nuclear-news

Rushing into the Wrong Future: The U.S.-India Nuclear Deal, Energy and Security
Diddident Voice by Andrew Lichterman and M.V. Ramana / September 20th, 2008 – “………………………………………..What the Administration will likely not mention is that the deal would actually allow India to expand its nuclear arsenal, permitting it to buy fuel for nuclear power reactors on the international market while using scarce domestic uranium in nuclear weapons production. It will further aggravate tensions with Pakistan, which has signaled that it would respond in kind to a more ambitious Indian nuclear weapons program. Thus, the deal could further fuel an arms race between nuclear-armed neighbors that have fought multiple wars………………………..he nuclear deal is part of a broader set of agreements centering on increased U.S.-India military cooperation and high-tech trade. In the United States an array of corporate interests led by the nuclear industry and arms makers are supporting the deal. They see the possibilities not only for nuclear trade but for big ticket weapons sales, as well as selling other goods and services to India’s elite, only a fraction of the population but a huge new market nonetheless…………………………………the fundamental problems of catastrophic risk and long lasting highly radioactive waste still unsolved. With nuclear power construction having ground to a halt in wealthier countries, the industry has turned its sights to Asia, marketing nuclear technology as a climate friendly solution to the continent’s burgeoning energy demand…………………………….Nuclear power, nuclear weapons, and this nuclear deal are all bad risks for ordinary people everywhere, risks that humanity can no longer afford. It is time to chart a different future.

McCain and Obama Both Wrong on Nuclear Power
Examiner Judah Freed – Political Issues Examiner 20 sept 08
“……………………………With due respect for senators Obama and McCain, they both are venting radioactive nonsense. Millions of lives are at stake, so let’s dispel the absurd fantasy of “safe and secure” nuclear power. The only thing “green” about nuclear power is the money its backers hope to pocket…………………………Before the Yucca Mountain facility goes into operation, the project must survive lots of lawsuits. Although litigation may end up before federal judges appointed by the Bush administration, which could skew the outcomes, if the cases are fairly tried on their merits, the facility may never start full-scale operations…………………………………….

No reasonable person can absolutely guarantee 100 percent safety and security along the hundreds or thousands of highway miles between current and future storage sites. Traffic accidents are a danger, of course, and so are attacks or hijackings by nuclear terrorists. How many could die as a result?

If the shipments are sent by train, imagine the catastrophe from even one derailment, as happened recently with the non-nuclear toxic spill inside the rail tunnel under the English Channel. If the waste is transported by air, image the widespread contamination if an aircraft goes down or gets blown up. Again, how many could die as a result?……………………………

No reasonable person can absolutely guarantee 100 percent safety and security along the hundreds or thousands of highway miles between current and future storage sites. Traffic accidents are a danger, of course, and so are attacks or hijackings by nuclear terrorists. How many could die as a result?

If the shipments are sent by train, imagine the catastrophe from even one derailment, as happened recently with the non-nuclear toxic spill inside the rail tunnel under the English Channel. If the waste is transported by air, image the widespread contamination if an aircraft goes down or gets blown up. Again, how many could die as a result?

Trouble in the pipeline
Konrad Kiedrzyński2008-09-17, ostatnia aktualizacja Business Journal 2008-09-18

Central and Eastern Europe faces huge challenges to supplying a cheap, clean and diversified supply of energy to its people………………………The Russian invasion of Georgiahas heightened fears that Russiacould use energy as a tool for political extortion against CEE countries. “Thishas already happened in Belarus, in Ukraine and it happened with Georgia afew years ago,” Nauduzas said…………………….

The development of [nuclear energy] is a distant prospect, however. Although Polandhas signed an agreement to participate in the construction of a 3,200-MWnuclear plant in Ignalina, Lithuania (to be completed between 2015 and 2018), it does not have a nuclearplant of its own.

“Even under the most favorable conditions,the process of creating a nuclear-energy plant lasts over 10 years,” Pawlaksaid. “Meanwhile, social prejudice against the development of nuclear technologies is huge.”

According to Martin Roman, president ofCzech energy giant CEZ, any plan to construct a nuclear power plant may becomeeven more difficult in the future

Courageous decision on Russian nuclear deal
ABC News By Jim Green Sep 19, 2008 “…………the Federal Parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Treaties had the courage to recommend against ratification of the uranium export agreement signed by John Howard and Vladimir Putin last September……………………….The claim by the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office (ASNO) that “strict” safeguards conditions will “ensure” that uranium remains in peaceful use has been exposed for the lie that it is. The Safeguards Office conspicuously failed to provide any information to the Joint Standing Committee on the reality of safeguards in Russia. It was left to Friends of the Earth to do the research, the conclusion being that there have been no International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards inspections in Russia since 2001, and there is no reason to believe that this pattern of non-inspection will change in the future.
Not unreasonably, the Joint Standing Committee concluded that: “It is essential that actual physical inspection by the IAEA occurs at any Russian sites that may handle [Australian Obligated Nuclear Materials]. Further, the supply of uranium to Russia should be contingent upon such inspections being carried out.”……………………..If Stephen Smith and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd intend to ratify the Howard/Putin agreement, they will need to argue that Russia is complying with its disarmament obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) even though Russia is doing no such thing. Russia’s arsenal of over 14,000 nuclear weapons has an explosive yield equivalent to 200,000 Hiroshima bombs……………..Ratifying a uranium export agreement with a belligerent nuclear weapons states would shred the Rudd government’s credibility ahead of the formal launch of its International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament in October.