Don’t fall for the nuclear lobby’s lie about climate change – theme for September 16
The global nuclear lobby’s current favourite lie is the one about climate change. (they rotate their lies – the next big push will probably be about how “low dose ionising radiation is good for you”
The last thing that we need is to direct money and energy to the nuclear industry, and away from renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Fukushima Radioactive Contamination of Tap Water in Eastern Japan
The measures quoted in this article are from the Japan Nuclear Regulatory Agency.
As every measure given by the Japanese government agencies and Tepco during the past 5 and half years, we have the right to question their exactitude and therefore the true numbers could be actually higher than the ones published.
still the fact remains that they do recognize a certain contamination of the tap water in many prefectures of Eastern Japan.
Radioactivity testing of tap water in June 2016
According to the radioactivity test of tap water, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency announced in June 2016 that there is some radioactivity contamination from Fukushima nuclear power plant accident in the tap water of Miyagi Prefecture, Yamagata Prefecture, Fukushima Prefecture, Ibaraki Prefecture, Tochigi Prefecture, Gunma Prefecture, Saitama Prefecture, Chiba Prefecture, Tokyo, Kanagawa Prefecture, Niigata Prefecture, where radioactive cesium has been slightly detected.
(The detection limit value of White Food: 0.5 Bq / kg).
For Tokyo traces of both Cesium 134 and Cesium 137 were detected, proving with certainty that they are from the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident.
As a result, we make sure it is not detected by the detection limit value of 0.0001 Bq / kg. So we have to check the non-detection in strontium inspection that is only carried out in the mineral water industry.
We believe that the one of the products that you sould really worry is the water that you drink every day.
Information Source: Nuclear Regulatory Agency (→ link http://radioactivity.nsr.go.jp/ja/list/194/list-201606.html)
Readings of radioactivity level in drinking water by prefecture (January-March, 2016）
1.本データは、１Bq/LをBq/kgとみなす [1.These figures are estimated as 1Bq/liter = 1Bq/kg]
2.原子力規制委員会が各都道府県等からの報告に基づき作成 [2.The table was made by Nuclear Regulation Authority, based on the reports from prefectures.]
3.検出下限値は、 I-131、Cs-134、Cs-137すべて0.001Bq/kg未満 [3.The detection limits of I-131, Cs-134 and Cs-137 are less than 0.001Bq/kg]
（参考）水道水中の放射性物質に係る指標の見直しについて（厚生労働省）における水道水中の新たな目標値 放射性セシウム（セシウム134及び137の合計） ：10Bq/kg [（Ref.）[Document created by Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare］ [Radioactive cesium (The sum of cesium134 and 137) ：10Bq/kg]
情報元 ： 原子力規制庁（→リンク http://radioactivity.nsr.go.jp/ja/list/194/list-201606.html）
Cesium level is highest in Tokyo tap water
https://news.whitefood.co.jp/news/foodmap/7290/
East Japan Soil Measurement Project of Minna no Data, Dec.2015 to Sept. 2016
Source: http://www.minnanods.net/soil/pref17_colored/map17.html
East Japan Soil Measurement Project of Minna no Data Site
About This Project
It’s time to cooperate
When we started up MDS (Minna no Data Site, Everyone’s Data Site) we constructed inclusive and shared system on measuring data of food as the first stage, as there were many people who were concerned about food intake.
However, we planned to launch the measuring data of soil as a second stage after intensively equipped the system on food.
In autumn 2014, after one year from opening of MDS, we start up to platform soil measurement data. We, as citizens, try to start to map the status of soil contamination spread over East Japan.
The following is the reason why we stand up to start the East Japan Soil Becquerel Measurement Project. Objectives, outline and methodology of the project is explained.
Outline
In the Project, the method of collection is standardized in order to make comparison of data from multiple measurement laboratories. The Manual for Collection is developed by considering the easiest method of measurement within the limits of keeping accuracy, because many citizens conduct collection and measurement by themselves.
Collected soil is measured by the participating measuring laboratories of MDS. The result becomes open to the public and the report is sent to the collector.
Objectives
Radioactivity contamination by the accident of Tepko Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant is long term lasting.
The soil contamination map of broader areas is needed to understand contamination of neighborhood by measurement and comparison of data.
Though central and local governments conduct soil researches, those researches are insufficient because the value is lower by measuring deep place, or they measure only air dose.
As they decide the spot of measurement by mesh, the data what citizens want to know is lacking.
In our Project, we aim to grasp status of contamination where citizens make living every day. For example, place where children frequently play, where people pick wild grass, or where farmers work is being measured.
The Project aims that people can access necessary information as much as possible by utilizing data and database and by accumulating information which one can find at a glance and can search at ease.
We hope the result would be used as a tool for action for everyone.
Methodology
■ The depth of collection is from 0 to 5 cm, because most of cesium stays within 5 cm from surface of the earth.
Collection of soil should be conducted when it does not rain for several days, in order to avoid weight error caused by water. Less than 10 percent of moisture content is desirable.
■ Spot for collection is set at higher dose spot by measuring rate of air dose (1m、5cm).
The extreme high spot such as micro hot spots and concentrated environment are excluded.
■ Collection is made by a method to compare results of each place.
■ Samples are measured at the participating laboratories of MDS.
・Measurement accuracy of those laboratories is ensured by the MDS original examination.
・The results are accumulated in the common database.
■ The result sof measurement are open to public on MDS. MDS has Japanese and English site.
■ Mapping of data is planned after gathering enough results.
■ Trial calculation of amount of radioactivity by a square meter is planned to be conducted. (Becquerel/ Kg →Becquerel /square meter)
Target areas：17prefectures in east-Japan
Tohoku : Aomori Iwate Akita Miyagi Yamagata Fukushima
Kanto : Ibaragi Tochigi Gunma Saitama Chiba Tokyo Kanagawa
Chubu : Yamanashi Nagano Shizuoka Nigata
* In Iwate, the Soil Project Iwate had implemented measurement at more than 300 spots in 2012 and 2013.
The project activity will be made starting from requested districts. Individuals, groups and any organization such as school and daycare can participate in measurement of proposed spots. Proposing more than 5 spots are desirable.
The measurement spots will be decided after consultation basically in the same municipality.
★ How to support us：
Collection of samples, payment of 2,000yen for measurement of one sample, payment of actual postage for samples.
★ How to feed back :
Sending result of measurement of the spots including spectrum, Reading and downloading data at MDS.
Support our site and project!
To those of you who are viewing this site from overseas, Thank you for visiting ”Minna no Data Site” (Combined Database of Independent Radioactivity Measurement Labs) .
MDS has stacked the data measured by the independent radioactivity measurement laboratories in response to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident, As of September 2014, the number of the food data became nearly 10,000.
For the benefit of those who worry about radioactive contamination of Japan from overseas, we opened the English site. We have started “East Japan soil measurement project” since October 2014 in addition to the food data.
From the fact that government has not done the adequate soil contamination survey for the citizens, this project promotes measuring soils of the places like parks, vacant lots, and educational facilities which are closely related to children’s daily life.
This project is based on the method of “Iwate soil measurement project “(2012- 2013) by citizens of Iwate Prefecture. If the method for collecting the soil is different, the results of monitoring vary greatly.
By using an easy-to-understand manual of the standardized method, you are able to compare, review and analysis the data from different locations. We will publish the measurement results of soil on this site.
We record the status of the radioactive contamination of Japan carefully from the standpoint of citizens, and hope that it will help people who are living with anxiety. For the people overseas, we are preparing the English version of data to show where and how much radioactively contaminated.
To run this project, big budget for measurement cost and update cost of web systems are required. There are 300 locations in each 17 prefectures in Eastern Japan, and each place costs about 4,000 yen.
Although it is planned to reduce costs and to ask for volunteers as much as possible, still the costs such as measurement costs, project management costs and Web systems costs are expected to some extent also.
It is a project of the scale that no one even challenged yet. We rely on your generosity to help funding for this project. We would appreciate your support from abroad. Thank you for your cooperation and support.
The information page of “East Japan soil measurement project” is currently in preparation. It will be published shortly.
◎Donate by the bank transfer
Postal Transfer:
Postal Transfer Account : 10090-85754261
Account Name: Minna no data site Unei Iinkai
Bank Account
Yuucho Bank Branch : Zero Zero Eight (Branch 008):
Interim : 8575426
Account Name: Minna no data site Unei Iinkai
Remittances in either USD or EUR can be made from overseas banks,.
Please note that remittances to Japan cannot be made from certain financial institutions.
For details, please ask your local bank.
http://en.minnanods.net/#mds_indx_srch
http://en.minnanods.net/soil/soil_support.html
High levels of radioactive cesium pooling at dams near Fukushima nuke plant
Once radionuclides enter the eco-system, they move around carried by wind and water. They can’t “go away.” They can’t be “decontaminated.” They can only be moved, the biggest force moving them is nature, not clean up crews.
Ogaki Dam in Namie, Fukushima Prefecture, as seen from a Mainichi Shimbun helicopter in July 2016, contains high concentrations of radioactive cesium exceeding the limit set for designated waste.
High levels of radioactive cesium pooling at dams near Fukushima nuke plant
High concentrations of radioactive cesium have been accumulating at the bottom of 10 major dams within a 50-kilometer radius from the disaster-stricken Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant, a survey by the Environment Ministry has found.
Radioactive cesium emanating from the 2011 nuclear disaster is pooling at those dams, which are used to hold drinking water and for agricultural use, after the substances flew into there from mountains, forests and rivers. The radiation levels at the bottom of those dams top those set for designated waste at over 8,000 becquerels per kilogram.
While the Environment Ministry plans to monitor the situation without decontaminating the dams on the grounds that radiation levels in dam water is not high enough to affect human health, experts are calling for the ministry to look into measures to counter any future risks.
The ministry began a monitoring survey on those dams and rivers downstream in September 2011 to grasp the moves of radioactive substances flowing into them from mountains and forests that are not subject to decontamination work. The survey samples water at 73 dams in Tokyo, Iwate and seven other prefectures about once every several months.
Among them, there were 10 dams in Fukushima Prefecture where the average concentration of cesium in the surface layer of bottom soil measured between fiscal 2011 and 2015 topped the regulated levels for designated waste. Those dams include Ganbe Dam in the village of Iitate with 64,439 becquerels per kilogram of cesium, Yokokawa Dam in the city of Minamisoma with 27,533 becquerels, and Mano Dam in Iitate with 26,859 becquerels.
Meanwhile, the surface water at those 10 dams contained 1-2 becquerels per liter of cesium, which is below the drinking water criteria at 10 becquerels.
While the total amount of cesium deposited at the bottom of those dams is unknown from the environment ministry’s survey, a separate study conducted at Ogaki Dam in the town of Namie by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries’ Tohoku Regional Agricultural Administration Office estimated in December 2013 that there was a combined 8 trillion becquerels of cesium 134 and cesium 137 at the dam. The figure came about after estimating the amount of accumulated cesium every 10-meter-square area based on cesium levels in sedimentary soil sampled at 110 locations at the bottom of the dam, which is for agricultural use.
The National Institute for Environmental Studies in Tsukuba, Ibaraki Prefecture, will shortly begin a full-scale survey on cesium concentrations at several dams.
“At the moment, it is best to contain cesium at those dams. If we dredge it, the substance could curl up and could contaminate rivers downstream,” said an Environment Ministry official.
http://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20160926/p2a/00m/0na/007000c
Anxiety soars as cesium builds up in Fukushima dams
Dams surrounding the stricken Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant operated by Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) have become de facto storage facilities for high concentrations of radioactive cesium as the element continues to accumulate.
With no effective countermeasures in sight, the government insists that water from the dams is safe, but to local residents, the government’s stance comes across as the shelving of a crucial problem.
“It’s best to leave it as it is,” an official from the Ministry of the Environment says, with the knowledge that in 10 dams in Fukushima Prefecture, there is soil containing concentrations of cesium over the limit set for designated waste — or over 8,000 becquerels per kilogram.
According to monitoring procedures carried out by the ministry, the levels of radioactive cesium detected in the dams’ waters, at 1 to 2 becquerels per liter, are well below the maximum amount permitted in drinking water, which is 10 becquerels per liter. The air radiation doses in the dams’ surrounding areas are at a maximum 2 microsieverts per hour, which the ministry says “does not immediately affect humans, if they avoid going near the dams.” This information is the main basis behind the central government’s wait-and-see stance. For the time being, the cesium appears to have attached itself to soil and is collected at the bottom of the dams, with the water above it blocking radiation from reaching and affecting the surrounding areas.
In a basic policy based on a special law, passed in August 2011, on measures for dealing with radioactive material following the onset of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, the Environment Ministry stipulates the decontamination of areas necessary from “the standpoint of protecting human health.” The ministry argues that as long as high concentrations of cesium at the bottom of multiple dams in Fukushima Prefecture do not pose imminent danger to human health, there are no legal problems in the ministry refraining from taking action.
“If the dams dry up due to water shortages, we just have to keep people from getting close to them,” the aforementioned ministry official says. “If we were to try to decontaminate the dams, how would we secure water sources while the work is in progress? The impact of trying to decontaminate the dams under the current state of affairs would be greater than not doing anything.”
This stance taken by the central government has drawn protests from local residents.
“The Environment Ministry only says that it will monitor the dams’ water and the surrounding areas. They say, ‘We’ll deal with anything that comes up,’ but when asked what they plan to do if the dams break, they have no answers. It’s painful to us that we can only give town residents the answers that the Environment Ministry gives us,” says an official with the revitalization division of the Namie Municipal Government. The central government is set to lift evacuation orders for a part of the Fukushima Prefecture town of Namie in spring of 2017.
According to a Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries survey, Ogaki Dam, an agricultural dam in Namie, was estimated to have sediment totaling approximately 8 trillion becquerels of cesium as of December 2013. The agriculture ministry plans to re-survey the dam’s accumulated cesium amounts and water safety before the water is used for agricultural purposes. Agricultural and fishery products from Fukushima Prefecture are tested to ensure that radioactive substances that they contain are below the maximum permissible amounts stipulated by law before they are shipped for distribution.
Still, one town official worries how revelations of high levels of radioactive material in local dams will affect consumers. “No matter how much they are told that the water is safe, will consumers buy agricultural products from Namie, knowing that there is cesium at the bottom of local dams?”
A 57-year-old vegetable farmer from Namie who has been evacuated to the Fukushima Prefecture city of Iwaki says, “The central government keeps on emphasizing that the dams are safe, but doesn’t seem to be considering any fundamental solutions to the problem. If this state of affairs persists, we won’t be able to return to Namie with peace of mind, nor will it be easy to resume farming.”
http://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20160926/p2a/00m/0na/011000c
Records of Diet’s Fukushima investigation still under wraps
Kiyoshi Kurokawa, chairman of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission, presents the final report to Lower House Speaker Takahiro Yokomichi, right, in July 2012.
Five years after the accident at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, the Diet is still sitting on a trove of raw documents and testimonies of more than 1,100 individuals who were on the front lines during the crisis.
The cache was compiled by the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission, which released a report of its findings that totaled about 600 pages in July 2012.
The documents collected by that commission, including the testimonies of 1,167 individuals, have still not been released to the public more than four years after its disbandment.
Yasunori Sone, a political science professor at Tokyo’s Keio University, said the documents should, in principle, be released to the public because the investigation was conducted by the Diet on behalf of the people.
“The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission was the first established in the Diet with the authority to carry out a thorough investigation,” Sone said. “Disclosure rules should be decided on quickly because it will serve as a precedent for future commissions.”
However, the documents submitted to the commission by the central government as well as Tokyo Electric Power Co., operator of the Fukushima plant, remain in storage at the National Diet Library, along with more than 900 hours of questioning of the 1,167 individuals, many of whom worked to bring the accident under control.
Some of the testimony was given on condition that it would not be released.
For that reason, after the commission disbanded, the rules and administration committees of the two chambers of the Diet were to have established rules for disclosing the commission records.
The commission had left behind a record of its investigation as well as the source of the documents it had accumulated because it felt that it would be helpful when the documents were eventually released.
“It will be possible to learn about the background to the nuclear accident from new reports or books that are written based on the documents,” said Kiyoshi Kurokawa, a professor emeritus at the University of Tokyo, who chaired the commission. “A fundamental point to not repeating mistakes is to learn from one’s past errors.”
Discussions within the rules and administration committees were disrupted when then Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda dissolved the Lower House in November 2012 and called a snap election.
The December election brought the Liberal Democratic Party and its junior coalition partner, Komeito, back in control of government.
A multiparty group of lawmakers who were seeking to end dependence on nuclear energy asked that the rules and administration committees resume work on establishing disclosure rules. However, a subcommittee held one session that focused on presenting the opinions of members.
“Both the ruling and opposition parties are hesitant about releasing the documents because there is the possibility that they contain contents that are disadvantageous to the LDP, which had pushed nuclear energy, and the then Democratic Party of Japan, which had to deal with the nuclear accident,” said a member of that multiparty group.
The disclosure of the documents is not the only area in which the Diet has been less than aggressive.
In its report, the commission included seven recommendations, including the establishment of a new independent investigation committee, made up mainly of experts from the private sector, to conduct further studies into unanswered questions about the accident.
However, the rules and administration committees have yet to discuss the possibility of establishing such an investigative committee.
The commission also recommended the establishment of special committees in both chambers of the Diet to oversee the nuclear regulatory structure.
In 2013, a Special Committee for Investigation of Nuclear Power Issues was established separately in the two chambers.
However, those special committees have been turned into venues to promote nuclear energy. For example, committee members who were originally from labor unions of the electric power companies or who represented districts where nuclear plants were based criticized the Nuclear Regulation Authority for its strict standards regarding the resumption of operations at nuclear plants.
In a similar manner, the special committees also asked for a review of the rule that limited nuclear plants to a maximum 40-year operating life.
Tomoko Abe, a Democratic Party member who serves as secretary-general of the multiparty group seeking zero nuclear power generation, said, “Although there are some issues regarding the nuclear accident that have become clearer with the passage of time, the arena for looking into those issues has been closed off. It is the responsibility of the legislative branch to set up a structure that will continue to examine the nuclear accident.”
Nuclear power a drastically wrong answer to climate change. Solar power holds the key
a nuclear power plant gives off twice as much energy by way of waste heat than it generates. The environment — whether the atmosphere, oceans, or rivers — would be unable to absorb that much extra heat without drastic climatic consequences
Small Sliver Of Sahara Desert Could Power Entire World With Solar Energy NYT September 24th, 2016 by Steve Hanley How big of a solar farm would you need to power the entire world with renewable energy? That’s a question addressed recently on Quora, the website that specializes in providing in depth, well researched answers to important questions. Actually, the original question was quite different. The discussion started 
this way. “Could the world feasibly switch to all-nuclear power generation? If so, would that be a good counter to global warming?” For an answer, Quora turned to Mehran Moalem, PhD, a professor at UC Berkeley and expert on nuclear materials and the nuclear fuel cycle.
Professor Moalem began with this brief biographical information. “I have taught courses in nuclear engineering and a few seminar courses in alternative energies. I also worked for two years starting up six solar factories around the globe. In spite of my personal like for nuclear engineering, I have to admit it is hard to argue for it. Here is the simplified math behind it.”
Moalem then calculated that the world uses approximately 17.3 terawatts of continuous power each year. Sounds like a lot, doesn’t it? Actually it is. But, he says, a solar farm just 43,000 miles square would produce just about that amount of power. Moalem says the Sahara Desert covers 3.6 million square miles. If you’re into math, that means covering just 1.2% of the Sahara with solar power could provide the entire world with all its electrical needs.
It turns out the Sahara is also an ideal site for solar power. Because it is on the Equator, it receives 12 hours of sunlight virtually every day of the year. Also because of its location, that sunlight tends to shine directly down, meaning solar panels located there can be two to three times more efficient than those located in higher latitudes, like Europe and North America.
Moalem puts the price of such a system at $5 trillion dollars. Wow! That’s a lot of money, right? Actually, no it’s not, the professors says. Its less than the US spent to bail out banks 8 years ago. It’s about 10% of world GDP. The cost of building a nuclear power plant with a similar capacity would be more than 10 times as much.
He points out that this is a one time cost. Once such a facility gets built, the energy it produces is free. There are no ongoing costs for fuel, no generators to spin, to boilers to make steam. Moalen thinks that’s a pretty cheap price for something that could replace every other power source on earth, especially those that spew deadly pollution into the air.
Even though he is nuclear power engineer, Moalem says nuclear is not the way to meet world energy needs. One important reason is that a nuclear power plant gives off twice as much energy by way of waste heat than it generates. The environment — whether the atmosphere, oceans, or rivers — would be unable to absorb that much extra heat without drastic climatic consequences…….http://solarlove.org/sahara-desert-power-world-solar-energy/
International day for the total elimination of nuclear weapons -September 26
[HERALD INTERVIEW] Nagasaki atom bomb survivor urges denuclearization of world Korea Herald, 24 Sept 16 TOKYO — More than 70 years later, Terumi Tanaka can still relive the havoc wrought on his hometown Nagasaki, which was flattened by a plutonium bomb unleashed from a United States Army Air Forces plane.
At around 11 a.m. on Aug. 9, 1945, Tanaka was at his home some 3.2 kilometers away from the hypocenter of the atomic blast, when he heard a “loud bang” and immediately fell unconscious.
“Everything was instantly blown away in a storm,” the 84-year-old Japanese man told The Korea Herald in Tokyo last week. “I survived because I was lying down on the floor. However, five out of my six relatives died, some instantaneously from the raging inferno, some slowly from putrefying burns.”
Ahead of the international day for the total elimination of nuclear weapons on Sept. 26, designated by the United Nations in 2014, the secretary-general of the Japan Confederation of Atomic and Hydrogen Bomb Sufferers’ Organization, also known as Nihon Hidankyo, warned of the indelible consequences of pursuing nuclear arms and energy.
The bombshell dropped on Nagasaki, dubbed “Fat Man,” killed 74,000 people, roughly half the number that had perished from Hiroshima three days earlier. There are currently over 174,000 survivors — called “hibakusha” in Japanese — of the apocalyptic events in Japan and several thousands more worldwide.
Along with civic organizations such as Japan NGO Network for Nuclear Weapons Abolition and Peace Boat, Nihon Hidankyo has shepherded anti-nuclear calls around the world since it was established in 1956. It has participated in international conferences, street rallies and speaking tours, urging the total abolition of nuclear weapons, state compensation for their injuries, enhancement of government policies and relief measures, and solidarity with nuclear victims around the globe.
“Japan practically became a colony of the US since the war ended,” Tanaka said. “The US government forbade discussion or research of the bombing for seven years after 1945, and the Japanese government followed suit for an additional three years, thereby doing nothing for 10 years.”
As part of the San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1951, Tokyo renounced its right to claim damages from the nuclear bombardments from Washington. The hibakushas were deprived of their health, disadvantaged in employment and discriminated against by society, according to Nihon Hidankyo.
“Life was very tough before 1956, when our government started legislating laws and providing health care to the victims,” Tanaka recalled. “Before that, the sick and dying had to pay for medical expenses out of their own pockets, and many poor people died from malnutrition.”
Tanaka, who lived with a mother and three siblings, had to scrape by working odd jobs and saving pennies for the family as well as schooling. He called it an “unspeakable hardship.”
“We couldn’t eat for days on end. Everyone was poor, and even with little money there was practically nothing we could buy,” he said. “In spite of all our misery, we hoped that things would get better. We survived by shoving whatever was edible into our mouths.”
While Hiroshima has since become a universal symbol of mass destruction, Nagasaki on Japan’s southwestern island of Kyushu has largely been relegated to the larger city’s shadow. Nagasaki was bombed after Hiroshima, though it was less devastating due to the mountains and valleys of the city.
According to analysts, some 50,000 Koreans are thought to have lived in Hiroshima and 20,000 in Nagasaki during the attack, out of which roughly 30,000 and 10,000 are estimated to have died.
Most of Nagasaki’s Korean victims, who came from Hapcheon County in South Gyeongsang Province, were forcibly conscripted for backbreaking labor in wartime factories. The survivors returned home after the war to establish an organization similar to Nihon Hidankyo, with which the Japanese side maintains close contact. …… http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20160925000225
Clinton and Trump both dance to the nuclear lobby’s tune
Energy issues divide presidential candidates, Dayton Daily News, 25 Sept 16 “…….Nuclear
Neither candidate has focused much on nuclear energy during the campaign.
Although Clinton mentions “advanced reactors” in her clean energy plans, the Nuclear Energy Institute took aim at the proposals, saying they fall short of “recognizing that the current and future workhorse of carbon reduction in the nation’s power generation is nuclear power.”
On her campaign website, Clinton does say those who want to “rapidly shut down our nation’s nuclear power fleet put ideology ahead of science,” making it harder and more costly to build a clean energy future.
Trump has vowed to pursue “all forms of energy.” In his North Dakota speech he said that would include nuclear, wind and solar energy – “but not to the exclusion of other energy.
“The government should not pick winners and losers,” he said. “Instead, it should remove obstacles to exploration.”…..http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/national-govt-politics/energy-issues-divide-presidential-candidates/nsfFg/
Jill Stein’s political views on nuclear energy
Why is the American political system so impossible? This candidate makes sense, not Trump and Clinton
Jill Stein’s political views on nuclear energy http://www.jill2016.com/platform
- End destructive energy extraction and associated infrastructure: fracking, tar sands, offshore drilling, oil trains, mountaintop removal, natural gas pipelines, and uranium mines.
- Halt any investment in fossil fuel infrastructure, including natural gas, and phase out all fossil fuel power plants.
- Phase out nuclear power and end nuclear subsidies.
- End all subsidies for fossil fuels and impose a greenhouse gas fee / tax to charge polluters for the damage they have created.
South Africa’s Eskom wildly underestimates the cost of planned nuclear build
‘Eskom’s nuclear build cost and running projections are overheated’ – Analyst SUNDAY TIMES BUSINESS BY ASHA SPECKMAN, 2016-09-25 The price at which Eskom is projecting it will deliver nuclear energy as part of the proposed nuclear build has been rubbished by energy analysts who say South Africa could end up paying much more.
The power utility is targeting R1 per kilowatt-hour for nuclear energy – and this week Eskom’s head of generation, Matshela Koko, said the state-owned company expected to be able to fund the nuclear build programme from its own cash resources.
But energy analysts have scoffed at this, saying cost studies and examples from other projects show the bill to be massive. At the rate proposed, the project would not be viable.
Frank Spencer, an independent analyst, said: “If it comes in at R2/kWh or even R1.50/kWh, it would make absolutely no sense to pursue from a commercial perspective.”
The government and private sector’s expectations of the costs are miles apart.
Eskom spokesman Khulu Phasiwe said projections that the power utility had done put the cost of additional nuclear power at R500-billion. But Spencer estimated the cost would be about R1-trillion……..
He said decommissioning costs associated with dismantling nuclear power stations in future were often omitted from modelling, which eventually inflated the cost of the project.
“I think the expectations are based on what we’re seeing in the UK – [but] the cost of energy let alone the cost of the build programme, and finally what the levellised cost of energy works out to once all of those costs are taken into account, will be significantly higher than that.”…….
Eberhard said: “Nuclear vendors promise low prices but inevitably there are significant cost and time overruns. If these prices are not fixed in a contract then consumers end up with very expensive electricity.”
He cited the Hinkley C facility, where a 35-year contract for the equivalent of R1.65/kWh has been signed, as an example of a contract secured at a low rate……..
Last week, Moody’s placed Eskom’s credit rating on review for downgrade, saying that future tariffs may be affected due to the ongoing growth of independent power producers and a regulator that is hostile to Eskom’s tariff increase requests.
The agency also noted that institutional investors were beginning to display risk aversion to funding state-owned companies…….speckmana@sundaytimes.co.za http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/businesstimes/2016/09/25/Eskoms-nuclear-build-cost-and-running-projections-are-overheated—Analyst
Hillary Clinton, evasive, contradictory on nuclear power, changed policy 9 times
Hillary Just Flip-Flopped On Nuclear Power For The 9th Time http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/24/hillary-just-flip-flopped-on-nuclear-power-for-the-9th-time/ ANDREW FOLLETT Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton told Scientific American the U.S. needed to explore using more nuclear power, marking the ninth time the former secretary of state has flip-flopped on nuclear energy.
Clinton’s position changed from totally ignoring nuclear power in her 2016 platform to a tepid embrace of the technology.
Clinton’s newfound position on nuclear power puts her at odds with the anti-nuclear environmental movement, including The Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, 350.org, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. Environmentalists have backed Clinton because of green energy and climate policies.
The nuclear industry, on the other hand, was happy about Clinton’s embrace of nuclear power.
“We absolutely appreciate that from the Hillary camp,” Baker Elmore, director of federal programs at the Nuclear Energy Institute, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “When she was Senator, she had a very controversial plant at Indian Point in her state of New York. She was never really overly critical of it which was a big plus. We really appreciate the new statement.”
Clinton previously opposed nuclear power in her Senate campaigns, but supported it once she actually got into office. She changed positions on nuclear energy eight times, according to an analysis of her public statements and policy positions by The Daily Caller News Foundation.
Clinton’s campaign did not return requests for comment to TheDCNF in time for publication.
e flip-flops began when Clinton was running for the Democratic nomination in 2008, however, she started off from a pro-nuclear power position, saying, “I think nuclear power has to be part of our energy solution,” in February 2007. “We get about 20% of our energy from nuclear power in our country,” Clinton continued. “Other countries like France get much much more, so we have to look at it because it doesn’t put greenhouse gas emissions into the air.”
Clinton transitioned from this initial pro-nuclear stance during the early race to a neutral stance later on, as her primary race with then-candidate Sen. Barack Obama tightened.
“I’m agnostic about nuclear power,” Clinton said in July 2007 during a YouTube Democratic primary debate. “Until we figure out what we’re going to do with the waste and the cost, it’s very hard to see nuclear as a part of our future. But that’s where American technology comes in. Let’s figure out what we’re going to do about the waste and cost if we think nuclear should be a part of the solution.”
As her 2008 race with Obama got closer, Hillary migrated to an even more vehemently anti-nuclear position, explicitly excluding the industry from her platform.”I don’t include nuclear power in my energy policy, which I think is an appropriate approach given the problems we have with it,” Clinton told SentinelSource.com during an interview in late 2007.
After Clinton lost the Iowa caucus, she said that, “I have a comprehensive energy plan that does not rely on nuclear power,” in a January 2008 debate in Las Vegas.
When she lost the race for the Democratic nomination in 2008, Clinton’s views regarding nuclear power shifted radically. She began representing American nuclear companies to other countries as Obama’s secretary of state. Clinton used her position to support American nuclear companies in bids to construct and operate reactors in other countries, and helped American nuclear companies get contracts in countries like Japan, the Czech Republic and India.
“I think that nuclear power will remain a component of the energy supply globally, currently the United States, last time I looked, got 20 percent of our energy from nuclear plants,” Clinton said in October of 2012.
When Clinton again ran for the Democratic nomination in 2016, she rarely directly discussed nuclear energy, though one of her campaign fact sheet claims she favors “advanced nuclear,” which requires, “expand[ing] successful innovation initiatives, like ARPA-e, and cut those that fail to deliver results.”
By the time Clinton pulled ahead of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in March, her policy director told a local Idaho news source that, “nuclear energy has an important role to play in our clean-energy future.”
After locking down the Democratic nomination, Clinton shifted back to opposing nuclear power.
Clinton’s platform for 2016 calls for having the nation run “entirely on clean energy by midcentury,” with a goal of “getting 50 percent of our electricity from clean energy sources within a decade.” The platform never defines clean energy, but other sections clearly indicate that it excludes nuclear, even though a single nuclear reactor can prevent 3.1 million tons of carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions annually. The phrases “nuclear energy” or “nuclear power” never appear in Clinton’s platform.
Send tips to andrew@dailycallernewsfoundation.org. http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/24/hillary-just-flip-flopped-on-nuclear-power-for-the-9th-time/#ixzz4LIxitxDa
Hillary Clinton did not cut Russia’s nuclear arms, as claimed in ads
CNN fact-check: No, Hillary Clinton did not cut Russia’s nuclear arms http://hotair.com/archives/2016/09/24/cnn-fact-checks-claim-hillary-clinton-cut-russias-nuclear-arms/ BY JOHN SEXTON Yesterday, Jake Tapper fact-checked a claim about Russian nuclear arms made in two different Hillary Clinton campaign ads this year. One of the ads, which was aired thousands of times in Colorado and Virginia back in April, claims Hillary secured “a massive reduction in nuclear weapons.” FactCheck.org looked at that claim at the time and concluded, “the record doesn’t show that Clinton was responsible for ‘securing a massive reduction in nuclear weapons.’”
A new Clinton ad, which is airing in seven states this month, echoed the previous claim saying Hillary “got the treaty cutting Russia’s nuclear arms.”
But as Jake Tapper points out nearly all of this is false. It’s true that there is a treaty called New START which sets limits on the number of strategic nuclear weapons Russia can deploy. However that treaty doesn’t say anything about short range nukes or the number of total nuclear weapons Russia can have. It doesn’t require a single nuclear weapon be destroyed.
Even more striking, Tapper notes that Russia was already under the agreed limit when the treaty was signed in 2011. Russia has since increased the number of strategic nuclear arms by nearly 200, from 1,537 to 1,735. “Not only did it not cut the number of nuclear weapons,” Tapper says, “there’s actually been an increase.” Here’s a chart [on original] created by FactCheck.org back in April showing the number of strategic nuclear arms held by the U.S. and Russia. Note that the number of warheads held by Russia is up:
Tapper and FactCheck.org both grant that the treaty has value but the claims Clinton is making about the treaty reducing the number of Russian arms is false. Here’s the full fact-check: (youtube)
Contradictory and confusing statements by climate science deniers
How climate science deniers can accept so many ‘impossible things’ all at once 23 September 2016 by Guest Author,
http://www.skepticalscience.com/how-deniers-accept-so-many-impossible-things-at-once.html Sometimes, climate science deniers will tell you that we can’t predict global temperatures in the future. Sometimes, they’ll say we’re heading for an ice age.
Occasionally, contrarians will say that no single weather event can prove human-caused global warming. But then they’ll point to somewhere that’s cold, claiming this disprovesclimate change.
Often, deniers will tell you that temperature records show that global warming stopped at some point around 1998. But also they’ll insist that those same temperature records can’t be relied on because Nasa and the Bureau of Meteorology are all communist corruption monkeys. Or something.
Black is also white. Round is also flat. Wrong is also right?
A new research paper published in the journal Synthese has looked at several of these contradictory arguments that get thrown around the blogosphere, the Australian Senate and the opinion pages of the (mostly) conservative media.
The paper comes with the fun and enticing title: “The Alice in Wonderland mechanics of the rejection of (climate) science: simulating coherence by conspiracism.”
Why Alice? Because, as the White Queen admitted: “Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
The three authors, including Dr John Cook, of the University of Queensland, look at both rhetorical and scientific arguments put by deniers.
One example is the popular theme that casts “sceptics” as “dissenting heroes” who bravely oppose “political persecution and fraud”. You know, like modern-day Galileos.
But the authors write that deniers will also try and convince the public that there is no consensus among scientists about the causes of climate change (there is and it’s us). They write:
Either there is a pervasive scientific consensus in which case contrarians are indeed dissenters, or there is no consensus in which case contrarian opinions should have broad support within the scientific community and no fearless opposition to an establishment is necessary.
The authors unleash similar jujitsu-style logic on other contradictory arguments and give examples of where the same individuals have apparently argued against themselves.
One of the authors’ examples of incoherent logic comes from the Australian geologist and mining industry figure Prof Ian Plimer and his 2009 book, Heaven and Earth – a book favourably cited by the likes of the former prime minister Tony Abbott and Cardinal George Pell.
On page 278, Plimer writes that “temperature and CO2 are not connected” but, on page 411, writes that “CO2 keeps our planet warm”.
According to the authors, their examples of “incoherence” only hold together in the minds of the deniers if you apply types of glue known as “conspiracist ideation” and “identity-protective cognition”.
So what’s that all about?
Conspiracist ideation, or conspiratorial thinking, is the tendency to entertain suggestions: for example that Nasa and the Bureau of Meteorology are conspiring to deliberately manipulate temperature data just to make global warming seem worse than it really is, rather than to correct for known issues.
An example of “identity-protective cognition” in this case, the authors explain, is where people who advocate for small governments and “free markets” face a dilemma.
Accepting the scientific consensus would likely see increased levels of regulation, which challenges their identity as free-market advocates. So instead, the authors argue, the only options open are to either deny the consensus or try and discredit it.
Because cutting GHG emissions requires interventions – such as regulation or increased taxation – that interfere with laissez-faire free-market economics, people whose identity and worldview centres around free markets are particularly challenged by the findings from climate science.
Lead author Prof Stephan Lewandowsky, an expert in cognitive psychology at the University of Bristol, has written several research papers finding links between the rejection of science, “conspiracist ideation” and the belief in free market economic principles.
One argument that deniers may try with this Synthese paper is that climate scientists also contradict each other and have offered several explanations for the supposed global warming “pause” or “slowdown” (this was never really a thing).
Lewandowsky told me:
Click here to read the rest from Graham Readfearn in the Guardian
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump: policies on climate change
Where Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump stand on climate change, Business Insider, REBECCA HARRINGTON SEP 26, 2016 “……..The candidates’ positions on environmental issues are very different.
While Hillary Clinton lists “Protecting animals and wildlife” and “Climate change” as two major topics on her campaign website, Trump doesn’t include anything about the environment.
We’ve rounded up their statements publicly and on their websites to find out how the two stack up on environmental issues.
On her campaign site, Clinton calls climate change an “urgent threat” to “our economy, our national security, and our children’s health and futures.” She wants to uphold the Paris Agreement that sets targets to reverse the worst effects of global warming, which nearly 200 countries agreed to last December.
“When it comes to climate change, the science is crystal clear,” Clinton said on ScienceDebate. “That’s why as President, I will work both domestically and internationally to ensure that we build on recent progress and continue to slash greenhouse gas pollution over the coming years as the science clearly tells us we must.”
Clinton has proposed investing in clean energy and more efficient vehicles, cutting energy waste by implementing more robust efficiency and pollution standards, and cutting subsidies on oil and gas as ways of dealing with climate change.
Trump doesn’t accept the overwhelming scientific evidence that climate change is real and wants to dismantle the Paris Agreement.
In response to a question about his views on climate change on ScienceDebate, Trump implied that the US shouldn’t waste “financial resources” on climate change and should instead use them to ensure the world has clean water, eliminate diseases like malaria, increase food production, or develop alternative energy sources.
“There is still much that needs to be investigated in the field of ‘climate change,’” he said. “We must decide on how best to proceed so that we can make lives better, safer and more prosperous.”……..http://www.businessinsider.com.au/clinton-trump-environment-policies-plans-climate-change-platforms-2016-9?platform=hootsuite?r=US&IR=T
In last 10 years wind energy growth 23 percent, solar 50 percent – World Energy Council
Wind and solar power enjoy a decade of massive growth: World Energy Council http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/20/wind-and-solar-power-enjoy-a-decade-of-massive-growth-world-energy-council.html Anmar Frangoul CNBC.com, 20 Sep 2016 Renewable sources of power including hydroelectric and solar represent around 30 percent of the world’s total capacity and 23 percent of total global electricity production, according to a new report from the World Energy Council (WEC).
The report also said that $286 billion was invested in 154 gigawatts of “new renewables capacity” in 2015, with China’s spending on renewable sources representing 36 percent of global investments.
“The success of both the development of intermittent renewables and their efficient integration in electricity systems fundamentally depends on the right market design and regulatory framework and solid regional planning to avoid bottlenecks,” Christoph Frei, secretary general of the WEC, said in a statement.
The report comes in the wake of last year’s historic COP21 agreement in Paris. There, global leaders agreed to make sure global warming stayed below 2 degrees Celsius and to also pursue efforts to limit the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
“We are beyond the tipping point of grand energy transition,” Frei added. “Implementing technically and economically sound, stable policies supported by clear carbon price signals will enable this transition and take us a step closer to meeting the climate aspirations agreed at COP21.”
The report, Variable Renewables Integration in Electricity Systems 2016 – How to get it right, was launched on September 20 and published by the WEC in partnership with CESI S.p.A.
The WEC said that it drew upon 32 country case studies, representing roughly 90 percent of global installed solar and wind capacity.
1.This Month
Introducing a free course from William J. Perry LIVING AT THE NUCLEAR BRINK http://createsend.com/t/d-E33B482519DF2B2C
Nuclear costs South Africa http://nuclearcostssa.org/?p=3504
The Madhouse Effect: How Climate Change Denial Is Threatening Our Planet, Destroying Our Politics, and Driving Us Crazy https://www.amazon.com/Madhouse-Effect-Threatening-Destroying-Politics/dp/0231177860
Don’t fall for the nuclear industry’s climate lies – theme for September 16
ACTION
Call on nuclear nations NOT to dump nuclear waste in Australia. http://www.anfa.org.au/sign-the-declaration/ Irati Wanti (‘The Poison – Leave It’) A
group of politicians and business-people are developing a plan to build an international high-level nuclear waste dump in South Australia. The plan is strongly opposed by many South Australians and by an overwhelming majority of Aboriginal people.
The Australian Nuclear Free Alliance, representing Aboriginal people from across Australia, calls on nuclear nations NOT to dump nuclear waste in Australia. The nuclear industry has a track record of Aboriginal dispossession and environmental pollution − from the atomic bomb tests to uranium mining to nuclear waste dump proposals.
EVENTS
NRC Public Meeting Schedule
-
Archives
- September 2016 (427)
- August 2016 (519)
- July 2016 (465)
- June 2016 (414)
- May 2016 (431)
- April 2016 (456)
- March 2016 (530)
- February 2016 (417)
- January 2016 (348)
- December 2015 (373)
- November 2015 (338)
- October 2015 (363)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- 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
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- general
- global warming
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
