all, the process kills large numbers of fish and fish larvae, though the exact amounts are disputed.
In late 2016, the Delaware Riverkeeper Network , an environment group and active critic of heavy industry in the region – petitioned New Jersey to rescind a permit that allows the plant to pump water out of the river.
When filed, the challenge was the latest of more than a decade of petitions, disputes and complaints brought against the Salem facility by the environmental group and its outspoken leader Maya van Rossum, who calls the power plant the largest “predator” in the Delaware estuary.
Van Rossum claims that 3 billion adult fish are killed on average each year by the plant’s cooling operations, plus billions more eggs and larvae. Those include the bay anchovy, a species that has suffered a declining local population even as larger fish, eagles, herons, and even whales rely on it for food.
“The cause of the problem for the fish is that the Salem Nuclear Generating Station is sucking them in, cooking them, ripping them apart, destroying them,” she said.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, which declined to comment for this story, suggested in their permit issued to Salem that the mortality figures cited by van Rossum and other critics are overstated.
Still, they do not appear to have presented current, counter estimate
During the early 2000s, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued new rules mandating that new large power plants use closed-cycle cooling…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. more https://delawarelive.com/fish-v-electricity-could-salem-be-shut-down/
Nuclear security is under attack in Ukraine, say experts at Bellona forum.
These and other questions were raised during today’s Bellona forum, “War and the Russian Nuclear Industry,” which brough together experts from Norway and Bellona’s new offices in Vilnius — the new locale for the organization’s Russian staff, who can no longer safely conduct their work on Russian soil.
“We have full-scale war in a country with full-scale nuclear installations, and a situation where international cooperation on nuclear security no longer exists,” said Bellona founder Frederic Hauge in the forum’s opening remarks.
Bellona has worked on nuclear cleanup in Russia since the early 1990s, and this month mark 30 years since Bellona released its first report on the nuclear threat caused by the legacy of the Soviet nuclear navy. It has also been almost exactly two years since Russia invaded Ukraine. That was the backdrop for today’s Bellona Forum, where about 100 people participated physically or digitally.
Tons of Nuclear Waste
Aleksandr Nikitin, a former Russian nuclear submarine officer and Bellona employee of 30 years standing, opened the forum by discussing Bellona’s strategic goals for its nuclear project in Russia.
“First and foremost, together with international actors, we have worked to prevent radiation and nuclear accidents at Russian facilities,” he said. “We have also been concerned with ensuring the elimination or safe conversion of the Soviet nuclear and radiation legacy.”
He noted that the Russian nuclear and radiation legacy consists of nearly 20,000 tons of used nuclear fuel, approximately 800,000 cubic meters of radioactive waste, over 4,700 nuclear and radiation hazardous facilities — as well as more than 30,000 cubic meters of radioactive waste dumped on the seabed.
Since Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022, international efforts to grapple with those issues have stalled.
“But at Bellona, we still have full focus on the Russian nuclear industry, even though now, since we were banned by Russian authorities, we must operate from outside Russia’s borders,” Nikitin said. “We are still working to gather and disseminate information; we share knowledge about the use of nuclear technologies and how the Russian nuclear industry contributes to the continuation of the war in Ukraine.”
‘Rosatom Significantly Involved in the War’
One of the employees at Bellona’s Environmental Transparency Center in Vilnius is nuclear expert Dmitry Gorchakov, who spoke at the Bellona Forum about the role of the Russian atomic agency Rosatom in Russia’s war against Ukraine.
“We closely monitor nuclear risks in Ukraine. And we monitor Rosatom’s global nuclear activities and the agency’s role in the international nuclear market closely,” said Gorchakov.
Rosatom is the world’s largest builder of nuclear power plants. One-third of all nuclear power plants under construction in the world are either built by Rosatom or according to Rosatom’s technology and design.
“Rosatom is significantly involved in the ongoing war. One of the most critical situations is the occupation of Europe’s largest nuclear power plant, Zaporizhzhia (in southeastern Ukraine), which the Russians have occupied since the first weeks of the war. Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have been denied access to several areas of the facility,” said Gorchakov.
He highlighted three main risks at the nuclear power plant as it continues to be controlled by Russia on the front lines of the conflict.
“First, there is a risk of equipment damage due to abnormal operation and lack of maintenance. The second risk is the lack of qualified personnel. But the biggest risk, of course, is the war itself; it is unpredictable and creates chaos. Dramatic changes can occur at any time. For example, if Russia decides to switch reactors to power mode or if military activity escalates near the plant,” said Gorchakov.
Secret Nuclear Weapons Program
Thomas Nilsen from The Independent Barents Observer also participated in the Bellona forum. He talked about Russia’s secret reactor-driven nuclear weapons program and its development and testing in the Arctic.
We are in a new arms race involving new nuclear weapons and new reactor systems. And we are back to the flow of information that existed during the Soviet era, meaning almost no information. We at The Barents Observer have not reported a single incident from Russian nuclear submarines in the past four years, and that’s not because accidents haven’t happened. It’s becoming harder and harder to obtain information from Russia,” Nilsen explained.
The Barents Observer is the only Norwegian media outlet with four exiled Russian journalists on its editorial staff.
You can watch the entire Bellona forum by clicking on this link.
Release of fourth batch of Fukushima treated radioactive water begins
Japan Times, 28 Feb 24
The operator of the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant on Wednesday started releasing a fourth batch of treated radioactive water into the sea, in what will be the last discharge for the fiscal year ending March.
As in previous rounds, Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings (Tepco) will discharge 7,800 metric tons of treated water over about 17 days, having confirmed that the radioactivity level of the latest batch of water meets the standards set by the government and the utility.
China, which opposes the water release, has banned Japanese seafood imports since the first discharge in late August. The two countries have engaged in informal discussions to resolve the matter, but no substantial progress has been made……………………….. more https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2024/02/28/japan/society/fukushima-radioactive-water-fourth-release/
Locals oppose nuclear waste plant – parish council
Bob Cooper, Political reporter, BBC Radio Cumbria, 28 Feb 24 https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0jvjx8kn5xo—
Opponents of plans to seal some of the UK’s most lethal nuclear waste underground have called for communities to have more of say.
Whicham Parish Council in west Cumbria held a postal survey, in which more than three quarters of those who responded opposed the idea.
It is part of an area in which officials are exploring the possibility of siting a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF).
Cumberland Council said there was “no reason” for parish councils to conduct ballots.
Nuclear Waste Services, the body that oversees the project, described a GDF as “a highly engineered structure consisting of multiple barriers that will provide protection over hundreds of thousands of years.”
High-level nuclear waste would be sealed up to 1km (0.62 mile) underground, or possibly under the seabed.
Searches for a potential place for the facility are taking place in three areas, including two in Cumbria and another in Lincolnshire.
‘Impact on communities’
The process of identifying a site is expected to take 10 to 15 years and it could be ready to start receiving waste in the 2050s.
The Whicham postal vote was carried out in 2023 and the parish council said 251 out of 400 parishioners replied, which was a 63% turnout.
The council said 77% were opposed to a GDF in the parish, 15% were in favour, 6% were neutral, while the rest of the forms were blank.
Richard Outram, from Nuclear Free Local Authorities, a group of councils opposed to nuclear developments, said other parish councils should follow Whicham and conduct polls.
“The geological disposal facility, or a nuclear waste dump, is a massive engineering project that’s going to impact on communities for tens of years,” he said.
“It’s important to regularly take the public temperature and one way of doing that is by each parish council holding a regular parish poll.”
‘Too early’
Cumberland Council is the authority with the power to withdraw local communities from the siting process, external.
It is also responsible for conducting a formal test of public support, external, such as a local referendum, before a site can be approved.
The Labour-led authority recently wrote to parish councils telling them they did not need to conduct polls because “detailed public opinion monitoring in the Search Areas is already carried out”.
It also said it was too early in the process to carry out an official test of public support.
Meanwhile, Nuclear Waste Services said surveys to monitor local opinion would be carried out by a professional polling company.
‘I was a guinea pig during secret Christmas Island nuclear tests’
By Nicola Haseler & Lewis Adams. BBC News, Bedfordshire. 28 Feb 24
A former Royal Engineer who witnessed several atomic and hydrogen bomb explosions as part of the UK’s nuclear tests said he was a “guinea pig”.
Brian Cantle, from Bedfordshire, was 21 when he was sent to Christmas Island as part of his national service in 1957.
He and the other soldiers were not told what they were going to do there – due to the covert nature of the programme.
Mr Cantle, now 87, has been awarded a Nuclear Test Medal for his work on the Pacific Ocean island.
The veteran, from Whipsnade, witnessed several atomic and hydrogen bomb explosions during his 12 months on the island.
He was one of 22,000 British servicemen who participated in the British and United States’ nuclear tests and clean-ups between 1952 and 1965……………………………………………
On the days when bombs were tested, Mr Cantle said troops would have to put on brown overalls and face the other way to the bomb going off.
He added: “It was just a big flash and then we were told we could turn round and see it. It was an enormous explosion.”
‘We were guinea pigs’
In the decades that have followed the tests, calls have been made for the men who witnessed a nuclear test to receive an apology for the health risks they were exposed to.
“We were guinea pigs, we were just told what to do and did it,” Mr Cantle said………
The Grapple H-bomb nuclear test series was intended to show that the British had the technology to influence the Cold War, following the development of the atomic bomb by U.S. scientist Robert Oppenheimer.
The hydrogen bombs, which were much more powerful than atomic bombs, were detonated every three months……. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-68415338
Burying nuclear waste the best of a bad bunch of options
A reader offers her opinion on what to do with nuclear waste as Saskatchewan considers small modular reactors for its future energy needs.
I share the concern that Dale Dewar expressed in the StarPhoenix of Feb. 20 about the long-term management of Canada’s used nuclear fuel.
However, my conclusion is that, while far from ideal, deep burial is the best of a bunch of bad available options. There are no good options. Even proposals to extract recyclable material from the used fuel will leave behind most of the waste to be somehow disposed of.
Dewar’s suggestion that the wastes should remain permanently on the surface, with a system of rolling stewardship that would be passed on from generation to generation, might work in a world that could be guaranteed to be permanently free of war, terrorism, natural disasters, negligence and political instability.
But that’s not the world we live in. We cannot assume that safe stewardship would be maintained in perpetuity. Leaving the wastes indefinitely on the surface would seem to create far greater risk than deep geological burial would.
Of course, it would have been nice if we had thought about this problem before we started creating these wastes.
Has the nuclear lobby hijacked Welsh democracy?
25 Feb 2024, Robat Idris https://nation.cymru/opinion/has-the-nuclear-lobby-hijacked-welsh-democracy/
A sadly but unsurprising travesty of democracy slid out of Cardiff Bay with the release of the Senedd’s Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee report on “Nuclear Energy and the Welsh Economy” on 21st February.
As a case study in lobbying power, it is surely worthy of inclusion in the Hall of Infamy.
Its recommendations could have been written by the nuclear lobby itself, rather than by our democratically elected Senedd Members.
Despite the collapse of the Wylfa project in 2019, all of the recommendations enthusiastically back the case for nuclear, with a plea to the UK Government to get on with the job. Einstein reportedly said: “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.
Informed voices
If we are to have a credible Senedd, and a real democracy, then it is crucial that informed voices are heard.
This report, pandering to the self-interest of denizens of the nuclear village, merely reinforces the view that politics is about kowtowing to powerful corporate interests.
Meanwhile Cymru bleeds while real and credible solutions to energy and jobs exist.
The blurb preceding the report assures us that: “The Welsh Parliament is the democratically elected body that represents the interests of Wales and its people”. Yet this Committee took oral evidence from nine pro-nuclear individuals, and written evidence from six pro-nuclear organisations, and none from any individual or organisation having an anti-nuclear or indeed a sceptical view.
The rationale for this appears to be that the terms of reference deliberately chose not to include other voices:
“The terms of reference for this one-day inquiry were to consider the potential economic impact of new nuclear developments in north Wales, how to maximise local employment and benefits to local or Wales-based supply chains of new nuclear projects, and the challenges posed by skills shortages and how to overcome them. By its nature the inquiry did not examine the pros and cons of nuclear energy itself, but recognised its place in an overall energy security strategy and net zero targets.”
Apparently the only relevant voices are those backing nuclear.
The committee’s duty is to the people of Cymru, and not to the nuclear industry, or to the desire of the UK to remain a nuclear armed state.
Balanced view
As should be apparent if the Wellbeing of Future Generations Act is taken seriously. This is such a vital matter that evidence should be given to the committee which would enable its members to form a fully informed and balanced view on nuclear energy.
Why wasn’t evidence sought from experts and interested parties on such questions as:
- why new nuclear may never happen.
- why nuclear can’t be built in time to influence climate change.
- why should Cymru support civil nuclear when the UK Government admits its intrinsic links with military nuclear weapons capability?
- why should such reliance be placed on the voices of an industry which consistently fails to deliver on cost and on time?
- why should Cymru accept nuclear when renewable energy technology can provide 100% of our energy needs?
- why should Ynys Môn and Gwynedd become a nuclear dump to satisfy the needs of the nuclear industry and the UK state?
- why should we believe that the effects on language, culture, biodiversity can be mitigated?
- why have an influx of workers at a time when housing is a major issue for local people, when the NHS is on the point of collapse, when council services are creaking?
- why does the Welsh Government not acknowledge that nuclear is in retreat globally?
It’s time to recognise that the priority for Cymru is to look to our own natural resources for energy and job solutions. If fully harnessed, offshore wind has the potential to provide double our energy needs.
And why don’t our Senedd Members look critically at the companies which gave evidence?
- In 2020 the American company Bechtel had to pay (with another company) $57.5 million to the US Department of Justice for irregularities at the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant (Hanford is considered to be the most toxic nuclear waste facility in the US). In 2008 it had to pay (with another company) $407 million to the state and federal governments to settle litigation over leaky tunnels and a fatal ceiling collapse in the Boston Big Dig project.
- Rolls-Royce make the nuclear engines for Trident submarines which carry nuclear weapons. The company has publicly stated that there are synergies between the civil and military nuclear industries. Its Small Modular Reactor Design is unlicenced and unproven, and as for being small, it is at 470 MW twice the size of the old Trawsfynydd reactors. Rolls-Royce’s new CEO Tufan Erginbilgic described the company as a “burning platform” as 2.500 job cuts were announced in 2023.
Caught up amongst the corporate and academic behemoths, Ynys Môn council leader Llinos Medi inherited the poisoned chalice of support for nuclear from her predecessors. Like many of us on Ynys Môn, she has a burning desire for our youngsters to have a future locally, and for the language to thrive.
Can she be persuaded that another, better, way can be found?
The Council’s support for a future project at Wylfa is “based on confirmation that the development is sustainable and that it should not be at the expense of the island’s communities”. Nowhere on the globe is nuclear sustainable, and communities worldwide have paid the price. Not only in Chernobyl and Fukushima, but in many countries where uranium is mined and land, water and workers are poisoned.
On Saturday 16th March PAWB (People Against Wylfa B), backed by other concerned organisations, is holding an open meeting called “Green Revolution – Opportunity Knocks” to open minds to the possibilities of truly sustainable economic and community growth in Ynys Môn and Gwynedd. Perhaps members of the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee should attend!
Robat Idris is a member of PAWB. He is also vice-chair of Cymdeithas y Cymod, member of CND Cymru and past chair of Cymdeithas yr Iaith. He contributed a chapter on “Atomic Wales” in “The Welsh Way”.
The Cost of Nuclear War in Space
Putting a weapon into orbit is not just a military threat. It’s also a risk to the billions of dollars pouring into the space economy.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/24/business/dealbook/the-cost-of-nuclear-war-in-space.html By Ephrat Livni and Vivienne Walt
Just before the Russian-Ukrainian war reached its two-year milestone today, U.S. intelligence agencies warned that Russia might aim a nuclear weapon at an unusual target: not any place on Earth, but satellites orbiting in space.
Putting a weapon into orbit is not just a military threat. It’s also a risk to the space economy — and the one on the ground. There is a little-known but fast-growing industry that insures satellites, but it doesn’t provide insurance against nuclear arms.
What’s at stake: hundreds of billions (and probably trillions) of dollars when including the services that rely on satellites, according to David Wade, an underwriter at the Atrium Space Insurance Consortium, which insures satellites for Lloyd’s.
Of more than 8,000 satellites in orbit, thousands belong to private companies, according to Orbiting Now, a site that compiles real-time satellite tracking data from NASA and other sources. The Russian weapon is said to be designed to target satellites in low Earth orbit, where most commercial satellites operate.
SpaceX’s Starlink dominates the space-based internet services industry, and Amazon also has big aspirations in space. But the sharp drop in launch costs in recent years — driven largely by SpaceX — has made entry possible for many smaller players, leading to a satellite-business frenzy that prompted the Federal Communications Commission to open a Space Bureau last year.
Wade estimated the total value of all insured satellites in orbit at $25 billion. That doesn’t include the revenue they generate. The Satellite Industry Association estimated revenues for nongovernmental satellite services at $113 billion in 2022.
Investment in the space economy is increasing quickly. Space activity could total $620 billion this year, according to the most recently available estimate. That’s up from $545 billion in 2022, according to an estimate from the Space Foundation, a nonprofit that promotes space education and enterprise.
Aspirations for the space economy include mining for rare minerals and water, tourism, communications, and data transfer infrastructure. On Thursday, a lunar lander from Intuitive Machines, traveling on a SpaceX rocket, became the first private craft to land on the moon, which some are hopeful leads to mining for water that could be used to make fuel for more distant industrial missions.
A space weapon would cast a pall across other businesses, too. Industries from agriculture to tech depend on satellites, and sectors like shipping, transport, banking and supply chain management rely on GPS, which uses satellites. The threat would also have “a depressive effect” on space company valuations broadly, said Donald Moore, C.E.O. of the Space Finance Corporation and a space policy lecturer at the University of Michigan Law School.
The new threat could also put a dent in the U.S. government’s plans to rely on private players just as the Department of Defense is expected to release details of a new strategy to integrate commercial satellites in national security, noted Brian Weeden, the chief program officer for the Secure World Foundation, a nonprofit that works on space policy.
Some are skeptical of the risk. The precise effects would depend on unknowns about the weapon, company contingency planning and other factors. “We could still communicate,” said Henry Hertzfeld, a space policy professor at George Washington University and former chief economist at NASA. “We still have some landlines,” he added, speaking from his office phone. And he doubts that Russia will introduce this menace, as it would also endanger its space activities. Notably, it would also violate an international space treaty.
But the risk is not covered by insurance. “Exclusions for acts of war, antisatellite devices and nuclear reaction, nuclear radiation or radioactive contamination (except for radiation naturally occurring in the space environment) are typically listed in a space insurance policy,” Wade said in an email.
The U.S. space model depends heavily on commercialization, noted Russell Sawyer, a space insurance broker at Lockton in London. The government has pushed risk out onto private companies, he said, and this trend could shift if this nuclear threat really is serious: “The government would be needed.” — Ephrat Livni
Biden administration restores Trump-rescinded policy on illegitimacy of Israeli settlements
BY MATTHEW LEE, February 24, 2024
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration on Friday restored a U.S. legal finding dating back nearly 50 years that Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories are “illegitimate” under international law.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the U.S. believes settlements are inconsistent with Israel’s obligations, reversing a determination made by his predecessor, Mike Pompeo, in the Biden administration’s latest shift away from the pro-Israel policies pursued by former President Donald Trump.
Blinken’s comments came in response to a reporter’s question about an announcement that Israel would build more than 3,300 new homes in West Bank settlements as a riposte to a fatal Palestinian shooting attack.
It wasn’t clear why Blinken chose this moment, more than three years into his tenure, to reverse Pompeo’s decision. But it came at a time of growing U.S.-Israeli tensions over the war in Gaza, with the latest settlement announcement only adding to the strain. It also came as the United Nations’ highest court, the International Court of Justice, is holding hearings into the legality of the Israeli occupation.
Biden administration officials did not cast Blinken’s comments as a reversal — but only because they claim Pompeo’s determination was never issued formally. Biden administration lawyers concluded Pompeo’s determination was merely his opinion and not legally binding, according to two administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private discussions.
But formally issued or not, Pompeo’s announcement in November 2019 was widely accepted as U.S. policy and had not been publicly repudiated until Blinken spoke on Friday.
Speaking in the Argentine capital of Buenos Aires, Blinken said the U.S. was “disappointed” to learn of the new settlement plan announced by Israel’s far-right firebrand finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, after three Palestinian gunmen opened fire on cars near the Maale Adumim settlement, killing one Israeli and wounding five.
Blinken condemned the attack but said the U.S. is opposed to settlement expansion and made clear that Washington would once again abide by the Carter administration-era legal finding that determined settlements were not consistent with international law.
“It’s been longstanding U.S. policy under Republican and Democratic administrations alike that new settlements are counter-productive to reaching an enduring peace,” he said in his news conference with Argentine Foreign Minister Diana Mondino.
“They’re also inconsistent with international law. Our administration maintains a firm opposition to settlement expansion and in our judgment this only weakens, it doesn’t strengthen, Israel’s security,” Blinken said……………………………….. more https://apnews.com/article/israel-settlements-illegitimate-palestine-biden-rescind-law-0bed7cf5d6f98012193e9f5075eb719a
Shock Horror! Serious risk TO INVESTORS of nuclear war in space!
Are investors prepared for *checks notes* nuclear war in space? Space boom, meet actual boom
F.com Sinead O’Sullivan FEBRUARY 24 2024 Sinéad O’Sullivan is a former Senior Researcher at Harvard Business School’s Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness.
Imagine if a country launched a 1.4-megaton nuclear warhead into space and detonated it 400 kilometres above the Pacific Ocean, generating such a huge burst of electromagnetic energy that it resulted in an artificial aurora while disrupting electrical systems over land masses up to 1,500km away and destroying several satellites…………………………………..
This actually happened in 1962. And the actor, naturally, was the United States of America. In the early 1960’s, the United States conducted a series of nuclear tests in space, which were primarily aimed at studying the effects and potential military applications of deploying nuclear weapons in space. The explosion test, called Starfish Prime, was a high-altitude nuclear test conducted as a joint effort of the Atomic Energy Commission and the Defense Atomic Support Agency.
One of the test’s consequences was to catalyse Russian enthusiasm for some ground rules: the Outer Space Treaty was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly a few years later, in 1967……
Today, most people — including investors who have bet billions of dollars on SpaceX’s Starlink constellation — have probably not heard of Starfish Prime, and don’t worry much about the impact of mega-radiation war in space………………….
Regardless, what we do know is that any nuclear weapon in space would — along with a great number of other consequences — pose a huge risk to the $300bn of private capital invested into the space sector in the last decade………………..
It is unideal that there are currently no globally binding rules that protect investor interests and assets in space. Consider the $180bn valuation of SpaceX, which is largely credited to its Starlink satellite communications constellation. This constellation could disappear in the space of minutes with the use of a single nuclear anti-satellite weapon in space — Russian or otherwise. It is possible many investors have not considered that a single adversarial event could destroy value so quickly. …………………………………..
The Outer Space Treaty says that nations cannot militarise space, place weapons in space, or take ownership of any celestial space bodies. This makes it an established investor’s friend, not foe — especially if that investor is American.
It is overseen by the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UN COPUOUS), but this body cannot legally mandate any nation to follow it. After all, in the jurisdiction of space, adherence is done via the complex mechanisms of diplomacy, something capital markets grossly lack……………….. https://www.ft.com/content/5a9c4477-6db9-4ea5-8ba2-7065f2370b02
Tax-payer to take bigger financial risks under new payment plan for nuclear command satellites
Under cost-plus or cost-reimbursement contracts, the government pays contractors for allowed expenses, plus an agreed upon profit margin. In fixed-price agreements, the contractor is paid a negotiated amount regardless of expenses incurred.
the development will move forward with the government absorbing the inherent risks.
Space Force bucks fixed-price trend for nuclear command satellites
Acquisition executive Frank Calvelli said the Space Force will award cost-plus contracts for the upcoming Evolved Strategic Satellite Communications System
Space News Sandra Erwin, February 26, 2024
WASHINGTON — In a departure from recent guidance, the Space Force will use cost-plus contracts for its high-priority strategic communications satellite program.
Space Force acquisition executive Frank Calvelli said Feb. 23 that the service has decided to not use fixed-price contracts for the Evolved Strategic Satellite Communications System (ESS), a critical component of the U.S. military’s nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) network that provides nuclear-survivable communications.
Calvelli has previously indicated a preference for fixed-price contracts as a means to control costs and incentivize efficiency in satellite procurements. However, he said that an exception will be made for the ESS program.
Boeing and Northrop Grumman were selected in 2020 to build ESS satellite prototypes but Calvelli suggested that these designs are not mature enough to transition to fixed-price production.
“It’s not as far along as I would like for us to probably use fixed price,” Calvelli said at an event hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
The ESS program is estimated to be worth $8 billion. These new satellites are intended to augment and eventually replace the Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) network of nuclear-hardened satellites made by Lockheed Martin.
Draft solicitation in the works
Calvelli said the Space Systems Command is still working on a draft solicitation for ESS proposals, expected to be released this year.
He said he had expected the ESS payload designs to be more mature by now and nearing the prototyping stage. ESS was one of the programs selected for rapid-prototyping under a Pentagon initiative known as “middle tier acquisition”
“But it seems like we spent a lot of time in MTA just doing tech risk reduction or technology maturity,” said Calvelli. “Had we built a real payload or actually built the prototype, then maybe we could actually go off and do something fixed-price.”
Under cost-plus or cost-reimbursement contracts, the government pays contractors for allowed expenses, plus an agreed upon profit margin. In fixed-price agreements, the contractor is paid a negotiated amount regardless of expenses incurred.
Cost-plus contracts are used in higher risk projects where technical requirements are uncertain or unknown and the work involves “non-recurring engineering.” These are upfront costs associated with the design and development of a new product.
“Given the amount of NRE that still has to go into the ESS program, and feedback I’ve gotten from industry, we are probably looking more towards the traditional cost-plus model for something like that,” Calvelli said.
The use of cost-plus versus fixed-price contracts has been a contentious issue recently, with some defense companies experiencing significant losses on fixed-price contracts. Executives from major defense contractors, including Boeing, Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin, have warned that they would be reluctant to bid on some fixed-price programs due to the financial risk.
Calvelli has said the preference is to use fixed-price vehicles once new systems are proven but ESS does not meet that threshold so the development will move forward with the government absorbing the inherent risks.
No excuses for late deliveries
Calvelli during his talk at CSIS also said he plans to crack down on program delays, especially those blamed on supply chain woes or pandemic impacts. ……………………………….. https://spacenews.com/space-force-bucks-fixed-price-trend-for-nuclear-command-satellites/
China is ‘unlikely’ to lift import ban on Japanese seafood as dumping continues
predatory species higher up in the food chain have a greater chance of experiencing bioaccumulation and biomagnification of radioactive substances. As time goes on and more nuclear-contaminated water is discharged, the negative effects will only increase
By GT staff Feb 25, 2024 , https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202402/1307658.shtml
Half a year after Japan opened Pandora’s box by dumping nuclear-contaminated wastewater from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the ocean, Japanese media are discussing the possibility of bilateral talks for getting China to revoke its import ban on Japanese marine products, in an apparent attempt to test the waters.
In response, Chinese experts told the Global Times on Sunday that, in the short term, it is unlikely that China will revoke the ban as there are currently no conditions for a withdrawal.
Meanwhile, a Kyodo News survey on Friday showed that most Japanese fishery groups have been affected by the discharge, with many feeling the impact through China’s import ban on Japanese seafood.
The survey found that 29 out of 36 respondents among the members of the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperative Associations said they “had felt” or “had somewhat felt” negative effects, including financial damage due to the contaminated water dumping, overwhelmingly due to the subsequent import ban by China.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said at a regular press conference that the precautionary measures taken by China and some other countries in response to Japan’s move are aimed at protecting food safety and people’s health.
“These measures are entirely legitimate, reasonable and necessary,” Mao said.
Chang Yen-chiang, director of the Yellow Sea and Bohai Sea Research Institute of Dalian Maritime University, revealed several main factors why China is less likely to revoke the ban in the short run.
There is no halt in the ocean discharge, that is, the Japanese side has not withdrawn from their erroneous actions, he said.
Currently, half a year has passed since the dumping began, meaning that under the influence of ocean currents, the impact of Japan’s nuclear-contaminated water discharge on East Asia may just be starting, and further impacts need to be assessed, Chang said.
In addition, predatory species higher up in the food chain have a greater chance of experiencing bioaccumulation and biomagnification of radioactive substances. As time goes on and more nuclear-contaminated water is discharged, the negative effects will only increase, Chang said. “Under these circumstances, how could the ban be lifted?” the expert asked.
TEPCO – operator of the Daiichi plant – plans to release a total of about 54,600 tons of nuclear-contaminated water on seven occasions in the 2024 fiscal year, more than double the amount of 2023, according to media reports.
Chang called on Japan to consider solving the Fukushima nuclear power plant issue on a fundamental level, such as focusing on research on how to handle the burnt-out nuclear reactors. Otherwise, radioactive substances will continue to be produced endlessly, and the discharge of nuclear contamination could last for over 100 years, making the situation increasingly worse.
Japanese media have reported on a series of scandals concerning leaks occurring during the contaminated water discharge process, which led to soil contamination around the nuclear power plant.
Most recently, 1.5 metric tons of highly radioactive water escaped in early February during valve checks at a treatment machine designed to remove cesium and strontium from the contaminated water, according to TEPCO.
According to Japanese experts studying the soil, the radiation levels in Fukushima soil are much higher compared to other areas.
“We should be more vigilant toward crops and plants grown in this contaminated soil. China should increase radioactive testing of Japanese agricultural products and cosmetics imports,” Chang stated.
China is ‘unlikely’ to lift import ban on Japanese seafood as dumping continues
By GT staff reportersPublished: Feb 25, 2024 09:50 PM
Water tanks near Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Okuma town of Fukushima prefecture on May 26, 2023 Photo: VCG
Half a year after Japan opened Pandora’s box by dumping nuclear-contaminated wastewater from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the ocean, Japanese media are discussing the possibility of bilateral talks for getting China to revoke its import ban on Japanese marine products, in an apparent attempt to test the waters.
In response, Chinese experts told the Global Times on Sunday that, in the short term, it is unlikely that China will revoke the ban as there are currently no conditions for a withdrawal.
Meanwhile, a Kyodo News survey on Friday showed that most Japanese fishery groups have been affected by the discharge, with many feeling the impact through China’s import ban on Japanese seafood.
The survey found that 29 out of 36 respondents among the members of the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperative Associations said they “had felt” or “had somewhat felt” negative effects, including financial damage due to the contaminated water dumping, overwhelmingly due to the subsequent import ban by China.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said at a regular press conference that the precautionary measures taken by China and some other countries in response to Japan’s move are aimed at protecting food safety and people’s health.
“These measures are entirely legitimate, reasonable and necessary,” Mao said.
Chang Yen-chiang, director of the Yellow Sea and Bohai Sea Research Institute of Dalian Maritime University, revealed several main factors why China is less likely to revoke the ban in the short run.
There is no halt in the ocean discharge, that is, the Japanese side has not withdrawn from their erroneous actions, he said.
Currently, half a year has passed since the dumping began, meaning that under the influence of ocean currents, the impact of Japan’s nuclear-contaminated water discharge on East Asia may just be starting, and further impacts need to be assessed, Chang said.
In addition, predatory species higher up in the food chain have a greater chance of experiencing bioaccumulation and biomagnification of radioactive substances. As time goes on and more nuclear-contaminated water is discharged, the negative effects will only increase, Chang said. “Under these circumstances, how could the ban be lifted?” the expert asked.
TEPCO – operator of the Daiichi plant – plans to release a total of about 54,600 tons of nuclear-contaminated water on seven occasions in the 2024 fiscal year, more than double the amount of 2023, according to media reports.
Chang called on Japan to consider solving the Fukushima nuclear power plant issue on a fundamental level, such as focusing on research on how to handle the burnt-out nuclear reactors. Otherwise, radioactive substances will continue to be produced endlessly, and the discharge of nuclear contamination could last for over 100 years, making the situation increasingly worse.
Japanese media have reported on a series of scandals concerning leaks occurring during the contaminated water discharge process, which led to soil contamination around the nuclear power plant.
Most recently, 1.5 metric tons of highly radioactive water escaped in early February during valve checks at a treatment machine designed to remove cesium and strontium from the contaminated water, according to TEPCO.
According to Japanese experts studying the soil, the radiation levels in Fukushima soil are much higher compared to other areas.
“We should be more vigilant toward crops and plants grown in this contaminated soil. China should increase radioactive testing of Japanese agricultural products and cosmetics imports,” Chang stated.
As Japanese industries, including fisheries and cosmetics, have been affected, Japanese media continues to report news about bilateral talks aimed at getting China to revoke its import ban on Japanese marine products, trying to test the reaction from China.
The Asahi Shimbun revealed Friday that nuclear experts from Japan and China started talks in January regarding contaminated water. The report noted that the Chinese side has still shown no signs of ending its import ban.
The Kyodo News reported on Thursday that when Chinese Ambassador to Japan Wu Jianghao met with the leader of the Social Democratic Party, Mizuho Fukushima, in January, China’s import suspension was also discussed, but there were no conditions for lifting the ban at present.
1.This Month
28 February RALLY – Stop the Chalk River Nuclear Waste Dump
29 February – Webinar – Veterans for Peace
of the week – Military-Intelligence Corruption Information Center.
PETITIONS:
Petition: 100 per cent renewables rather than Small Modular (nuclear) Reactors UK
Charge Israel With Genocide at the International Court of Justice! https://www.codepink.org/icj?utm_campaign=12_21_pali_update_alert_1&utm_medium=email&utm_source=codepink
PETITION – to Canadian government against the dumping on nuclear waste on indigenous land. More plans to dump nuclear waste on indigenous territories without free, prior and informed consent. https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-4676
PETITION – Halt the US-Philippines Nuclear Deal -Sign on to Letter to US Congress – Full statement and sign on: tinyurl.com/haltUSPHdeal
PETITION – We condemn the one-sided hearing on small modular rectors held by the Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) and call upon the EAC to organise an enquiry into the practicalities of a 100 percent or near 100 per cent UK renewable energy system
To sign go to webpage: https://100percentrenewableuk.org/evidence-on-small-nuclear-reactors-petition
7 – 8th March.
Uranium Film Festival 2024
7 – 8th March. Uranium Film Festival 2024
URANIUM FILM FESTIVAL MARATHON ACROSS THE USA https://fox5sandiego.com/business/press-releases/ein-presswire/664773439/uranium-film-festival-marathon-across-the-usa/
28 March
 |
|
|
-
Archives
- February 2024 (345)
- January 2024 (376)
- December 2023 (333)
- November 2023 (343)
- October 2023 (366)
- September 2023 (353)
- August 2023 (356)
- July 2023 (363)
- June 2023 (324)
- May 2023 (344)
- April 2023 (348)
- March 2023 (308)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 