Published by Arclight2011
9 November 2015
Oped source;
http://www.europeannewweekly.wordpress.com
With some 18,000 subscribers Dana has been touted as a “leader” of the anti nuclear movement but as Fukushima 311 Watchdogs on Facebook gets some 11,000 subscribers, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in the UK has some 30,000 members and this does not include a recent surge in membership from Scotland, Wales and England due to the promotion of no nuclear by The extremely popular Jeremy Corbin. I also do not include the tens of thousands Taiwanese activists, Indian activists, Japanese activists etc etc who visit many of the more moderate anti nuclear web pages and social media formats.
Dana remembered
Dana Durnsford occupies a small part of the nuclear debate. When his You Tube channel began streaming his show and saying that the west coast of Canada was a dead zone, to say the least I was a bit concerned! I was on the Rainbow Warriors on Facebook and we crowd sourced an investigation with some Canadian colleagues (including First Nations) to find out what the situation was. We quickly discovered over a couple of days that the coast was still the same as it was in previous years. This was testimony from witnesses that I have grown to trust so I was distrustful as to Danas Claims but decided to see what evidence he could supply.
Over the coming months he sought Funding for a boat and camera equipment but no radiation detectors of any sort. Further videos of people showing a thriving environment on You Tube made me doubt further the veracity of his claims. Also, his aggressive stance and lack of multiple sources for news weakened my interest and I quickly moved on.
A right to speak
My general attitude to Dana was that he was providing a service to those that thought that the effects from Fukushima were dire. Of course there are many viewpoints to the ultimate effects from the Fukushima Daichi nuclear disaster in march 2011.
My view was that there is room for debate on this issue. I also thought that the debatably entertaining way that Dana discusses nuclear matters might encourage people to learn more on the nuclear issue so the show had a more serious educational aspect to it (even though some of the science and posits might be questioned).
Sentenced to what?
So, to the issue of what might happen to Dana? The use of harassment is a thorny issue on social media. In the UK Chris Spivey was recently charged for a similar style of blogging. Leaving aside the issues on free speech for the moment I will quickly describe his present situation. 
Chris has a short suspended prison sentence hanging over him and is under instruction to not have on his website any information related to the court case (Lee Rigby) nor can he discuss this news publicly. Chris has continued his blogging as normal, still using an aggressive style but with some sensible caution. So Dana should take heart. My co host Jimmy Hagan contacted Chris Spivey for a statement and he said that if it is a first offence a prison sentence is unlikely and a suspended sentence with blogging restrictions would apply.
Of course the Pro nuclear media is trying to milk this for everything it is worth but we need to bear in mind that Dana`s views only represent a small fraction of the worlds anti nuclear campaigners. In the diverse world-wide web there is room for many opinions and views.
What learning can we all take from this?
There is an important point to be had here for bloggers more generally and that is the need for caution considering that harassment cases are an effective tool for corporate and government interests and we as bloggers should be mindful to avoid such pitfalls. We should be prepared to adapt to this sort of pressure on our freedom of speech. The main points we have to raise do not include personal attacks but science based evidence and personal testimonials and independent science research where science research is being suppressed.
How can you help Dana?
By following this link;
http://fukushimaemergencywhatcanwedo.blogspot.ie/2015/11/dana-durnford-arrested-and-charged-with.html
November 9, 2015
Posted by arclight2011part2 |
Arclight's Vision, civil liberties, UK |
26 Comments
by WashingtonsBlog “……..scientists – even prominent ones – sometimes fall prey to hairball theories and dangerous proposals. (Remember, doctors used to bleed patients to remove the “bad humors”.)
Similarly, some scientists are under the mistaken impression that nuclear power is virtually carbon-free, and thus must be pushed to prevent runaway global warming. (If you don’t believe in global warming, then this essay is not aimed at you … although you might wish to forward it to those who do.)
But this is a myth.
Amory Lovins is perhaps America’s top expert on energy, and a dedicated environmentalist for close to 50 years. His credentials as an energy expert and environmentalist are sterling…….
Lovins says nuclear is not the answer:
Nuclear plants are so slow and costly to build that they reduce and retard climate protection.
Here’s how. Each dollar spent on a new reactor buys about 2-10 times less carbon savings, 20-40 times slower, than spending that dollar on the cheaper, faster, safer solutions that make nuclear power unnecessary and uneconomic: efficient use of electricity, making heat and power together in factories or buildings (“cogeneration”), and renewable energy. The last two made 18% of the world’s 2009 electricity, nuclear 13%, reversing their 2000 shares–and made over 90% of the world’s additional electricity in 2008.
Those smarter choices are sweeping the global energy market. Half the world’s new generating capacity in 2008 and 2009 was renewable. In 2010, renewables except big hydro dams won $151 billion of private investment and added over 50 billion watts (70% the total capacity of all 23 Fukushima-style U.S. reactors) while nuclear got zero private investment and kept losing capacity. Supposedly unreliable windpower made 43-52% of four German states’ total 2010 electricity. Non-nuclear Denmark, 21% wind-powered, plans to get entirely off fossil fuels. Hawai’i plans 70% renewables by 2025.
In contrast, of the 66 nuclear units worldwide officially listed as “under construction” at the end of 2010, 12 had been so listed for over 20 years, 45 had no official startup date, half were late, all 66 were in centrally planned power systems–50 of those in just four (China, India, Russia, South Korea)–and zero were free-market purchases. Since 2007,nuclear growth has added less annual output than just the costliest renewable–solar power –and will probably never catch up. While inherently safe renewable competitors are walloping both nuclear and coal plants in the marketplace and keep getting dramatically cheaper, nuclear costs keep soaring, and with greater safety precautions would go even higher. Tokyo Electric Co., just recovering from $10-20 billion in 2007 earthquake costs at its other big nuclear complex, now faces an even more ruinous Fukushima bill.
Since 2005, new U.S. reactors (if any) have been 100+% subsidized–yet they couldn’t raise a cent of private capital, because they have no business case. They cost 2-3 times as much as new windpower, and by the time you could build a reactor, it couldn’t even beat solar power. Competitive renewables, cogeneration, and efficient use can displace all U.S. coal power more than 23 times over–leaving ample room to replace nuclear power’s half-as-big-as-coal contribution too–but we need to do it just once.
(Read Lovins’ technical papers on the issue here.)……… http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/04/nuclear-is-not-a-low-carbon-source-of-energy.html
November 9, 2015
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Uncategorized |
Leave a comment
Mass Mobilization To Stop The TPP Announced, As Text Is Released By Staff, www.PopularResistance.org November 5th, 2015 A mass mobilization in Washington, DC from November 14th to 18th has been announced to begin the next stage of the campaign to stop the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The TPP was made public 10 days from the actions.
The protest, co-sponsored by 59 organizations, is being spearheaded by Popular Resistance and Flush The TPP and includes environmental, human rights, labor, climate change and good government groups. They have been organizing this mobilization for months knowing that the TPP would be made public around this time.
Sign and share this petition to congressional leadership opposing the TPP.
“At its root, the TPP is about modern colonialism. It is the way that Western governments and their transnational corporations, including Wall Street banks, can dominate the economies of developing nations,” said Margaret Flowers, co-director of Popular Resistance. She continued “The reality is that without trade justice there cannot be climate justice, food justice; there cannot be health justice or wage justice. That is why people are mobilizing to stop the TPP.”
Mackenzie McDonald Wilkins, organizer for Flush The TPP, said “The TPP impacts every issue we care about as a result, a unified movement of movements to stop the TPP has developed. People who care about corporate power versus democracy and our sovereignty or about jobs and workers, the environment and climate change, health care, food and water, energy regulation of banks are mobilizing to make stopping the TPP their top priority.”
On November 16th through 18th the groups will begin their protests on Monday morning at the US Trade Representative building on 17th Street with the message that the TPP betrays the people, planet and democracy. This will be followed that evening by a protest that begins at the US Chamber of Commerce and White House then marches along K Street and ends at the Reagan International Trade Center. The next day the groups will have an international focus protesting at multiple sites along Embassy Row to stand in solidarity with people around the world who are fighting to stop the TPP. On the final day the groups will focus on Congress.
Sign and share this petition to congressional leadership opposing the TPP.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:
Margaret Flowers ![]()
410-591-0892
Mackenzie MacDonald Wilkins ![]()
734-474-2984
Below are comments from our allies workint to Stop the TPP with links to their full statements:………https://www.popularresistance.org/mass-mobilization-to-stop-the-tpp-announced-as-text-is-released/
November 9, 2015
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
ACTION |
Leave a comment
Politico blasted today’s summit: ”The nuclear crowd is certainly excited for the attention and the summit will also let them feel like part of Team Climate, given the industry’s sense of being the unloved stepchild of the whole enterprise.
Hopefully Politico is right and today’s event is really just another cheerleading event for a floundering industry that is grasping at any means to stay afloat and not a true commitment of the limited time and financial resources we have to a technology that cannot deliver carbon emission reductions in an expedient and affordable manner.
Who’s asking for (and getting) even more taxpayer bailouts? Hint: they’ve done it before http://blog.cleanenergy.org/2015/11/06/whos-asking-for-and-getting-even-more-taxpayer-bailouts-hint-theyve-done-it-before/ November 6th, 2015 Once again the nuclear power industry is the culprit and once again, the Obama Administration, like numerous previous Administrations, is the enabler — obliging an industry to the detriment of U.S. taxpayers by continuing to push an “all of the above” energy policy.
On the heels of the wise rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline today, another polluting player in the energy sector received some significant bolstering. This afternoon the “White House Summit on Nuclear Energy” was held for the flailing nuclear power industry, which has been rocked by several early closures of nuclear plants and major debacles at all the under-construction nuclear projects here in the U.S. (TVA’s Watts Bar 2 in Tennessee, Southern Company’s Vogtle 3 & 4 in Georgia and SCANA’s V.C. Summer 2 & 3 in South Carolina). The industry and its proponents, such as the Nuclear Energy Institute and Third Way, which not surprisingly helped organize and participated in today’s pep rally, misleadingly claim that carbon emission reductions, such as required by the EPA’s Clean Power Plan and being discussed at the upcoming U.N. climate conference in Paris, can only happen if nuclear power is expanded.
Continue reading →
November 9, 2015
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, USA |
Leave a comment
Another option on the table is PRISM. Developed by GE Hitachi (GEH), PRISM is a sodium-cooled fast reactor that uses a metallic fuel alloy of zirconium, uranium, and plutonium. GEH claims PRISM would reduce the plutonium stockpile quicker than MOX and be the most efficient solution for the UK. The problem is, despite being based on established technology, a PRISM reactor has yet to be built, and the UK is understandably a little reluctant to commit in this direction. Seen as something of a gamble, it remains in the running alongside the currently more favoured MOX option.
Amid all the uncertainty, one thing is for sure. Regardless of what decision is taken, a proportion of the plutonium will end up as waste and will need to be safely disposed of.
Unlike MOX and PRISM, immobilisation has no prominent industry backers. In comparison to exploiting the plutonium for our energy needs, there is no great fortune to be made from disposing of it safely. But immobilising the entire plutonium stockpile may in fact be a more economically sound approach than reprocessing
Sellafield plutonium a multi-layered problem, The Engineer UK, 6 November 2015 | By Andrew Wade “……..It takes somewhere in the region of 5-10kg of plutonium to make a nuclear weapon, so 140 tons is a slightly worrying amount to have sitting in a concrete shed in Cumbria. While everyone at the press conference was at pains to point out that there are no major safety concerns with the current storage, it is widely accepted that a long-term plan needs to be formulated. This, however, is where things get tricky. The potential energy of the plutonium if converted to nuclear fuel is massive, but there are several competing technologies vying for endorsement, none of which are well proven as financially viable.
Top of the list – and the government’s current preference – is for some application that uses mixed oxide fuel, or MOX. MOX is made by blending plutonium with natural or depleted uranium to create a fuel that is similar, but not identical, to the low-enriched uranium used in most nuclear plants today. MOX can be – and in several European countries is – used in thermal reactors alongside uranium. But despite past concerns, there is in reality no shortage of uranium today, so no huge need to supplement it with MOX in current reactors. Where MOX could in fact lead to greater efficiencies is in fast reactors, but these are costly and difficult to operate, and would not make economic sense unless the cost of uranium fell.
To complicate matters further, developing MOX is by no means a straightforward process. Continue reading →
November 9, 2015
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Reference, reprocessing, UK, wastes |
Leave a comment
Corbyn accuses defence chief of political bias in nuclear row, BBC News, 9 Nov 15 Jeremy Corbyn has accused the chief of the defence staff of political bias after he criticised the Labour leader’s anti-nuclear stance.
Gen Sir Nicholas Houghton told the BBC’s Andrew Marr that refusing to launch nuclear weapons would “seriously undermine” Britain’s “deterrent”.And he said he would be worried if such a view “translated into power”.
Mr Corbyn called on the defence secretary to “take action” against Sir Nicholas over his comments.
In a statement, the Labour leader said: “It is a matter of serious concern that the chief of the defence staff has today intervened directly in issues of political dispute.
“It is essential in a democracy that the military remains politically neutral at all times.
“By publicly taking sides in current political arguments, Sir Nicholas Houghton has clearly breached that constitutional principle. Accordingly, I am writing to the defence secretary to ask him to take action to ensure that the neutrality of the armed forces is upheld.”
November 9, 2015
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, UK |
Leave a comment
Case for nuclear wanes as grids adapt to renewable energy , https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/8287-Case-for-nuclear-wanes-as-grids-adapt-to-renewable-energy China Dialogue . Paul Dorfman , 6 Nov 15 The UK is wasting a huge sum on nuclear energy at a time when low-carbon sources can provide a growing share of the world’s electricity supply, writes Paul Dorfmann It was widely reported last month that Chinese President Xi Jinping and UK Prime Minister David Cameron had struck a
deal to try to reinvigorate UK’s stalling nuclear ambitions, but the reality is nothing has been signed yet, despite the huge financial incentives being offered by the Treasury to French and Chinese nuclear corporations.
There’s a strong consensus amongst UK commentators about the huge financial burden on taxpayers, as Hinkley would lock the UK into an index-linked 35-year contract for electricity, at twice the price consumers currently pay, on top of a £2 billion (19.2 billion yuan) loan guarantee.
If a contract is signed, China General Nuclear Power Corporation (CGN) would take a one-third share in the troubled French EDF project at Hinkley C, with a promise to build and operate Chinese-designed reactors on UK soil.
Whilst China may be prepared
to lose money on its investment in UK nuclear in order to open up the international market for Chinese nuclear industry, plans for nuclear worldwide are stuttering. Both fully-developed and fast-industrialising economies are moving away from old-style baseload power models built around large coal and nuclear plants.
This shift is based on a more rounded strategy for energy, which involves deploying large arrays of on- and off-shore wind and solar renewable energy. These will be complemented by flexible gas-fired back-up plants and combined with energy efficiency and conservation, demand-side management, energy load-balancing, big transmission grid upgrades and local distribution.
Climate-proof?
Accordingly, it seems that the next industrial evolution will be renewable. So the question remains, why persist with nuclear? Looking at the economics of generating from nuclear in both OECD and developing countries, it’s easy to see how public money could be better spent to much greater effect.
One of the reasons is that nuclear has had a makeover, with the industry now presenting itself as a partial response to global warming. This is despite the industry’s obvious environmental and logistical flaws.
Continue reading →
November 9, 2015
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
general |
Leave a comment
The TPP, because of fast track, bypasses the normal legislative process of public discussion and consideration by congressional committees
The “deal is rife with polluter giveaways that would undermine decades of environmental progress, threaten our climate, and fail to adequately protect wildlife because big polluters helped write the deal.”
The agreement, in essence, becomes global law. Any agreements over carbon emissions by countries 
made through the United Nations are effectively rendered null and void by the TPP.
“Trade agreements are binding,” Flowers said. “They supersede any of the nonbinding agreements made by the United Nations Climate Change Conference that might come out of Paris.”
The Most Brazen Corporate Power Grab in American History http://www.globalresearch.ca/tpp-wto-nafta-the-most-brazen-corporate-power-grab-in-american-history/5487363 Nov 6, 2015 By Chris Hedges The release Thursday of the 5,544-page text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership—a trade and investment agreement involving 12 countries comprising nearly 40 percent of global output—confirms what even its most apocalyptic critics feared.
“The TPP, along with the WTO [World Trade Organization] and NAFTA [North American Free Trade Agreement], is the most brazen corporate power grab in American history,” Ralph Nader told me when I reached him by phone in Washington, D.C. “It allows corporations to bypass our three branches of government to impose enforceable sanctions by secret tribunals. These tribunals can declare our labor, consumer and environmental protections [to be] unlawful, non-tariff barriers subject to fines for noncompliance. The TPP establishes a transnational, autocratic system of enforceable governance in defiance of our domestic laws.” Continue reading →
November 9, 2015
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
2 WORLD, climate change, politics international, USA |
Leave a comment
Russia’s mini nuclear reactors plan causes concern http://thebarentsobserver.com/security/2015/11/russias-mini-nuclear-reactors-plan-causes-concern Norway’s radiation watchdog says the risk of accidents and releases of radioactive substances will increase in the Arctic. Thomas Nilsen November 07, 2015
A military plan building up to 30 small transportable nuclear reactors for the Arctic was announced earlier this week. The reactors will provide electricity to remote bases currently under development as part of Russia’s Arctic militarization.
“If these plans are given a go-ahead in the future, it will lead to an increased risk of accidents and releases of radioactive substances,” says Ingar Amundsen, Head of Section for international nuclear safety with the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authorities (NRPA). Amundsen was on inspection with three other Norwegian experts at Kola nuclear power when being contacted by the Independent Barents Observer about the Russian military plans.
Norway wants information
He says NRPA was not informed about the plans before reading about it in Russian media this week. “Norwegian authorities will bring up the issue with our Russian counterpart in those forums we have dialogue, to hear if there is realism in these plans,” Ingar Amundsen says.
Since 1995, Norway has co-financed a series of comprehensive nuclear safety projects in Northwest Russia, including decommissioning of Cold War submarines bringing their reactors into safe onshore long-term storage.
Amundsen elaborates on the risks involved in Russia’s announced new military reactors. “Nuclear power plants requires good access to needed infrastructure and a comprehensive control regime for safe operation, Ingar Amundsen says and continues: “This is important to avoid accidents and releases, but also to avoid unauthorized access by strangers to the facility and the nuclear material.” He believes that will be very difficult to achieve with mobile units in remote areas.
Arctic militarization
Russia current militarization of the Arctic includes new bases and re-opening of Cold War bases along the north coast of Siberia and on archipelagoes like the New Siberia Islands, Novaya Zemlya and Franz Josef Land. The aim of creating small nuclear reactors is to fly- or ship them in to the bases and produce electricity- and heat instead of diesel generators and steam boilers.
The reactors are so small they can be transported around by a KAMAZ truck, in a cargo plane, on a sledge or even carried by Russia’s huge Mi-26 cargo helicopters.
The first of the new mini reactors could be ready for testing before 2020, TASS reported on Wednesday.
Murmansk and Severodvinsk
Nothing is said about where to maintain the reactors Today, maintain- and uranium fuel replacement of naval reactors in northern Russia takes place at the submarine yard in Severodvinsk near Arkhangelsk and at icebreaker base Atomflot in Murmansk.
As previously reported by the Independent Barents Observer, small transportable nuclear reactors for use in remote corners of the Arctic is not a new invention.
Both the United States and the Soviet Union built several transportable reactors. In the Arctic, the U.S. military had a secret nuclear reactor in operation for some few years in the 60ies at Camp Century east of Thule airbase on Greenland’s northern ice-sheet. The reactor was then transported on the ice by a tractor with a sledge and placed under the ice to produce electricity and heat for a Arctic missile research facility.
Also in Antarctica, the United States operated a medium-size reactor in the 60ies and 70ies at the McMurdo research station.
In the Soviet Union, a two-megawatt reactor was built in 1961. The reactor was carried around on the chassis of a tank. Another smaller reactor, named NURKA, was located at one of the Northern fleet’s submarine bases on the coast of the Barents Sea, but it is unclear if this reactor ever was used. Several other types of mini-reactors were developed during Soviet-times.
For space, several series of lightweight ultrasmall reactors were use in satellites. http://thebarentsobserver.com/security/2015/11/russias-mini-nuclear-reactors-plan-causes-concern
November 9, 2015
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
ARCTIC, Russia, safety |
Leave a comment
When nuclear reactors shut (as they are doing in USA) – where is the income stream to pay Australia for having all that radioactive trash?
Proponents are talking up the billions that might be made by swallowing our pride and making Australia the world’s nuclear waste dump. But they have been silent about the costs.
And the waste would need to be monitored and problems addressed for millenia
Wasting Australia’s Future: Why We Shouldn’t Become The World’s Nuclear Waste Dump, New Matilda, By Dr Jim Green on November 9, 2015 There are many good reasons why Australia should not set its sights on becoming a dumping ground for nuclear waste. Dr Jim Green takes up the case.
While sceptical about the prospects for nuclear power in Australia, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has given cautious support to the idea of a nuclear fuel leasing industry in Australia. Such an industry would involve uranium mining, conversion (to uranium hexafluouride), enrichment (increasing the ratio of uranium-235 to uranium-238), fuel fabrication, and disposal of the high-level nuclear waste produced by the use of nuclear fuel in power reactors overseas.
In the Prime Minister’s words: “We have got the uranium, we mine it, why don’t we process it, turn it into the fuel rods, lease it to people overseas, when they are done, we bring them back and we have got stable, very stable geology in remote locations and a stable political environment.”
Regardless of its merits, a nuclear leasing industry is an economic non-starter. That much is clear from the data provided in the latest edition of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Nuclear Technology Review. Uranium miners could be compelled to participate in an Australian nuclear leasing industry. But try telling that to BHP Billiton. The company bluntly stated in its submission to the 2006 Switkowski Review: “BHP Billiton believes that there is neither a commercial nor a non-proliferation case for it to become involved in front-end processing or for mandating the development of fuel leasing services in Australia.”
And there’s no point appealing to the patriotic fervour of Australia’s uranium miners: they are majority foreign-owned. Continue reading →
November 9, 2015
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA, wastes |
Leave a comment
Obama tweaks $12.5 billion in nuclear power loans, Washington ExaminerBy JOHN SICILIANO • 11/6/15 The Obama administration announced Friday that it will supplement its $12.5 billion loan guarantee program to build and license new nuclear reactors, but very little new money is being made available.
The announcement was made during a nuclear energy summit held at the White House Friday to discuss the role of nuclear power in producing zero-emission energy to combat climate change.
The Energy Department will be “supplementing its existing solicitation that makes up to $12.5 billion in loan guarantees available to support innovative nuclear energy projects,” according to a White House fact sheet.
That means the administration will allow nuclear plant developers to use government loans to cover the costs of more items related to power plant development, including licensing costs, compared with the previous policy that provided loan backing solely for the construction of the plant itself.
“The solicitation states that eligible projects can include construction of advanced nuclear reactors, small modular reactors, uprates and upgrades at existing facilities, and front-end nuclear facilities,” the White House said.
Putting the costs of licensing a new plant in the new plan addresses the new, small modular power plants that the administration has attempted to jumpstart a market for, but with little success…….
The only problem: None are being built, and no licenses have been granted by the federal government to build one.
The administration said it has invested $452 million over six years to help reduce the engineering costs associated with certification and licensing activities for the reactors, and expects a design license won’t be submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission until just before President Obama leaves office.
The Energy Department, also, is establishing what it calls the Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear, which is sort of a one-stop shop for pushing new nuclear reactor designs toward commercialization, the White House said.http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-tweaks-12.5-billion-in-nuclear-power-loans/article/2575815
November 9, 2015
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, USA |
Leave a comment
Paul Langley, 9 Nov 15, Climate risks by radioactive krypton-85 from nuclear fission. Atmospheric-electrical and air-chemical effects of ionizing radiation in the atmosphere
” The study shows that krypton-85 from nuclear fission enhances air ionization and, thus, interferes with the atmospheric-electrical system and the water balance of the earth atmosphere. This is reason for concern: There are unforeseeable effects for weather and climate if the krypton-85 content of the earth atmosphere continues to rise. There may be a krypton-specific greenhouse effect and a collapse of the natural atmospheric-electrical field. In addition, human well-being may be expected to be impaired as a result of the diminished atmospheric-electrical field. There is also the risk of radiochemical actions and effects caused-by krypton-85-containing plumes in other air-borne pollutants like the latters’ transformation to aggressive oxidants. This implies radiation smog and more acid rain in the countries exposed. This study summarizes findings gained in these issues by various sciences, analyses them and elaborates hypotheses on the actions and effects of krypton-85 on the air, the atmosphere and the climate. ” https://inis.iaea.org/search/Images/product-name.gifhttps://inis.iaea.org/search/searchsinglerecord.aspx…#
November 9, 2015
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
2 WORLD, climate change |
Leave a comment
Highest rate of cancer cases in Kerala: Chief Minister Oommen Chandy
South | Press Trust of India January 27, 2014 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA: In a shocking revelation, Kerala Chief Minister Oommen Chandy today informed the state Assembly that the state has the highest number of cancer patients in the country.
Out of every one lakh males, 133 persons suffer from the disease while in the case of females, it is 123 for every one lakh females, he said while replying to a calling attention motion on the necessity to set up a cancer institute in Kochi.
As per statistics, nearly 50 per cent of cancer cases could be cured if the disease was identified in the initial stage itself and treatment started, Chandy said.
On the demand for a Cancer Institute, he said the cabinet had already decided to set up a Cancer Research Institute at the campus of Kochi Medical College hospital, which was taken over by the government from the co-operative sector……http://www.ndtv.com/south/highest-rate-of-cancer-cases-in-kerala-chief-minister-oommen-chandy-549016
November 9, 2015
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
health, India, radiation |
Leave a comment
Morning Energy, Politico, 7 Nov 15 “……..LOOKING FOR LOVE IN ALL THE RAD PLACES: The White House is putting on a summit this afternoon designed to promote the Obama administration’s “commitment to nuclear energy as a clean energy and climate mitigation solution.” Translation: This is another line in the preamble to the Paris climate talks to show that every tool in the proverbial toolbox will get whipped out. The nuclear crowd is certainly excited for the attention and the summit will also let them feel like part of Team Climate, given the industry’s sense of being the unloved stepchild of the whole enterprise. Nuclear wonks shed tears when Congress nixed cap-and-trade in the president’s first term and the EPA’s Clean Power Plan feels a bit too little too late while reactors permanently unplug from the grid.
We’ve heard that Energy Department No. 2 Liz Sherwood-Randall will attend, as will former EPA chief and ex-White House climate czar Carol Browner, John Kotek, and DOE’s top acting nuclear energy official, and at least one national lab director is flying in for the occasion. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz was originally expected to appear but a conflict came up. Industry will also be well represented with Leslie Dewan, the CEO of nuclear it company TransAtomic, UPower founder Jacob DeWitte, and Bill Gates’ TerraPower along with the old guard like Westinghouse. Our understanding is that there will be two panel discussions, one on nuclear-fueled carbon reduction and one on innovative nuclear tech. One insider said the summit would be “all in all helpful bonding and messaging pre-COP………
Read more: http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-energy/2015/11/pro-morning-energy-wolff-211140#ixzz3qwGZvFwF
November 9, 2015
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
general |
Leave a comment
Carroll: The enduring nuclear threat, By Vincent Carroll, Denver Post 7 Nov 15 “…Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, Rose E. Gottemoeller was the chief negotiator for the New START treaty, an arms control pact with the Russians that went into effect in 2011. Her career in arms control and national security goes back many years and spans government, academia and think tanks.….
Gottemoeller: We’ve been limiting and reducing nuclear arms starting with the Soviets back in the 1970s, so it’s been a slow and steady process in our commitment under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to reduce and eliminate nuclear weapons.And, frankly, the Russians have been pretty good partners over the years. We’ve been dealing with what I call the Cold War nuclear overhang. They built 45,000 nuclear weapons; we built 31,000. So we had a lot of what I call ash and trash from the Cold War to get rid of.
The New START treaty will take our nuclear weapons that are deployed down to 1,550 — and the same with the Russians — by February 2018. By contrast, when we signed the first START treaty in 1994, we and the Russians both had approximately 12,000 deployed nuclear warheads.
Even after the Ukraine crisis and their grab of Crimea, they continued to have a businesslike attitude toward the implementation of START. We conduct 18 inspections a year in Russia and they come here, too. Everything is reciprocal. And we exchange on a daily basis the status of our strategic nuclear forces. If the Russians take an ICBM out of its silo to a repair facility, they have to tell us that.
Q:Has the megatonnage come down proportionately with those reductions in warheads?
A: Absolutely. It’s been a real success story. So no matter what the ups and downs of our relationship, this process has been good for U.S. national security, and for predictability and mutual stability for these two great nuclear powers. And I would say especially now, when relations aren’t so hot, it’s good to have a clear idea of what’s going on with their nuclear forces.
The question is what to do about the future. Between 2010 and 2014 under President Obama we did a posture review, and in 2013 the president concluded we could go up to one-third lower in the New START, from 1,550 down even as low as 1,000 and still maintain our security. So in Berlin in June 2013, we put that offer on the table and said to the Russians, “Let’s work on the next nuclear disarmament negotiation.” But so far the Russians haven’t picked that offer up from the table, even though I think it would be good for them, too.
I think their reaction is wrapped up in a lot of things, such as Vladimir Putin’s sense that nuclear weapons mean a lot for Russian security at this moment to concerns, he says, in our national missile defense program. But it’s ridiculous to think that our limited missile defense system can somehow threaten the Russian strategic offensive deterrent.
Q:That system is for a smaller rogue regime?
A: It’s North Korea. And I’m glad we have it available as an insurance policy. ………
Q:Where do you see the major threats to proliferation?
A: The biggest new threat we face today is nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists. And not only nuclear weapons, but fissile material, highly enriched plutonium or uranium that could be used to craft a simple nuclear bomb. President Obama was really clear about this in his Prague speech back in 2009.
This threat is undeterrable. Even North Korea, as crazy as they are, knows they will be facing a very intense response if they attack us with a nuclear weapon. Countries hold off on that basis. That’s why the president said we need to push step by step for a world without nuclear weapons. The policy is to minimize the amount of highly enriched uranium and plutonium around the world, and to constantly press toward fewer weapons.
Q:Don’t terrorists need the assistance of a state to develop a nuclear weapon, at least in terms of getting the fuel?
A: The key factor is having enough fissile material, highly enriched uranium or plutonium. Then the designs for simple devices are on the Internet basically. So the concern is that they could get enough fissile material to make a bomb on their own or that they could steal a bomb or the material from somewhere.
In some cases, we do worry about state sponsorship. That’s one of the reasons we’re watching so closely North Korea, because they ship missile parts around the world and might get into this business as well……..http://www.denverpost.com/perspective/ci_29081465/carroll-enduring-nuclear-threat
November 9, 2015
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics international, Russia, USA, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
nuclear-news 