The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Global Heat Leaves 20th Century Temps ‘Far Behind’ — June Another Hottest Month on Record


We’ve left the 20th century far behind. This is a big deal. — Deke Arndt, head of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information


One of the top three strongest El Ninos on record is now little more than a memory. According to NOAA, sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in the Central Equatorial Pacific hit a range more typical to La Nina conditions last week. This cool-pool formation follows a June in which ocean surfaces in this zone had fallen into temperatures below the normal range.

El Nino Gone

(El Nino had faded away by June and turned toward La Nina-level temperatures by late June and early July. Despite this Equatorial Pacific cooling, June of 2016 was still the hottest month on record. Image source: NOAA.)

But despite this natural-variability related cooling of the Equatorial Pacific into below-normal ranges, the globe as a whole continued to warm relative to previous June temperatures…

View original post 853 more words


July 19, 2016 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

July 19 Energy News


Science and Technology:

¶ The co-pilots and founders of Solar Impulse, the remarkable solar powered plane that is making a ground-breaking flight around the world, have made a stunning prediction: There will be short-haul electric planes for up to 50 people operating within 10 years. Charging the planes would be on the ground, however. [CleanTechnica]

Solar Impulse 2 above the clouds. Solar Impulse 2 above the clouds.

¶ Scientists have found yet another issue with fracking. Asthma patients are 1.5 to four times more likely to have asthma attacks if they live near bigger or a larger number of unconventional natural gas development wells, according to a study published Monday in the Journal of the American Medical Association Internal Medicine. [CNN]

¶ Trials of wind assisted propulsion are going on, but there is not enough information on the real-life performance of different systems and hull variations. All of today’s experiments still see…

View original post 754 more words

July 19, 2016 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Does the US EPA Not Know the Difference Between a US Gallon and a Liter? Radioactive Water Comment Deadline 25 July 2016

Mining Awareness +

Comment on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Notice: [Nonprotective Inaction ] “Guide for Drinking Water after a Radiological Incident” here: by 11.59 pm on 25 July 2016.

When it comes to the estimating the hazard associated with radiation in drinking water after a nuclear disaster the US EPA says that adults need around 1.6 liters of drinking water, whereas when it comes to recommendations for drinking water systems to consider buying bottled water, diluting water to be less radioactive, etc., after a nuclear accident, the US EPA proposes one or more gallons per person. One US liquid gallon is 3.785 liters. There is a big difference. (See charts below).

The USDA puts adult average water needs at 3.7 liters, of which 3 liters would be as beverages (e.g. water, coffee, tea – note that water is required to make coffee and tea). However, the USDA adds that…

View original post 720 more words

July 19, 2016 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Genetic Killer – Ionising Radiation


Christopher Busby exposes the fallacy behind the current accepted model of exposure hazard adopted by governments and the nuclear industry since the ‘50s and which he will be challenging in a major legal case in London in June on behalf of nuclear test veterans. This is one of the rare times that I publish someone else’s work to the IMVA.

March saw the publication, in the influential scientific journal Environmental Health and Toxicology, of a landmark analysis of the effects of internal radioactive contamination on the genetic integrity of life.

My German colleagues and I used published data from Chernobyl effects in Europe to dismiss the radiation risk model that is currently employed by governments to limit discharges and exposures.1 This is the model of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), which bases its analysis on a different scenario to the fallout from Chernobyl: the survivors of the Hiroshima bomb.

It is claimed that there were no cases of found in those who were there. So the ICRP uses data from mice to give a risk of a doubling of heritable effects after an exposure dose of 1,000 milliSieverts (mSv). To put this in perspective, natural background radiation’s annual dose is about 2mSv so ICRP says you need to have 500 times this dose to risk having a child with a birth defect.

However, our paper shows this is wildly incorrect: that the tiniest doses from ingested or inhaled radioactive materials released by accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima, produced by the 1960s atmospheric bomb tests, and emitted routinely under licence from nuclear sites like Sellafield and Hinkley Point, kill and deform babies at doses of less than 1mSv.

The Government and the nuclear industry defend the ICRP position by referring to natural background radiation. But, though it is true that life has been exposed to natural background radiation, including radon, throughout evolution, there has never been on Earth, prior to 1945, the new Uranium fission and activation products like Strontium-90, Caesium-137, Tritium, Carbon-14, Plutonium-239 and their nasty ‘daughters’ and relations. These substances and the entirely new, airborne, radioactive, pure particles of uranium and radium only appeared about 70 years ago. Already we can see the terrible damage they have caused to the human genome.

The fallout generation

The first evidence of harm was identified by the late Prof Ernest Sternglass.2 He pointed out that the period of the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons had caused increases in infant mortality in the USA and the UK. Fig 1 shows a graph of this effect re-plotted by me from a later paper in by a Canadian paediatrician, Robin Whyte.3 The figure also displays the increases in Strontium-90 in milk and in the bones of children aged 0-1 over the fallout period, as measured in autopsies by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Agency.

The sensitivity of the unborn child to radiation had been demonstrated by Alice Stewart at Birmingham University in 1958, but the authorities could not believe that the 10mSv X-ray doses to mothers could cause the 40% increases in childhood cancer that Stewart demonstrated.4 Nuclear weapons development was in full swing, fallout in the rain everywhere was causing increased measured levels of Strontium-90 in milk and children’s bones and teeth (see Fig 1).

The Cold War needed thermonuclear bombs: so research into the health effects of radiation was rapidly taken from the doctors and given to the nuclear physicists. The Japanese Hiroshima genetic data was manipulated.5 In 1959 an agreement was signed between the medics at the World Health Organisation and the physicists at the International Atomic Energy Agency, leaving all studies of radiation and health to the IAEA; thus the cover-up was sealed. This is why there has been no proper study of the health outcome of Chernobyl.


Fig 1. This graph shows first-day neonatal mortality rate per 1,000 births in the USA from 1936 to 1987. The black diamonds line shows the expected background fall in mortality rate based on the period either side of the atmospheric nuclear tests’ fallout. The red line shows the build-up of Strontium-90 in milk in the UK and the blue line, the build-up of Strontium-90 in bones of children in the UK aged 0-1. Mortality data from Robin Whyte’s paper.3 Note: different scales for milk and bone; Strontium-90 in milk (red: Bq/gCa++ x 10) and bone (blue: pCi/gm Ca++, sunshine units) from UK Atomic Energy Authority. 1pCi = 0.037Bq.

Radiation has its effects by causing mutations in the DNA, the material in the cell that carries all the information. If this is germ cell DNA (sperms and eggs), depending on the amount of damage, you get sterility, miscarriage, stillbirth or congenital effects, which can show as malformations at birth, or more silent malformations (eg. heart defects) or cancer later on.

If it is chromosomal DNA in a cell in the body then it can lead to cancer. The lag time between initial DNA damage and cancer is about 20 years. In my 1995 book, Wings of Death, funded by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, I discussed all this and compared cancer rate trends in Wales with those in England.6 Because of the high rainfall, the cancer rates in Wales, which had been slightly higher than England, suddenly and alarmingly increased about 20 years after the fallout. The correlation was persuasive. Even the effect of the 1959 partial test ban was reflected in the cancer rate trend. The effect was particularly obvious for breast cancer, one of the sites most sensitive to radiation exposures, and I made such a suggestion in a letter published in the BMJ in 1994.7

Of course, the contamination of the planet did not stop with the 1963 Kennedy/Krushchev test ban. Where the testing stopped, the nuclear power contamination began, with releases under licence to the air and the sea. This was followed by the accidents, Windscale, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, the most infamous of many others. The world has been increasingly bathed with radioactivity since 1945 in a femtosecond of evolutionary time and there seems no sign of governments stopping this unless it can be proved that the radiation risk model is wildly incorrect and is killing people. But we can, as you will see.

Everyone now knows that the age-standardised cancer rates have been increasing alarmingly. Everyone has been touched by this epidemic. What is the cause? In the ‘50s, one in nine people developed cancer. In the 1990s it was one in five. In the last few years it is one in three and according to the WHO (who are not allowed to assess radiation) in 2020 it will be one in two.

None of the big cancer charities nor the Government health departments address the chief cause. Why? Because the main cause is ionising radiation. It is not smoking, nor lifestyle, nor obesity nor even the many chemicals now polluting the environment. The UK’s cancer epidemic began on the west coast in Wales and the west of Scotland with the rain and the fallout, not in the east, where the agrochemicals and insecticides are in greater concentration. This is the first thing I checked. As the late Dr John Gofman, of the US Atomic Energy Commission, wrote: ‘The nuclear industry is waging a war on humanity’.

The highest cancer rates are in those born at the peak of the fallout, from 1959 and 1963, now aged 52-56. The incidence of most cancers increases exponentially with age, but the ages when it is diagnosed are falling fast because everyone born after 1959 has been drinking contaminated milk, water and food as a baby, and building up Strontium-90 in their bones.

Strontium-90 (and uranium) binds chemically to DNA, the target for genetic damage. The effects are most easily seen in breast cancer and the proof that the breast cancer epidemic is caused by radioactive contamination can be seen in the studies of breast cancer near nuclear sites. We have carried out epidemiological studies of three nuclear sites in the UK: Bradwell in Essex, Trawsfynydd in Wales and Hinkley Point in Somerset. All three papers were published in a peer-reviewed journal.8-11 Two used official government mortality data to show there was a 100% excess risk of dying of breast cancer if you lived near the contamination; the other used a questionnaire organised by a TV company making a documentary.

Our new genetic paper, the subject of this article, reviewed all the evidence available from populations exposed to Chernobyl fallout. Increased congenital effects, heart defects, organ defects, limb defects, neurological effects like spina bifida and hydrocephalus, cleft palate, Downs syndrome and those appalling images that have been seen in Iraq after the use of depleted uranium weapons. All were found to increase immediately after the Chernobyl contamination.

Effects were reported from Belarus and Ukraine, but also from Croatia, Turkey, Italy, Germany, Greece, Hungary, the UK, places where the doses from the fallout were less than 1mSv. We also reviewed effects found in radiographers, surgeons using radiation, uranium miners, uranium nuclear workers in France and the UK and, finally, the children of the nuclear test veterans. I draw attention to this latter group because of what I am involved with in the High Court in London in June.

The nuclear test veterans’ case

Since 2004 I have been working with the nuclear test veterans as an expert witness in their cases against the UK Ministry of Defence, in the High Court action (which was lost on appeal) but, most successfully, in the Pensions Appeals. This has been in and out of Tribunals all over the country. I was successful in five cases in reversing the decisions by the Secretary of State for Defence not to grant pensions in cases of cancer, lymphoma and leukemia in veterans of the atmospheric weapons tests in Australia and Christmas Island in the 1950s.

Then the veterans’ solicitors, Rosenblatts, suddenly and unexpectedly dropped the case, a new group of solicitors, Hogan Lovells, took over, and threw me out just before the case was heard in February, 2013. The veterans appealed successfully and the case was remitted for a new hearing, which will occur over three weeks in Court 25 of the Royal Courts of Justice starting on June 14th.

Meanwhile, a proportion of the vets have died (of cancer). In the appeal in 2014, the MoD brought a successful motion to have me dismissed as a witness because they argued that, as an activist, I could not be unbiased. At this point the veterans appointed me as their Representative, so I am still there and the position is more effective than being an expert witness because I can cross-examine the MoD’s experts, something I am looking forward to.

I have already argued successfully in two hearings before a new judge, Sir Nicholas Blake, that we want access to secret material held by the MoD that shows the amounts of radioactivity, particularly uranium, in the bomb fallout. Uranium was not measured at the time, or at least the MoD will not give us any data, but we now know, from the effects of depleted uranium in Iraq and the Balkans, and also a huge amount of new research, that uranium is thousands of times more dangerous than is modelled by ICRP.

One of the effects it has (in uranium miners, workers, battlefield victims and populations, and nuclear test veterans) is that it causes huge amounts of genetic damage, shown as chromosome damage and congenital malformations. And, like Strontium-90, uranium binds to DNA.

The new judge has figured out that this is an issue. He ordered the release of some secret data showing the levels of congenital malformations in children and grandchildren of the veterans. Among his reasons for doing this, he wrote:

Dr Busby, who now represents the appellants Battersby and Smith, raises a number of new points not previously determined. . . The international Radiation Protection Authority’s guidance on the safe maxima in insufficient to screen out all risks to human health arising from explosions of the kind undertaken at Maralinga and Christmas Island.

Biggest public health scandal ever

We can use the secret birth defect data together with the new genetic paper to show that the radiation risk model of the ICRP is in error by about 1,000 times or more. This mistake, which was made in 1952 and has been promulgated ever since through the power and influence of the nuclear industry and the military, is, in the main, responsible for the deaths and agonies of all the people that you yourselves know have developed cancer – from the little, bald children, to the beautiful women suffering the cutting, burning and worse that is now orthodox treatment, to your parents, your own children and, indeed, yourselves.

This exposure is at the base of the loss of fertility and the increased real rates of heritable diseases (in advanced countries detected and aborted). Winning this case will put this issue firmly in front of the legislators. Accepting this combined chess move, the peer-reviewed study and the court case, should, in any unbiased court, result in the shutting down of nuclear energy and nuclear weapons, including the nuclear submarines that deliver them. It is a Big Deal. But the prize is continued life on Earth.

About the author

Professor Christopher Busby is an expert on the health effects of ionizing radiation. He qualified in Chemical Physics at the Universities of London and Kent, and worked on the molecular physical chemistry of living cells for the Wellcome Foundation. He is the Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk based in Brussels and has edited many of its publications since its founding in 1998. His various honorary university positions include Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Health at the University of Ulster. He currently lives in Devon in the UK. See also:; and .

July 19, 2016 Posted by | radiation | , , , | Leave a comment

James Fisher Nuclear Awarded Fukushima Daiichi Sampling Contract

Fukushima worker pointing.jpg-320x240

British decommissioning and remote handling company James Fisher Nuclear announced Monday that it had been awarded a “high-value” contract from Japanese engineering company Mitsubishi Heavy Industries that involves developing technology to be used at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Okuma, Japan.

JFN will be responsible for developing the latest technology to sample radioactive debris sitting below reactor cores at the power plant that suffered a triple reactor meltdown after backup power failed due to a massive tidal wave event in March 2011.

The specific value of the contract was not announced. JFN said it beat out the competition for the contract. Business director at JFN Bertie Williams said the expertise required for this kind of assignment was rare. “Few businesses in the nuclear arena realistically have the experience and personnel with the capabilities to take on such a challenging task,” Williams said.

The work involves taking samples of a variety of materials both above and below the water line at the damaged plant. JFN said it had been successful in demonstrating its technical design was “capable of addressing some of the most challenging conditions on Earth.” The goal is to evaluate the extent of the clean-up and decommissioning work needed at the plant.

July 19, 2016 Posted by | Fukushima 2016 | , , , | Leave a comment

Fukushima residents need time in deciding on their futures




The central government lifted an evacuation order for the southern part of Minami-Soma, Fukushima Prefecture, on July 12 for the first time since the massive earthquake and tsunami triggered a devastating accident at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant in March 2011.

It marks the sixth time that evacuation orders have been lifted for locales in Fukushima Prefecture, following such municipalities as Naraha and Katsurao. The number of local residents affected by the latest move is more than 10,000, higher than in any previous instance.

Residents of such municipalities in the prefecture as Iitate, Tomioka and Namie have yet to be allowed to return to their homes. But the central government plans to lift evacuation orders on all areas of the prefecture excluding “difficult-to-return zones,” where levels of radiation remain dangerously high, by March 2017.

The longer people in disaster-affected areas live as evacuees, the more difficult it becomes for them to rebuild their lives.

The lifting of an evacuation order based on the progress that has been made in decontaminating polluted areas and restoring damaged infrastructure will give local residents an opportunity for a fresh start. In Minami-Soma, residents who have been hoping to restart their former lives have already returned to their homes. Various organizations are expanding their activities in the city to help rebuild the local communities.

In previous cases, however, only 10 to 20 percent of the residents said they would immediately return to where they lived before the catastrophic accident occurred.

In addition to residents who have decided to move to other parts of the nation, there are also many people who find it difficult to return home for the time being due to reasons related to employment, education, nursing care and other factors. Some people want to wait a while longer to see how their communities will be revived.

Sooner or later, all evacuees will face the choice of returning or migrating.

For both groups, measures to support their efforts to rebuild their livelihoods should be worked out. But support should also be provided to people who cannot make up their minds yet.

A situation where evacuees are under strong pressure to make their decisions quickly should be avoided.

Take the issue of compensation paid to local residents in affected areas, for example. Tokyo Electric Power Co., the operator of the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant, is paying 100,000 yen ($945) of compensation per month to each of the people affected. But the utility’s cash payments are scheduled to be terminated in March 2018.

A time limit has also been set for the company’s compensation to people who have seen their incomes fall or disappear in the aftermath of the disaster.

Excessive dependence on compensation could hamper the efforts of evacuees to restart their lives.

But there are people who have no prospects of returning to their lives before the accident and therefore have no choice but to depend entirely on a monthly payment from the utility.

A way should be found to keep compensating those who really need the money for a certain period after evacuation orders are lifted, according to the circumstances of individual evacuees.

One idea worth serious consideration is the establishment by lawyers and other experts of a neutral organization to assess the circumstances of evacuees for this purpose. This is an approach modeled on the standard procedures for out-of-court dispute settlements.

The concept of “residents” should also be reconsidered. There are many evacuees who have decided to move to other areas but still wish to maintain their hometown ties. These people say they want to return home someday or to get involved in rebuilding their communities in some way.

Scholars have offered ideas to respect their wishes. One would allow them to have a dual certificate of residence for both their previous and current addresses. Another would permit them to become involved in the efforts to rebuild their hometowns while living in other areas.

These ideas can be useful not just for the reconstruction of disaster-stricken areas but also for the revitalization of depopulated rural areas around the nation.

Reviving communities that have been ravaged by the nuclear disaster will inevitably be an unprecedented and long-term process, which requires flexible thinking.

July 19, 2016 Posted by | Fukushima 2016 | , , , , | Leave a comment

TEPCO Urged to Cut Radioactive Water inside Fukushima N-Plant

feb 2016.jpg



Tokyo, July 19 (Jiji Press)–Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority on Tuesday instructed Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc.  to reduce the amount of highly radioactive water inside reactor buildings at its disaster-crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.

The nuclear watchdog also demanded TEPCO lower the water’s radiation levels and consider substantially boosting the number of water storage tanks at the plant in order to lower the risk of the contaminated water leaking out.

Currently, there are tanks only enough to store contaminated water being generated every day mainly due to inflows of groundwater.

Meanwhile, the highly radioactive water inside the No. 1 to No. 4 reactor buildings totaled some 61,600 tons as of Thursday. A lot of tanks would need to be built in order to remove the contaminated water from the buildings.

The highly radioactive water may leak out if tsunami hits the plant again, Toyoshi Fuketa, acting head of the NRA, said, demanding cuts in the amount of the water.

July 19, 2016 Posted by | Fukushima 2016 | , | Leave a comment

Ex-NRA bigwig demands recalculation of Oi nuclear plant quake estimate


A former deputy chairman of the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) sent the organization a letter of protest on July 14 demanding that an earthquake estimate for Kansai Electric Power Co. (KEPCO)’s Oi Nuclear Power Plant be recalculated, on the grounds that the official NRA estimate is well below that of KEPCO.

The former deputy chairman, Kunihiko Shimazaki, is a professor emeritus of seismology at the University of Tokyo. He had criticized the NRA’s estimate of the largest possible earthquake at the Oi plant in Fukui Prefecture as possibly being too low, and the NRA recalculated the estimate in a different manner but still deemed the projected earthquake as not posing a problem to the plant’s safety. In his letter of protest he wrote that he “could not accept the conclusion” of the NRA, and he called for another recalculation. He said he would hold a press conference on July 15 about the issue.

The NRA’s recalculated estimate was 644 gals, “gal” being a unit of acceleration. The estimate was below a KEPCO estimate of 856 gals. Shimazaki, in response to the figures, argues that the NRA’s calculation method is different from KEPCO’s and so produced a smaller number, and notes that the utility finalizes its estimate with additional calculation under stricter conditions, but the NRA has not done so. Shimazaki says that if the calculation was carried out in the same way as KEPCO has performed its estimate, the figure would come out to roughly up to 1,550 gals.

On July 13, a representative for the NRA’s secretariat acknowledged in a Mainichi Shimbun interview that the NRA’s calculation method differed from KEPCO’s, saying, “It’s only natural that there is a difference (in the calculation results).” The representative avoided giving a clear answer about whether it was right for the NRA to green light the plant by comparing results calculated in different methods.

Shinji Kinjo, the head of the agency’s public relations department, said, “If there is a request (for a recalculation), we will consider it sincerely.”

July 19, 2016 Posted by | Japan | , , | Leave a comment

No Chernobyl type Sarcophagus for Fukushima Daiichi?


Chernobyl new safe confinement construction

After news inadvertently leaked via NHK that the decommissioning authority (NDF) for Fukushima Daiichi was considering a Chernobyl type sarcophagus for the plant, there is now an effort by the authority to back it down.

At the same time the government is rushing to reopen as much of the evacuation zone as possible so they can terminate evacuation compensation for the roughly 100,000 evacuees of the disaster.

Minamisoma reopened closed parts of the district this week and there is now consideration for opening highly radioactive zones in Okuma near the plant in a few years.

Mayors for the impacted towns near the plant expressed obvious outrage to the media after hearing the news.

The media reports and public concern are due to it even being on the table and that alone raises some obvious concerns.

NDF calls the media reports that they are considering a sarcophagus to be “untruthful” but go on to admit that it is now among the considered options.

Obviously such a structure would not be a medium term effort unless it involved some significant new design and long term plan.

NDF also tries to frame a sarcophagus as a more “medium term” solution.

They did confirm that this isn’t a done deal, but is an option they are considering.

Following that news Japan’s state minister for industry has ruled out the option of sealing off disabled reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant with a Chernobyl-style sarcophagus.

Takagi said the government’s policy is to stand by the people of Fukushima, and that his ministry has told the decommissioning body to rewrite its technical report.

Responding to Uchibori, Takagi said the government has no intention of using such an option, and that completing the decommissioning process is the top priority.

The body said it remained committed to removing fuel debris from the reactors that suffered meltdowns in the March 2011 accident.

But it presented a technical report that left room for entombing the reactors in a massive metal and concrete structure.

Yosuke Takagi met Fukushima Governor Masao Uchibori in Tokyo on Friday.

Uchibori said he was shocked to hear the word “sarcophagus” and called the option unacceptable.


July 19, 2016 Posted by | Fukushima 2016 | , | Leave a comment

Fukushima Radioactive Feces of Mouse



Feces of the mouse: Tomioka city, near crippled Fukushima Nuclear power station.

 Cs-134:11917 Bq/kg
 Cs-137:63557 Bq/kg
 Total:75474 Bq/kg


July 19, 2016 Posted by | Fukushima 2016 | , , | Leave a comment

Britain’s Parliament votes to renew Trident nuclear missile system

atomic-bomb-lflag-UKCommons votes for Trident renewal by majority of 355  Over half Labour MPs but not Jeremy Corbyn back motion after Theresa May says she would order nuclear strikeGuardian, 

Theresa May has said she would be willing to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill 100,000 people, as the House of Commons voted overwhelming to replaceBritain’s Trident programme.

The prime minister confirmed she would be prepared to press the nuclear button if necessary as she opened a debate about whether the UK should spend up to £40bn replacing four submarines that carry nuclear warheads.

After more than five hours of discussion, parliament voted in favour of Tridentrenewal by a majority of 355 in a motion backed by almost the entire Conservative party and more than half of Labour MPs.

It was opposed by all Scottish National party (SNP) MPs, the Lib Dems and Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, a lifelong unilateralist who spoke out strongly against the plans during the debate.

Other members of Corbyn’s frontbench team, including the shadow defence secretary, Clive Lewis, and the shadow foreign affairs secretary, Emily Thornberry, abstained after claiming in a Guardian article that the government was turning an issue of “national security into a political game”.

However, around 140 of his MPs – including leadership challengers Angela Eagle and Owen Smith – voted in favour of renewing Trident, with many highlighting Labour’s historic position in support of a continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent. Forty-seven Labour MPs joined Corbyn in voting against Trident, while another 41 were absent or abstained.

While Labour were split on the issue, the Conservatives have been hoping the Trident issue could help unify their party after a fractious EU referendum campaign.

However, May attracted gasps during the debate when she made clear she would be willing to authorise a nuclear strike killing 100,000 people, when challenged by the SNP about whether she would ever approve a nuclear hit causing mass loss of life…….

July 19, 2016 Posted by | politics, UK, weapons and war | 1 Comment

Teresa May would approve a nuclear weapon strike on a population

flag-UKTheresa May would authorise nuclear strike causing mass loss of life Asked in Trident debate if she would approve attack that could kill 100,000 people, PM answers with a decisive ‘yes’,Guardian, , and , 19 July 16.  Theresa May has said she would be willing to authorise a nuclear strike killing 100,000 people as she made the case for replacing Britain’s Trident submarines ahead of a House of Commons vote on the matter.

The prime minister answered decisively when challenged by the Scottish National party about whether she would ever approve a nuclear hit causing mass loss of life.

Intervening in her opening speech, the SNP MP George Kerevan asked: “Is she personally prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that can kill a hundred thousand innocent men, women and children?”


May responded: “Yes. And I have to say to the honourable gentleman the whole point of a deterrent is that our enemies need to know that we would be prepared to use it, unlike some suggestions that we could have a deterrent but not actually be willing to use it, which seem to come from the Labour party frontbench.”

Her statement was met by gasps from some MPs on the opposition benches, as the chamber debated whether or not to renew Trident.

Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, responded to May by making the case for nuclear disarmament, pointing out that the party’s pro-Trident position was under review.

He has given his MPs a free vote during Labour’s ongoing defence review, which the Guardian understands involves at least five options ranging from complete replacement to disarmament by the 2030s. The three other options are reduced patrols and fewer submarines, missiles carried by aircraft, and adapted submarines to carry both conventional and nuclear warheads.

Speaking in the Commons, Corbyn said there were currently 40 warheads, which are each eight times as powerful at the atomic bomb that killed 140,000 people at Hiroshima in Japan in 1945.

“What is the threat we are facing that one million people’s deaths would actually deter?” he said, adding it did not stop Islamic State, Saddam Hussein’s atrocities, war crimes in the Balkans or genocide in Rwanda.

“I make it clear today I would not take a decision that kills millions of innocent people,” Corbyn told MPs. “I do not believe the threat of mass murder is a legitimate way to deal with international relations.”

May said it would be a “dereliction of duty” to give up Britain’s nuclear deterrent and pledged to keep to the Nato target of spending 2% of national income on defence while she is prime minister.

Addressing the idea of downgrading the deterrent to a cheaper option, she said: “I am not prepared to settle for something that does not do the job.”……

July 19, 2016 Posted by | politics, UK, weapons and war | 1 Comment