TODAY. Forget Oppenheimer. The real nuclear hero is Joseph Rotblat
If only other scientists had followed his example.
If only scientists could learn from Joseph Rotblat, and abandon their dogmatic belief that science is “neutral”
To the end of his life, he believed scientists have personal responsibility for their inventions.
Yeah – you’ve never heard of him, have you? That’s because we have all been brainwashed, in the patriarchy, into believing that heroes are brave tough guys. Joseph Rotblat was brave, but, alas, not a tough guy. So – he don’t qualify.
Robert Oppenheimer might have regretted it later, but he was in favor of using the atomic bomb, seeing it as a terror weapon, that would need to be used only once
Leo Szilard was a “wimp” who did not want the atomic bomb to be dropped on Hiroshima.
But Joseph Rotblat went further than Slizard. In 1943, when it was clear that Germany was not developing atomic weapons, Rotblat saw the danger of atomic warfare, and risk of a nuclear clash with Russia. Rotblat abandoned his role in the Manhattan Project, and left America. USA army intelligence tried hard to depict Rotblat as a Russian agent
After the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Rotblat was determined to prevent the development of future nuclear weapons. He devoted the rest of his life to protesting nuclear testing and weapons production.
During the post-war period, Joseph Rotblat did an enormous amount of work in the cause of peace, dialogue and disarmament through the Pugwash movement, with which he shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 1995.
Joseph Rotblat passed away on August 31, 2005. To the end of his life, he believed scientists have personal responsibility for their inventions. Rotblat implored: “Above all, remember your humanity.”
TODAY. Pro nuclear spin – the perfect examples of deception in language and logic.
I did find, in the reporting of the finally-in-operation Vogtle nuclear power plant, a fine example of the nuclear lobby’s brilliant, but twisted and irrational, logic.
Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office director, Jigar Shah, was “optimistic and thinks Vogtle is a nuclear turning point, with a pivot toward smaller-scale projects that will be easier and cheaper to replicate.” “I also think it sets up the U.S. nuclear renaissance very well in small modular reactors,” “The beauty of the small modular reactor is it fits within that $2 [billion] to $4 billion price range,” Shah said.
(That’s the suggested price to build one smr). Upon completion, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 are expected to generate 17,200,000 megawatt-hours . The only Small Modular Reactor (SMR) to receive “design certification”, is the NuScale, which generates 77 megawatts electric (MWe). So – you’d need an awful lot of them to match the Vogtle output, – like over 20,000? At $2 – $4billion each – cost would be? NuScale does put 12 together, to make quite a big nuclear plant ( you’d still need quite a lot of these no-longer-small-plants) . I await some nuclear tech genius to enlighten me on how SMRs are going to produce electricity more cheaply.
But no matter – the logic is – large nuclear reactors produce expensive electricity: therefore small nuclear reactors will produce cheap electricity.
So – we don’t need to discuss other forms of electricity generation (like solar, for example)
Which brings me to another clever aspect of pro nuclear spin, – which is – you just ignore the bits that you don’t like, especially where there might be a comparison with non-nuclear technologies. This is done by concentrating on one aspect that might have popular appeal.
For example: the operating nuclear reactor emits almost no carbon emissions. That point, (excluding the total fuel-cycle) is the focus for claiming that nuclear is “clean” and “safe”. The focus on that claim leaves out altogether other aspects, like safety, security, long-lasting radioactive wastes, potential for nuclear/radioactive weapons, terrorism risks.
And then there’s language. The nuclear lobby used to dazzle us with science. And they still do, especially when the subject of ionising radiation comes up- a beaut collection of jargon words and initials- a confusion of “Intermediate Level” “Restricted Solid Wastes” “Class B Wastes” and many radiation terms.
But today – in this fast-changing world – repetitive, fast, meaningless words and phrases are the order of the day – game-changing, climate-change solution, clean, reliable, affordable, good-paying jobs, ………… most often quoted without any facts supplied to support them
The financial catastrophe that has been the Vogtle nuclear power project – is just another challenge/opportunity for the nuclear lobby. Like Fukushima, like Chernobyl, even like “Oppenheimer” – ’twill be another occasion for the nuclear spin-doctors and their loyal media to broadcast the coming success and benefits of new nuclear power.
How Have Nuclear Weapons Evolved Since Oppenheimer and the Trinity Test?
currently the nine states possessing nuclear weapons have approximately 13,000 nuclear weapons, with US and Russia accounting for almost 90% of the inventory These modern nuclear warheads are significantly more lethal compared to the atomic bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
despite sometimes being referred to as “small nukes”, tactical nuclear weapons weapons still cause devastating destruction. The explosive yield of tactical nuclear weapons today ranges from anywhere below one kt to above 100 kt: the high-end surpasses the yield of Little Boy and Fat Man by up to five times.
Sulgiye Pak, Senior Scientist, August 4, 2023 https://blog.ucsusa.org/sulgiye-park/how-have-nuclear-weapons-evolved-since-oppenheimer-and-the-trinity-test/
It took the Manhattan project three years to develop a nuclear bomb: and only weeks between the first nuclear test explosion and the use of a nuclear weapon in war. Almost 80 years later – how have nuclear weapons evolved?
A brief history of nuclear testing
In 1945, the United States dropped two atomic bombs on Japan. The first bomb, codenamed “Little Boy” was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945.Three days later, the US dropped the second bomb, “Fat Man,” on Nagasaki. The two bombs, each with an estimated yield of around 15 and 21 kilotons (15,000 and 21,000 tons of TNT equivalent), respectively, caused widespread destruction, resulting in the loss of more than 100,000 lives.
After the war, the US conducted atmospheric nuclear tests in the Pacific Proving Grounds in the Marshall Islands and in Nevada and many more underground. The Soviet Union, Great Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea tested nuclear weapons of their own. Since the first development of nuclear weapons, the total number of nuclear tests exceeds 2,000, with 528 tests conducted above ground. These above ground tests had a destructive force of more than 400,000 kilotons TNT. The tests provided the information to increase the sophistication of nuclear weapons designs. But the nuclear tests, and particularly the atmospheric tests, were enormously destructive to the land and communities that were exposed to their explosive power and radiation.
The largest bomb ever made
Today’s modern nuclear warheads have undergone significant advancements in terms of design, technology, and destructive power. Notably, modern warheads are almost exclusively thermonuclear bombs, or hydrogen (H) bombs, which use both fusion and fission reactions to generate higher release of energy – tens of kilotons to several megatons TNT equivalent, or tens of times more powerful than the early atomic bombs. These bombs essentially use an atomic bomb as a trigger for the powerful fusion explosion.
The largest nuclear weapon to ever been tested, Tsar Bomba, had an estimated yield of 50 megatons (although it had a capacity double that) – an explosive yield greater than that of the Little Boy by a factor of 3,500. Literally translated as “King of bombs,” this monster atomic bomb, designed by the Soviet Union, generated a fireball that reached a diameter of 4 km (2.5 miles), and a mushroom cloud that rose over 60 km (40 miles) into the atmosphere.
The blast wave was felt over 1,000 km away (over 620 miles), and its shockwave was detected 4,000 km away from its source, or nearly 2,500 miles away. To illustrate the increased scale of destructive power, if the same bomb dropped on Hiroshima was detonated in a major US city like New York City, 264,000 lives will be lost, along with 512,000 injuries. Tsar Bomba, on the same city, would kill more than 7.6 million people while injuring additional 4.2 million (Figure 2 on original).
Notably, however, such weapons are too large to be considered ‘operational’. Tsar Bomba, for example, weighed 27 tons with a size of 8 meters length and 2 meters diameter – making it impractical to be deployed in a ballistic missile.
Smaller, lighter, faster
Nuclear states have not just pursued larger and more powerful weapons. They have pushed to make weapons that are lighter and more compact, so that they can be carried in multiples, and lower yield, so that they can plausibly be used on a battlefield.
60 years after the biggest nuclear test, nuclear weapons have become smaller and more compact – a process of miniaturization that allows integration into various delivery systems. Some modern weapons are also designed with multiple warheads, with enhanced precision for guidance and targeting systems, allowing a single delivery vehicle to carry multiple independent nuclear payloads.
Alongside high-yield strategic nuclear weapons, there has been significant development of non-strategic, or tactical nuclear weapons designed for limited use scenarios. These weapons are generally of lower yield and intended for use on the battlefield i.e., strikes against relatively close and specific targets that minimize collateral damage affecting the civilian population.
But despite sometimes being referred to as “small nukes”, these weapons still cause devastating destruction. The explosive yield of tactical nuclear weapons today ranges from anywhere below one kt to above 100 kt: the high-end surpasses the yield of Little Boy and Fat Man by up to five times. Despite the lower yield and smaller size, the use of tactical nuclear weapons carries a high risk of escalation from potential misinterpretation, miscalculation, or an unintended response from adversaries, all of which can lead to a full-scale nuclear war. The availability of weapons, especially at low yields designed to facilitate battlefield use, increases the probability of their use in a conflict scenario.
In addition to the nuclear weapons themselves, the nuclear weapons state and non-weapons state have invested heavily in many delivery systems – strategic missile and conventional missile capabilities, as well as in missile defense systems. Nuclear strategists and scientists have long argued that the development and deployment of missile defense systems are ineffective against determined adversaries, but the US budget requested for $10.9 billion to strengthen and expand the deployment of missile defenses in 2023. Such development of missile defense systems has potential for encouraging an arms race dynamic and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty’s role in trying to arrest that dynamic.
Almost 80 years after the first nuclear weapon was dropped on Japan, there hasn’t been any use of nuclear weapons on another country. But since then, nuclear states accumulated as many as 60,000 weapons in total at one time, and currently the nine states possessing nuclear weapons have approximately 13,000 nuclear weapons, with US and Russia accounting for almost 90% of the inventory These modern nuclear warheads are significantly more lethal compared to the atomic bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The radius of devastation and the resulting blast effects, such as firestorms, radioactive fallout, and thermal radiation, would be significantly larger, amplifying the casualties and long-term environmental and health consequences. Despite the danger posed by nuclear weapons, the US continues programs to build new nuclear weapons, including a nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missiles (SLCM-N).
The use of nuclear weapons would have catastrophic humanitarian, environmental and geopolitical consequences. As we continue to invest and enhance nuclear weapons technologically, the global community continues to grapple with the challenges and risks associated with their existence. The pursuit of disarmament, nonproliferation, arms control, and diplomatic dialogues remains more crucial today than ever in promoting peace and global security.
USA flexes its belligerent muscles in Western Australia, showing off its nuclear submarines
US military shows off nuclear capable submarine in Western Australia By 9News Staff Aug 4, 2023 https://www.9news.com.au/national/us-military-shows-off-nuclear-capable-submarine-in-western-australia/9b152141-2e3f-4a2a-a73f-37b7a02738cb
The United States military is flexing its nuclear fleet of submarines in Western Australia.
The arrival of the USS North Carolina is the first visit since a landmark defence deal was signed earlier this year.
Australia is buying eight of the nuclear-powered Virginia class submarines in a deal costing $368 billion.
Australia’s Ambassador to the US Kevin Rudd was on Garden Island touring the 110-metre vessel which can go three months underwater.
WA will permanently house nuclear subs from next decade.
HMAS Stirling is set for an upgrade as thousands more submariners file through Perth.
The public is not allowed to know how long the North Carolina will be docked in Perth – that information is classified even from Australia’s defence minister.
However, there have been reassurances the AUKUS deal is watertight regardless of who is in the White House.
Advisor to the US secretary of defence Abe Denmark said there has been broad bipartisan support.
Rudd described the move as an opportunity to step up the capabilities of the Royal Australian Navy and the sovereign capabilities of Australia “in a highly uncertain period strategically”.
AUKUS, Australia and the drive to war
By John Minns, Aug 2, 2023 https://johnmenadue.com/aukus-australia-and-the-drive-to-war/
My fear is not that AUKUS SSNs, if they arrive, will be late, ineffective, and obsolete. My fear is that they will arrive and will be effective and even lethal. Because, if that is the case, they will play a part in the drive to a potentially devastating war with China that would be a disaster for the entire world.
This was a speech given at an anti-AUKUS protest at the ANU on 28 July 2023
Friends, I have been proud to have been part of a number of protests against the AUKUS alliance and the nuclear submarine deal that is part of it. However, to be truthful, I haven’t always completely agreed with everything that has been said at them.
I heard at one of the protests a speaker opposing the subs deal because they might never arrive, or might be delivered very late, or that, by then, they would be ineffective and obsolete. Apart from the enormous cost, my concern is not that they will be late or obsolete. My fear is that they will arrive and will be effective and even lethal. Because, if that is the case, they will play a part in the drive to a potentially devastating war with China that would be a disaster for the entire world.
In a war with China – what would victory look like? It would certainly not end, like the Second World War, with allied troops occupying Germany and Japan. Even to imagine Australian, British and US troops patrolling the streets of Shanghai is to realise what a ludicrous prospect that is. China – a vast and nuclear-armed country – is not going to be physically occupied.
Would victory mean that China’s dynamic economy would no longer stock the shelves of Kmart and the like around the world and that it would revert to a poor semi-agricultural country. Hardly – unless it is turned into a nuclear wasteland – it will clearly go on to be the largest economy in the world.
Would victory be the successful defence of Taiwan. Well, China has claimed Taiwan since 1949. But it has made no attempt to invade it. In any case, are we prepared to go to war to defend the independence of a place whose independence we don’t recognise and don’t support. It makes no sense.
Would victory mean that China is prevented from interfering in the affairs of other countries – something which every large or wealthy power does – including Australia in the Asia-Pacific. I study Latin America and, when US politicians talk about China’s interference in the domestic affairs of others, I hear, somewhere in my head, roars of bitterly ironic laughter from all over Latin America. Because the US has interfered in the affairs of every country in Latin America and the Caribbean – instigating coups, supporting military dictatorships, blockading harbours, embargoing trade and even military invasion. And it has done so for the last two hundred years – ever since President James Munro in 1823 proclaimed the doctrine that only the US had the right to interfere in the region.
Would victory mean that so-called Chinese military expansionism is halted. Well, it’s true that China has set up military bases on a number of artificial islands. But the US has around 750 foreign military bases in more than 80 countries. To my knowledge, China has one – in Djibouti. If bases and the ability to project military force is the problem, then China is not the main culprit.
Also, the US spends more on its military than the next 10 countries combined and most of them are US allies.
The chances of being killed by the US military are enormously higher than by any other country. A recent research project from Brown University in the US showed that, since 2001, about 900,000 people have been killed directly by the US military – nearly half of those were civilians. On top of that, what the project calls “the reverberating effects” of US military action – such as famine, destruction of sanitation, health care and other infrastructure has led to several times as many civilian deaths as caused directly.
Would victory in a war with China mean the successful defence of our trade routes and shipping lanes. Where do our trade routes and shipping lanes lead? Largely to China! So, would we fight China to defend our trade with China?
Another thing I’ve heard said that I disagree with is that the AUKUS deal might drag Australia into a war with China. Australia is not being dragged anywhere. The Australian government is eagerly jumping into this alliance – with eyes wide open – rather than being forced into something not of its own making.
There has never been a war conducted by our great and powerful friends that Australia has not been eager to join – whether to the Maori Wars in New Zealand, to Sudan and to South Africa in the 19th century, to the First and Second World Wars, to Korea, Malaysia, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq – twice. We should not be protesting calling for Australia’s independence – it is independent – we should be calling for it to use that independence to help halt the drive to war – rather than to enthusiastically join it.
I’ve heard some on the other side of this argument repeat the old cliché – “if you want peace, prepare for war”. It sounds good – a nice juxtaposition of opposites etc. But it is logical and historical rubbish. It is essentially the argument of the National Rifle Association of America. The NRA says that to be safe, we need to have everyone armed. Security comes from allowing all to buy AR-15 assault rifles. We know how that has worked out in practice. Preparing for war to ensure peace is the same argument on an international scale.
When we look at the great periods of arms build-up, we see that they led to war rather than peace. It was the case with the arms build-up – especially the naval build-up – before World War One, with rearmament in the 1930s, with the Cold War arms economy which was accompanied by very hot and devastating wars – in Vietnam and Korea for example – which were among the most destructive on a per capita basis in modern history..
The world today contains great possibilities. We have the resources and the human ingenuity to deal with some of our real problems – like housing, poverty, health, education, climate. Some of that ingenuity is right here at the ANU. Let us set that ingenuity to the task of solving the real problems which affect our lives and our society rather than to the exacting but grisly science of blowing human bodies apart.
Why The Niger Coup Has Sparked Concerns About Nuclear Power
Forbes, Ana Faguy, Forbes Staff, 1 Aug 23
When a coup left Niger’s democratically elected president detained and rebellious soldiers in charge of the West African nation last week, it also sparked concern about how the supply of uranium to European countries, used to fuel nuclear reactors, might be at risk —those fears materialized Monday when the junta reportedly said it was suspending exports if the heavy metal to France, but some European agencies are squashing those concerns and noting there’s enough uranium inventories to last a few years regardless of what happens in Niger.
While Niger only accounts for a small percentage of global production of uranium—about 5% according to the World Nuclear Association—it is a major supplier of uranium for France, which receives some 15% of its uranium supply from the Western African nation, according to Politico and the EU which gets more than 20% of its uranium from Niger, according to the Euratom Supply Agency.
The junta purportedly said it was suspending exports of uranium to France—Niger’s once longtime colonial ruler—immediately, the Financial Times reported Monday.
…………………………………EU officials have also tried to downplay concerns, with European Commission spokesman Adalbert Jahnz noting that EU utilities have sufficient inventories of natural uranium to mitigate short-term supply risks and “for the medium and long term there are enough deposits on the world market to cover the EU needs,” he said to AFP.
………………………………………..
The need for uranium in many European countries could prevent the EU from adopting nuclear sanctions against Russia, Phuc-Vinh Nguyen, an energy expert at the Jacques Delors Institute in Paris, told Politico. Uranium, and nuclear power more generally, is currently not subject to EU sanctions. If the supply of uranium decreases from Niger, then EU countries could look elsewhere to find supply. Meanwhile, Russia is one of the world’s largest uranium exporters, producing some 2,500 tons in 2022, according to the World Nuclear Association.
…………………………..If the militant leaders who took over in the coup—and expressed their dismay for how the Nigerien president has run the country—took Wagner up on his offer, it’s possible that his support could affect the amount of uranium supplied to the EU. https://www.forbes.com/sites/anafaguy/2023/08/01/why-the-niger-coup-has-sparked-concerns-about-nuclear-power/?sh=253224392738
What you won’t learn about in Oppenheimer: the potential effects of a nuclear winter
CBC Science What on Earth? James Westman 4vAug 23
“………………………………………………. One potential effect of the atom bomb wasn’t understood until years after the death of J. Robert Oppenheimer, the director of the Manhattan Project. Specifically, the concept of nuclear winter, which was first brought to the world’s attention by astrophysicist and author Carl Sagan in 1983.
Virtually every modern climate model has confirmed the initial findings: nuclear war would cool the planet.
“Nuclear weapons dropped on cities and industrial areas would produce fires, the fires would produce smoke, and that smoke would be lofted up into the stratosphere in a giant thunderstorm,” Alan Robock, a climate scientist at Rutgers University in New Jersey, said in a recent interview.
………………. “The basic physics are very simple: if you block out the sun, it gets cold at the ground,” Robock said. “We have analogues of that. We have nighttime, we have winter.”
…………………….. Why has the smoke from wildfires not caused global cooling? Unless smoke particles reach the stratosphere, they get washed out of the lower atmosphere by precipitation.
………………………..According to a 2007 paper, a nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia would send 150 million tonnes of black soot into the stratosphere, resulting in global average surface cooling of 7 C to 8 C that would persist for years. Even after a decade, the world would still be 4 C cooler.
This would be a massive problem for global food production. Countries at higher latitudes, like Canada, would be particularly hard hit by nuclear winter, since much of the country is already too cold for significant agriculture.
If you’re wondering if nuclear winter would stop global warming, you’re not alone. It’s a question Robock gets all the time. A full-scale nuclear war and a global famine resulting from nuclear winter would lead to the collapse of industrial society and human civilization. Robock said that if the U.S. and Russia had a nuclear war, it would largely halt carbon emissions, since most human activities would have ceased……………..
Human-caused climate change poses the threat of an average global temperature change of several degrees on the timescale of decades. Nuclear winter, on the other hand, poses that danger on the timescale of years — even within a year.
“A nuclear war’s impact on global food systems comes as a shock. It basically comes overnight. There’s no way to adapt,” said Jonas Jaegermeyr, a climate scientist and crop modeller who studies nuclear winter at Columbia University in New York.
A paper released last year in Nature Food found that up to 5.3 billion people would die from starvation two years after a full-scale nuclear exchange between the U.S. and Russia and the ensuing nuclear winter. (The paper also found 99 per cent of Canadians would starve to death.)
Clearly, nuclear winter is just about the worst way imaginable to stop global warming. It would replace steady planetary warming with abrupt planetary cooling.
“If you want to solve the global warming problem, the first answer is to just leave the fossil fuels in the ground and stop and use the sun and the wind [for power],” said Robock. “We have enough to power the world.” https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/what-on-earth-oppenheimer-nuclear-winter-climate-change-1.6926861
Veterans, descendants of nuclear testing era urged to apply for British medal
Sapeer Mayron, Stuuf NZ, Aug 05 2023
When 85-year-old Gerald ‘Gerry’ Wright was 19, he saw his own skeleton through his momentarily transparent skin.
He was standing on board a Royal New Zealand Navy frigate, hands over his eyes, 130 kilometres away from the spot a nuclear bomb was tested off Kiribati, then called Christmas Island.
As the bomb, Grapple Y, went off with the force of 3 mega tonnes of TNT it caused such intense radiation that Wright and his company saw the bones in their hands – even if only for a moment.
Wright was deployed to Operation Grapple: a British mission of nine nuclear tests all told between March 1957 and September 1958. Grapple Y was the largest nuclear weapon the British ever tested.
He joined in 1958, and witnessed five of the nine hydrogen bomb tests. His job: send a balloon skyward and monitor the weather, ensuring calm skies for the nuclear tests.
Along with some 500 other New Zealanders on Operation Grapple, Wright was exposed to dangerous levels of radiation, not only during the tests but afterwards when the nuclear cloud remained overhead.
If it rained – even through the bomb’s cloud – the Navy sailors were told to shower outside on the frigate deck to save on fresh water, he said.
In 2005, The New Zealand Nuclear Test Veterans’ Association commissioned Dr Al Rowland from Massey University to study 50 Operation Grapple veterans’ chromosomes.
His study “unequivocally” proved the effects of the radiation had long term effects on the veterans and their families.
Wright counts himself lucky he doesn’t face the cancers and health problems of so many of his peers, and doesn’t waste energy being angry about the exposure. “It’s a fact of life,” he said.
“It was quite spectacular. And at the time I personally was very pleased that here I was at the cutting edge of modern technology and very glad of what was going on.
“It was only later on we found there were lots of side effects.”
Now, 65 years after his deployment he’ll finally have a medal honouring his service.
In November 2022, the government of the United Kingdom announced it would be awarding medals to anyone – or anyone’s kin – involved in the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Test Programme between 1952 and 1967.
The medal itself is the result of a hard-fought campaign by non-government organisation Labrats International (which stands for Legacy of the Atomic Bomb. Recognition for Atomic Test Survivors).
Speaking from Wales, co-founder Alan Owen said they have been campaigning since 2020 for this medal………………………………………………..
Owen said whether nuclear weapons should even be used is a separate issue – honouring the people who served their country’s orders should be non-negotiable.
“A lot of them are suffering ill health. The few thousand that are left feel that they’re the lucky ones.”
But the work doesn’t end with the medal. Labrats are working to integrate the stories of nuclear veterans and the weapons testing era into the UK’s school curriculum and public education like in museums and libraries.
They also want compensation for veterans and their families, as well as the indigenous tribes of Pacific islands, New Zealand and Australia who were displaced or wrongfully treated during the tests.
“These indigenous tribes, especially in Australia that were just treated as third class citizens, and they were affected… they’ve received nothing.
“There needs to be a big plan and push for compensation across the communities affected by UK testing, definitely.”
It’s hoped the first medals will be delivered ahead of Remembrance Sunday 2023, November 12.
To apply for a medal, visit the UK Ministry of Defence website. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/132583004/veterans-descendants-of-nuclear-testing-era-urged-to-apply-for-british-medal
Is the US preparing to dump the proxy war in Ukraine so it can start another in Taiwan?
4 Aug 23 https://sputnikglobe.com/20230803/is-biden-preparing-to-dump-ukraine-for-taiwan-1112361859.html
US President Joe Biden is reportedly seeking congressional approval for financing military aid for Taiwan as part of the supplemental budget for Ukraine. What’s behind the move?
The White House is going to ask the US Congress to fund the arming of the island of Taiwan via the Ukraine budget in order to speed up weapons transfers to Taipei, as per Western media. The request followed the Biden administration’s announcement that the US would deliver $345 million worth of weapons to the island through a mechanism known as the “presidential drawdown authority.” The mechanism has long been used by the US to send arms to Ukraine.
Taiwan, an island located at the junction of the East and South China Seas in the northwestern Pacific Ocean, is regarded by Beijing as an inalienable part of the People’s Republic of China.
“Well, what it shows is that the Biden administration has no regard or concern for angering China,” Larry Johnson, a veteran of the CIA and the State Department’s Office of Counterterrorism, told Sputnik.
“China has made it very clear that it views any effort by the United States to provide weapons or military training to Taiwan as a direct threat to China. And for some reason, the Biden administration refuses to accept or acknowledge the position of the Chinese. In submitting this aid package, I don’t think the Biden administration will have any problem getting it passed. We’ve still not reached a point in the United States where there is opposition to funding the war in Ukraine, or the potential for war in China. So, I think it’s likely to go through, which means it’s going to make relations between China and the United States worse, not better.”
At the same time, the CIA veteran does not consider the development as lessening support for Ukraine. It’s likely that the Biden administration has come under pressure to show support for Taiwan, per Johnson. The expert sees the funding maneuver “as a convenient legislative vehicle to get approval for the funding in a way that expedites it, doesn’t delay it.”
“I’m still not clear that it represents a cut in funds for Ukraine and a shifting of those funds to Taiwan. I think it’s more a function of the US legislative process, that Congress must appropriate money before the administration, in theory, can spend it. Because this legislation had already been presented, they were able, I think, decided to carve out some of the funds in that for Taiwan, because they had made prior commitments to Taiwan to provide some kind of support,” Johnson explained.
China has repeatedly urged the US to stop escalating tensions in the Taiwan Strait. Nonetheless, US government officials and congressional leaders continue to send mixed signals to the island and meet with Taiwan’s leadership. Furthermore, the US is encouraging its allies to beef up their military presence in the Asia Pacific, citing the “China threat” to the island. To cap it off, President Joe Biden has repeatedly pledged to protect Taiwan “militarily,” with the White House then downplaying his vows as gaffes. Why is Washington continuing to develop the conflict around Taiwan?
“Well, because, number one, the United States continues to believe that it is the most powerful country in the world and can dictate to other countries reality. It’s a consequence of arrogance and hubris. The United States refuses to accept the fact that China and Russia have an equal say in matters. And I think, unfortunately, the United States, if it persists in taking actions like this, will provoke a conflict that will be very damaging to the United States and will weaken it, not make it stronger. The United States can’t even fund the one proxy war in Ukraine right now. It’s been losing. It can’t provide sufficient artillery shells, for example. The United States fails to recognize that it’s reached the limits of its power,” Johnson concluded.
Sellafield seeks partners for £4.8bn nuclear decommissioning works
Sellafield seeks partners for £4.8bn decommissioning works. The plant is
looking for up to five partners for the works, which are spread across four
Lots and include remediation, decommissioning and demolition works.
The contract would last for 15 years between 2025 and 2040. The work is being
tendered via the Decommissioning and Nuclear Waste Partners (DNWP)
framework, and has an estimated value which ranges from £3.8bn to a
maximum of £4.6bn. The tender document calls for contractors to be able to
provide a “full suite of expertise and support to deliver decommissioning
activities and projects, including asset care”. The Lots include works in
high security areas, a retrieval partner and an integrated nuclear waste
partner.
New Civil Engineer 1st Aug 2023
Judge tosses charges against executive in South Carolina nuclear debacle, but case may not be over
A judge has ordered criminal charges dropped against the final executive
accused of lying about problems building two nuclear reactors in South
Carolina that were abandoned without generating a watt of power. The judge
tossed the charges Wednesday because ratepayers of the utility that lost
billions of dollars on the project were improperly allowed on the grand
jury that indicted Westinghouse Electric Co. executive Jeffrey Benjamin.
But federal judge Mary Geiger Lewis also ruled that nothing is stopping
prosecutors from properly seeking another indictment.
Daily Mail 3rd Aug 2023
The High Costs and Failures of Nuclear Reactors
By Daniel Hall, AUG 1, 2023, https://www.energyportal.eu/news/how-the-nuclear-renaissance-robs-and-roasts-our-earth/114376/?fbclid=IwAR05EPwAT7OGRqi6JWQM56S9G0B8D7o5_cpqKBFU3KGCp2Z45NJ9azxfbCo
Every day, nuclear reactors emit radiation and heat, affecting the environment and contributing to climate change. In Ukraine, the threat of an apocalyptic event looms as six reactors and their fuel pools are in a precarious state. Requests for United Nations intervention have become increasingly desperate. Despite these dangers, proponents of a “nuclear renaissance” argue for more reactors to combat climate change.
However, the reality is that new reactors come with significant costs, and for the next six years, they are unlikely to produce any positive commercial or ecological impacts. The main reason for the lack of new reactors in the United States until at least 2030 is the exorbitant cost of construction.
There have been eight major construction failures in recent years in Europe and the U.S., showcasing the industry’s lack of progress. Reactor projects have gone over budget, experienced delays, and encountered numerous issues in execution, design, and labor disputes. For example, the VC Summer Nuclear Station in South Carolina wasted $10 billion and bankrupted Westinghouse due to a decade of faulty construction and mismanagement. Similarly, the Vogtle reactors in Georgia are seven years behind schedule and $20 billion over budget.
These failures highlight the industry’s inability to compete with renewable energy sources. The prices of renewables have significantly decreased and are now a fraction of the cost of nuclear power. Additionally, old-style nuclear reactors take a decade or more to build, offering no solutions in the immediate future.
To sustain the aging fleet of reactors, state and local governments have been providing financial support, which is risky and desperate. Billions of dollars have been pledged to nuclear energy plants in President Biden’s infrastructure bill alone. However, the average age of U.S. reactors is around 40, and they remain uninsured against catastrophic accidents despite promises made in the 1957 Price-Anderson Act. The potential costs of such accidents, as seen in Chernobyl and Fukushima, could reach trillions of dollars.
As these reactors age, their dangers and risks increase. Some plants are located near fault lines, others struggle with cooling their reactor cores due to hot rivers, and some face water scarcity issues. Furthermore, the owner of the Diablo Canyon plant in California, Pacific Gas & Electric, has a tarnished safety record and has admitted to manslaughter charges related to wildfires in the state.
In conclusion, the high costs, construction failures, and increasing risks associated with nuclear reactors make them an unsustainable and dangerous option. The future lies in renewable energy sources, which offer cheaper and safer alternatives to combat climate change.
UK government pours yet another lot of tax-payer £millions into Sizewell C nuclear project
The UK Government has announced a further £170 million investment in
Sizewell C, with hopes that it will speed up preparations to enable
construction on the new nuclear power station.
Late last year it was rumoured that Sizewell C could be on the chopping block as the UK
Government scrambled to find cost savings, however now the Government is
looking to spend a further £170 million to ensure construction can begin
as soon as possible. That’s on top of the £700 million that’s already
been pledged towards the construction of Sizewell C by the UK Government.
The additional £170 million is set to be used to prepare the Sizewell C
site for future construction, procure key components from the project’s
supply chain, and expand its workforce.
Electrical Review 3rd Aug 2023
Aggressive U.S. Push for Military Supremacy in the Arctic Could Trigger Nuclear War
Covert Action Magazine By Jeremy Kuzmarov, July 14, 2023 (Excellent pictures on original.)
From 1959 to 1966, the U.S. illegally stored nuclear weapons in Greenland in preparation for a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union and built an underground scientific research center right out of a James Bond movie.
It resulted in the displacement of natives and has left a residue of environmental destruction in the Arctic that will likely be compounded in Cold War Part II.
On June 2, Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced that the U.S. would open its northernmost diplomatic station in the Norwegian Arctic town of Tromsoe, the only diplomatic station above the Arctic Circle. .
The move comes as competition over the Arctic’s resources with Russia intensifies as polar ice melt opens access to rich mineral resources and the new Cold War heats up.
In 2019, then-President Donald Trump had talked about purchasing Greenland in “the real estate deal of a lifetime” that would help secure a land mass a quarter of the size of the U.S.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen called the offer “absurd,” saying that Greenland was not for sale. (Denmark is Greenland’s sovereign owner.)
Beyond Trump’s self-aggrandizement lay a calculating imperial strategy in which the U.S. would use Greenland, where the U.S. already possesses the Thule Air Base, to project its power into the Arctic—a growing arena of geopolitical and military competition.
In 2018, China launched the Polar Silk Road initiative which sought to align Chinese Arctic interests with the Belt and Road initiative involving the building of new infrastructure and interlinking of China’s economy with its regional allies and countries around the world.
As part of the Silk Road initiative, China began creating new freight routes extending into the Arctic that would better enable extraction of natural resources while launching a new satellite to track shipping routes and monitor changes in sea ice there.
The Russians have also been busy expanding shipping routes into the Arctic that are navigable because of global warming, and have finished equipping six military bases on Russia’s northern shore and on outlying Arctic Island, while planning to open 10 Arctic search-and-rescue stations, 16 deep-water ports, 13 air fields, and 10 air-defense radar stations across its Arctic periphery.
The New York Times reported last year that, in response to Russia’s military build-up near the Arctic Circle, the U.S. government has been investing hundreds of millions of dollars to expand the port at Nome on the west coast of Alaska, which could transform into a deep-water hub servicing Coast Guard and Navy vessels navigating into the Arctic Circle.
The Pentagon has further plans to increase its presence and capabilities, with the Army releasing its first strategic plan for “Regaining Arctic Dominance.” The U.S. Air Force has transferred dozens of F-35 fighter jets to Alaska, announcing that the state will host “more advanced fighters than any other location in the world.”[1]
Until now, competition in the Arctic was largely mediated through the Arctic Council, founded in 1996, which includes Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the U.S., and promotes research and cooperation. But it does not have a security component, and soon all members but Russia will be North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members.
Admiral Alexander Moiseyev, commander of Peter the Great, the flagship of the Russian Northern Fleet, accused NATO forces and the U.S. of military actions in the Arctic that increased the risk of conflict.
“There haven’t been so many of their forces here for years. Decades. Not since World War Two,” he told a BBC reporter who told him that NATO blamed Russia for the surge in tension. “We see such activity as provocative so close to the Russian border where we have very important assets. By that, I mean nuclear forces.”
First Ice Cold War
Kristian H. Nielsen and Henry Nielsen,[2] in their recent book Camp Century: The Untold Story of America’s Secret Arctic Military Base Under the Greenland Ice, show that today’s perilous situation has roots in the original Cold War period.
U.S. army engineers then built the subterranean city, Camp Century, under the Greenland ice near the Arctic Circle under the guise of conducting polar research, and explored the feasibility of Project Iceworm, a plan to store and launch hundreds of ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads targeting the Soviet Union from inside the ice.
Described by two Danish journalists as “some monstrous figment of the imagination that could have been featured in an early James Bond film,”[3] Project Iceworm was justified under the 1950s military doctrine of “massive retaliation,” and the Eisenhower administration’s “New Look” policy which advocated for a massive conventional and nuclear arms build-up to counter potential Soviet aggression…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
“The City Under Ice”—A Science-Fiction Scenario Come True
In 1960, the U.S. Army began initiating research projects near Camp Thule at the underground, nuclear-powered Camp Century, which was established as a kind of science-fiction scenario come true.
The projects aimed to understand the environment and climate on the ice sheet, thereby enabling the U.S. to better establish and secure its northernmost military position…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The sub-surface installation of a nuclear reactor within the Greenland ice sheet at Camp Century was an enormous and difficult engineering endeavor that was an astonishing achievement…………………………………….
Almost all of the journalists invited to visit Camp Century in the early 1960s celebrated the major scientific achievements while minimizing the Cold War context and military purposes behind the camp.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. an American journalist writing under the pseudonym “Ivan Colt” who, in an article appearing in October 1960, included a vivid description of missile-launching bases beneath the surface of the ice sheet that would be “able to plaster every major Soviet city, H-bomb depot and missile plant.”
Audacious Cold War Project
In 1997, a group of Danish historians were able to locate a classified document proving that the U.S. saw Camp Century as the first step toward a colossal sub-surface tunnel system that would enable the U.S. Army to launch a nuclear-missile strike at virtually any target in the Soviet Union.[10]
These missiles would be protected because of their distance from the U.S. mainland, and location in a secret underground facility……………………………………………………………………………………………..
Health and Environmental Detritus and the Dangers of History Repeating Itself
Camp Century was shut down in 1966, as its sub-surface tunnel system in the Greenland ice sheet was extremely difficult and costly to maintain and the development of Polaris nuclear missiles launchable from submarines made it largely obsolete. However, its remains may soon resurface because of global warming.
Greenland, today a largely self-governing part of Denmark, threatened to bring the case before the UN International Court of Justice if Denmark did not promptly assume responsibility for cleaning up the Camp Century site.
The remaining debris, some 35-70 meters (115-230 feet) beneath the surface of the ice, is known to include not only buildings and structural elements but also radioactive, chemical and biological waste.[12]
Over the years, many workers at Thule Air Base had developed cancers from radiation exposure, as did members of a clean-up crew that was called in to collect snow contaminated with plutonium for transport to the U.S. after a B-52 Stratofortress carrying hydrogen bombs crashed seven kilometers from Thule Air Base in 1968.[13]
The health and environmental detritus is an example of a vast and unrecognized cost of the Cold War arms race that is sadly being reinvigorated today.
As Russia, China and the U.S. compete for renewed control over the Arctic and set up yet more military bases there, the fallout will again be considerable even if the nukes are never deployed, and the tragedy of Camp Century will be repeated.
References: …………………………………………….more https://covertactionmagazine.com/2023/07/14/aggressive-u-s-push-for-military-supremacy-in-the-arctic-could-trigger-nuclear-war/?mc_cid=f5762ce44c&mc_eid=65917fb94b
Dangers of Tritium
by Karl H Grossman, August 01, 2023 https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/8/1/2184519/-Dangers-of-Tritium
The two nuclear reactors at Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island, New York were shut down in the late 1990s because they had been leaking tritium into the water table below, part of the island’s aquifer system on which more than 3 million people depend on as their sole source of potable water.
BNL was established on a former Army base in 1947 by the then U.S. Atomic Energy Commission to develop civilian uses of nuclear technology and do atomic research.
BNL scientists were upset with the U.S. Department of Energy over the closures. BNL has been a DOE facility in the wake of the elimination of the AEC by the U.S. Congress in 1974 for being in conflict of interest for having two missions, promoting and also regulating nuclear technology.
The water table below BNL flows partly into a community named Shirley.
Welcome to Shirley: A Memoir of an Atomic Town is a 2008 book by Kelly McMasters, a professor at Hofstra University on Long Island, who grew up in Shirley.
In it she tells of widespread cancer in Shirley noting how BNL was designated as a high-pollution Superfund site in 1989 “with soil and drinking water contaminated with Cesium 137, Plutonium 239, Radium 226, and Europium 154, as well as underground plumes of tritium stretching out towards my town.”
BNL scientists in the wake of the closure of its two reactors because of the tritium leaks minimized their health impacts noting that tritium is used in exit signs—begging the question of why a radioactive substance is used in exit signs.
Now, tritium has become a major international issue with the Japanese government planning to release 1.3 million tons of water containing tritium into the Pacific Ocean from the site of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plants.
It’s also been a hot issue in New York State where Holtec International has a plan to dump tritium-contaminated water from the decommissioned Indian Point nuclear power plants, which it owns, into the Hudson River. A number of communities along Hudson River depend on the river for their potable water.
Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen. As the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in its “Backgrounder on Tritium” acknowledges: “Like normal hydrogen, tritium can bond with oxygen to form water. When this happens, the resulting ‘tritiated’ water is radioactive. Tritiated water…is chemically identical to normal water and the tritium cannot be filtered out of the water.”
Regarding the use of tritium in exit signs, what’s that about?
As the website of a company called Self Luminous Exit Signs, which sell signs using tritium for $202.95 each, says: “World War II created the demand for glowing emergency exits in ships, submarines, barracks and bombers where battery power was unavailable.”
Something that grew out of war was commercialized afterwards—as has nuclear technology been generally.
As to dangers, in a posting titled “Tritium in Exit Signs,” the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says: “Tritium is a radioactive isotope that needs special handling procedures. Tritium is most dangerous when it is inhaled or swallowed. Many exit signs contain tritium….Tritium exit signs are marked with a permanent warning label. Tritium exit signs are useful because they do not require a traditional power source such as batteries or hardwired electricity.”
“No radiation is emitted from a working, unbroken, tritium exit sign,” EPA goes on.
Damage to tritium exit signs is most likely to occur when a sign is dropped during installation or smashed into the demolition of a building. If a tritium exit sign is damaged, the tritium could be released….If a tritium exit sign is broken, never tamper with it. Leave the area immediately and call for help.”
Adds EPA: “Unwanted tritium exit signs may not be put into ordinary trash; they require special disposal. Tritium exit signs that are illegally put in ordinary landfills can break and contaminate the site.”
Further, says the Conference of Radiation Control Programs, Inc. on its posting headed “Tritium Exit Signs Present a Challenge in Handling and Disposal,” they “must be isolated from other wastes during disposal, since they may and often do contaminate scrap metal from demolition sites. For this reason, tritium exit signs are regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and proper disposal of the signs is required once they are no longer used. “
It goes on: “While many large commercial and government entities are aware of the requirements for use and disposal, many small businesses are unaware of the NRC requirements, leading to the improper disposal of tritium exit signs industrial or municipal landfills, or worse, their being sold over the internet. An estimated 2 million tritium exit signs have been sold in the U.S. The number of signs in use now and where they are located is unknown, given that there is limited tracking of the purchase, use, or disposal of the signs and that tritium exit signs have a usable life ranging from ten to twenty years.”
Also, says the organization: “Should a tritium exit sign—which contains tritium-filled glassed tubes—break, its contents could pose a risk to those located in the near vicinity. They could be exposed to tritium gas or tritiated water from the tritium that has escaped into the environment. Cleaning up tritium after an accident could be costly, especially for small businesses. Worker or public exposure to tritium also could present unwanted and unnecessary liabilities.”
So it goes regarding the very real dangers of tritium exit signs.
For a broader review of the hazards of tritium, this year a book, Tritium’s Danger, was published, authored by Dr. Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. His Ph.D. involved a specialization in nuclear fusion, on which the hydrogen bomb is based. The hydrogen bomb’s fusion process utilizes tritium. And, if fusion is ever developed as an energy source—and an enormous effort has been underway for years to do that—tritium would play a major part.
“Makhijani makes it clear that the impacts of tritium on human health, especially when it is taken inside the body, warrant much more attention and control than they have received until now,” writes Robert Alvarez in his review of Tritium’s Danger in the June 26, 2023 issue of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Alvarez, senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, served as senior policy adviser to the Department of Energy’s secretary and was deputy assistant secretary for national security and the environment from 1993 to 1999.
Tritium, relates Alvarez, “is one of the most expensive, rare, and potentially harmful elements in the world.”
“Although its rarity and usefulness in some applications give it a high monetary value, tritium is also a radioactive contaminant that has been released widely to the air and water from nuclear power and spent nuclear fuel reprocessing plants,” Alvarez goes on. “Makhijani points out that ‘one teaspoon of tritiated water would contaminate about 100 billion gallons of water to the U.S. drinking water limit; that is enough to supply about 1 million homes with water for a year.”
“Since the 1990s, about 70 percent of the nuclear power plant sites in the United States (43 out of 61 sites) have had significant tritium leaks that contaminated groundwater in excess of federal drinking water limits,” writes Alvarez.
“The most recent leak occurred in November 2022, involving 400,000 gallons of tritium-contaminated water from the Monticello nuclear station in Minnesota. The leak was kept from the public for several months….A good place to start limiting the negative effects of tritium contamination, Makhijani recommends, is to significantly tighten drinking water standards,” says Alvarez.
“Routine releases of airborne tritium are also not trivial,” writes Alvarez. As part of his “well-researched” book, says Alvarez, “Makhijani underscores this point by including a detailed atmospheric dispersion study that he commissioned, indicating that tritium from the Braidwood Nuclear Power Plant in Illinois has literally raining down from gaseous releases—as it incorporates with precipitation to form tritium oxide—something that occurs at water cooled reactors. Spent fuel storage pools are considered the largest source of gaseous tritium releases.”
And Alvarez, who not only has long experience as an official with the Department of Energy but for years was senior investigator for the U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, states: “In past decades, regulators have papered over the tritium-contamination problem by asserting, when tritium leakage becomes a matter of public concern, that the tritium doses humans might receive are too small to be of concern. Despite growing evidence that tritium is harmful in ways that fall outside the basic framework for radiation protection, agencies such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission remain frozen in time when it comes to tritium regulation. The NRC and other regulating agencies are sticking to an outdated premise that tritium is a ‘mild’ radioactive contaminant….Overall, the NRC implies its risk of tritium ingestion causing cancer is small.”
As for the dumping of 1.3 million tons of tritium-contaminated water into the Pacific from the Fukushima site, this is being opposed in the Pacific region and is focused upon in a just-released film documentary, “The Fukushima Disaster: The Hidden Side of the Story.”
After the 2011 disaster, Tokyo Electric Power Company, the owner of the Fukushima plants, released 300,000 tons of tritium-contaminated water into the Pacific, notes the film. A thousand tanks were eventually built for holding tritium-contaminated water which continues to leak from the plants. But now there is no room for additional tanks. So the 1.3 million tons of tritium-contaminated water are proposed to be discharged over 30 years into the Pacific.
In the documentary, Andrew Napuat, a member of the Parliament of the nation of Vanuatu, an 83-island archipelago in the Pacific, says: “We have the right to say no to the Japan solution. We can’t let them jeopardize our sustenance and livelihood.”
“China condemns Japanese plan to release Fukushima water,” was the headline of an Associated Press report. It quoted a Foreign Ministry spokesperson as saying it “concerns the global marine environment and public health, which is not a private matter for the Japanese side.”
Sean Burnie, a senior nuclear specialist with Greenpeace who has been involved in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster, is quoted in the Guardian as describing as “scientifically bankrupt” the claim the tritium would not pose a health risk. “It is internal exposure to organically bound tritium that is the problem—when it gets inside fish, seafood, and then humans. When tritium gets inside cells, it can do damage. Tepco and the Japanese government are making a conscious decision to increase marine pollution with radioactivity, and they have no idea where that will lead.”
The International Atomic Energy Agency is supporting the scheme. However, the agency was established by the UN as an international version of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission with its mission, like that of the AEC, to promote nuclear technology—as the IAEA statute says “to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy”—while also regulating it, a continuation of nuclear conflict interest but on the international level.
Back in the U.S.A., some 138 groups organized in a Stop Holtec Coalition have been calling on New York Governor Kathy Hochul to stop Holtec’s plan to dump a million gallons of tritium-contaminated water into the Hudson River.
A letter they sent to the governor says “we are deeply concerned about the impacts on the health and safety of local resident, the river’s ecosystem, and local economy. The Hudson Valley region is densely populated and also serves as a recreational area for millions from New York City and across the state…The Indian Point nuclear power plant was rightfully shuttered in 2021, yet the spent fuel pool wastewater remaining on the site contains radioactive contaminants, including tritium. Exposure to tritium is linked to cancer, miscarriages, genetic defects and other health effects.”
Organizations signing the letter include Food & Water Watch, Grassroots Environmental Education, Hudson Riverkeeper, Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition and Promoting Health and Sustainable Energy.
There was legislation passed in the New York State Assembly in June and in the State Senate in May banning “the discharge of any radiological agent into the waters of the state.”
There have been demonstrations protesting the plan, a petition drive with more than 400,00 signatures, and resolutions passed by local governments opposing the release. The first was passed unanimously in March by the Westchester Board of Legislators. It noted how “pre-release treatment would not remove tritium” from water, that tritium is “carcinogenic” and that “there are seven communities” that “source their drinking water from the Hudson.” The Indian Point plants are in Westchester County, 25 miles north of New York City.
US cluster munitions will bring more pain and death to Donbass civilians, and Washington doesn’t care
Eva Bartlett, 1 Aug 23, https://www.rt.com/russia/580623-us-cluster-ukraine-civilians/
Kiev will use its newly received weapons to target residential areas, just as it has for the past nine years.
The recent US decision to send cluster munitions to Ukraine is immoral, unethical, and criminal. We’ve already seen the horrific results of the use of such weapons – civilians mutilated and murdered (often decades later) in Iraq and Southeast Asia, for example, and in Lebanon.
In addition to the ethical reasons not to send these weapons to Ukraine, there are pragmatic reasons why, from a military perspective. They are pointless for Ukraine, in spite of Western promises that they will “do more damage across a larger area than standard unitary artillery shells by releasing bomblets, or submunitions.”
In reality, while covering a wider area than a conventional high explosive munition, the cluster bomblets do not inflict more powerful damage, certainly not against Russian fortified positions. Their use is mainly for targeting troops in the open and lightly armoured vehicles. Not a game changer for Kiev.
According to former US Marine Corps intelligence officer Scott Ritter, “these are the worst weapon in the world for trench warfare. With trench warfare, you need a high explosive round that collapses bunkers, that collapses trenches.”
If the US knows that cluster munitions won’t change facts on the ground for Ukraine, why is it sending them? Because, as President Joe Biden himself has said, Ukraine is “running out of ammunition and we’re low on it.” So, the US might as well offload its old stock of cluster munitions. They will not, as Biden claimed, “stop those tanks from rolling.” Nor will they – as the Biden administration claims – “save civilian lives.” They will almost certainly be used to kill, maim, and terrorize more Donbass civilians immediately and for years to come.
US Colonel Douglas Macgregor has emphasized that the cluster munitions have a high dud rate. According to Ritter, close to 40% of them fail to explode. Macgregor also highlighted how children are “attracted to these bright shiny objects that look like baseballs,” so insidious is their design.
US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan assures us that Kiev will not misuse the clusters. He claims that “Ukraine is committed to post-conflict de-mining efforts to mitigate any potential harm to civilians,” and that “Ukraine has provided written assurances that it is going to use these in a very careful way that is aimed at minimizing any risk to civilians.”
The US never signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions – which prohibits all use, production, transfer, and stockpiling of cluster munitions – but didn’t mind virtue signalling its abhorrence of them when it lobbed accusations against Russia (also not a signatory of the convention) on February 28, 2022, with Biden’s then press secretary, Jen Psaki, calling the use of cluster munitions a potential “war crime.”
As usual, it’s a heinous war crime when a US enemy supposedly does it, but not when an ally – or the US itself – actually does. As for Ukraine’s feeble promises to not use the cluster munitions against civilians, it has already been doing so since 2014.
Ukraine’s history of cluster-bombing civilians
By way of a personally witnessed example, in late March 2022, I visited the site of a Ukrainian missile attack that earlier that month had killed 22 civilians and injured 33 more. Because the Ukrainian-fired Tochka-U missile was intercepted, not all of its 50 cassettes of cluster munitions inside exploded in the city streets. Otherwise, the bloodbath would have been much worse. Then, in April 2022, Ukrainian forces targeted a railway station in Kramatorsk, likewise firing a Tochka-U with a cluster munition, killing a reported 50 people. Western media predictably accused Russia of the war crime, although investigations showed the missile emanated from Ukrainian-held territory to the southwest.
But like most of Kiev’s war crimes against Donbass civilians, its use of cluster munitions didn’t start in 2022. Back in 2014, Human Rights Watch (HRW) reported on Ukrainian government forces’ use of cluster munitions in populated areas in Donetsk city. An October 2 attack on the centre of Donetsk that included the use of cluster munition rockets killed an employee of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).
The New York Times likewise reported that on several occasions in October 2014, “the Ukrainian Army appears to have fired cluster munitions into the heart of Donetsk, unleashing a weapon banned in much of the world into a rebel-held city with a peacetime population of more than one million.” Citing physical evidence and interviews with witnesses and victims, the newspaper wrote there were “clear signs that cluster munitions had been fired from the direction of army-held territory.”
Ukrainian ‘petal mines’ continue to maim
But these aren’t the only clusters Ukraine has fired on Donbass civilians. In fact, over the course of last year, I documented the aftermath of Ukraine firing rockets containing cassettes of internationally-banned PFM-1 “petal” mines, over 300 of the mines per rocket.
Due to their design, they generally glide to the ground without exploding, until someone or something steps on or otherwise disturbs them.
According to authorities in the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR), Ukraine began firing these tiny, indiscriminate mines on March 6, 2022, during the battles for Mariupol, and then from May 18, 2022, into DPR and Kharkov Region settlements.
Since first documenting the aftermath of Ukraine’s use of the mines in central Donetsk in late July, 2022, I’ve interviewed victims, and reported on the painstaking work of Russian sappers to locate and destroy the mines. As of July 25 this year, 124 civilians have been injured by the mines, including ten children. Three civilians died as a result of their injuries.
Western weapons used to kill Donbass civilians
It should be mentioned that over the course of its now nine-year war against Donbass, Ukraine has been using conventional NATO munitions to slaughter and maim civilians. The high explosive shells Ukraine fires throughout Donbass cities and towns, but also countless times in the very heart of Donetsk, tear people apart, leaving mangled bodies and remains on streets and sidewalks, and in marketplaces.
On July 22, Ukrainian forces allegedly shelled Russian journalists in Zaporozhye Region with cluster munitions, killing one and injuring three others.
These deliberate attacks on the media, on civilians’ homes, hospitals, infrastructure, and on civilians themselves should be condemned as loudly as Ukraine’s firing of petal mines and of cluster munitions in general. But the US announcement that it would send cluster munitions to Ukraine resulted in some mild tutting from other Western nations, but no seriously strong condemnation. Canada is one of the nations voicing at least some objection to sending cluster bombs, the leadership in Ottawa probably feeling it ought to mildly protest, given Canada’s convention.
The Canadian government recently stated that it is fully against the use of cluster munitions and is “committed to putting an end to the effects cluster munitions have on civilians – particularly children.” Yet aside from polite grumblings regarding the US clusters, I’ve seen no Canadian condemnation of Ukraine’s repeated use of cluster munitions on the civilians of Donbass.
But the real criminals here are the US government, which knows sending its cluster munitions won’t actually help Ukraine fight the Russian military in any tangible way, but that it is highly likely Ukraine will instead use them against Donbass civilians. Apparently, that’s just fine with the crocodile-tear-crying US hypocrites.
-
Archives
- August 2023 (60)
- July 2023 (364)
- June 2023 (324)
- May 2023 (344)
- April 2023 (348)
- March 2023 (308)
- February 2023 (379)
- January 2023 (388)
- December 2022 (277)
- November 2022 (335)
- October 2022 (363)
- September 2022 (259)
-
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 