India to host international nuclear security meet next week after nuclear materials were found near Mumbai
Feb 5, 2017,
New Delhi: Noting that possible use of weapons of mass destruction and related material by terrorists is no longer a theoretical concern, India will host a key meet on nuclear security here next week which will be attended by delegated from over 100 countries.
The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) in coordination with the Department of Atomic Energy is hosting the Implementation and Assessment Group Meeting of the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism (GICNT) on February 8-10.
Approximately 150 delegates from various GICNT partner countries and international organisations will participate in this event, a statement by the MEA said.
It said the development was pursuant to the announcement made by Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the Nuclear Security Summit last year.
It said the event highlights India’s commitment to global nuclear non-proliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear energy and is part of its overall engagement with the international community on nuclear security issues.
“India hosting this meeting highlights the continued priority we attach to nuclear security and our efforts to further strengthen the institutional frameworks, capacity building and enhance international cooperation,” the statement said.
It noted that the possible use of weapons of mass destruction and related material by terrorists is no longer a theoretical concern.
“A breach of nuclear security may lead to unimaginable consequences. Such an event would have a global impact. It is imperative to strengthen international efforts to combat such threats. This meeting is therefore timely and important and would further enhance our vigil,” MEA said.
GICNT was launched in 2006 jointly by the Russian Federation and the United States. In the past 10 years, it has grown to include 86 partner nations and five official observer organisations and has held several multilateral activities in support of its Statement of Principles.
ISIS and nuclear Armageddon? – Exclusive to nuclear-news.net
“….So, what is so important on the Thane Uranium Black market story? Firstly, the details of the purity of the Uranium. The Indian Police had done some homework and had the purity and the cost of the Uranium and this was in the article i posted. But the costs was in RS Core and the conversion from that to US Dollars was not easy.
So I did the conversion and also checked the upper level of purity (which was “85 percent” pure) and compared that to the purity of US nuclear weapons grade Uranium 235 (which is 93 percent). Now it has to be said that the Indian article did not specify U235 or U238 but when judging purity of Uranium it is valued at the amount of U235 with the rest being the more common U238. So it was looking likely we were talking nuclear weapons grade uranium but with a slightly lower value than the US standard…..”
ISIS and nuclear Armageddon? – Exclusive to nuclear-news.net
A Special Team To Secure The Bengali Republic Day Parade From Nuclear And Chemical Threats
Sunday Matinee – On the Beach
Published on 4 Feb 2017
After a global nuclear war, survivors face the possibility that all remaining life on earth will be destroyed in just a matter of months. In the final days and hours, humankind’s greatest failures and virtues reveal themselves, both heroically and tragically.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5eEus-_8wg
The continuing relevance of “On the Beach”
“It frightened the hell out of me. I’m still frightened.”
3 August 2015 Book review
Beverly Gray
These words mark the reaction of a young Australian named Helen Caldicott to a story of the aftermath of mistaken nuclear war, in which those who never even took sides were faced with the slow advance of deadly nuclear radiation on their shores. On the Beach, first a best-selling novel and then a major Hollywood film, confronts the viewer with a number of questions: How would you behave if—in the aftermath of a nuclear apocalypse—you knew you only have a few weeks or months left to live? Would you carouse riotously, knowing the end is near? Deny that the entire thing is happening? Hope against all logic for a miraculous reprieve? Try to maintain a core of decency in the face of imminent death? Wish that you had done something long ago to prevent nuclear war in the first place?
The story’s effect on Caldicott, then a 19-year-old Melbourne medical student who’d just learned about genetics and radiation, was profound. She went on to become both a pediatrician and a feisty anti-nuclear activist, an inspiration to others in the non-proliferation community and in the nuclear humanitarian initiative. She is renowned for warning, “It could happen tonight by accident,” and with the onset of nuclear winter, “We’ll all freeze to death in the dark.”
But what about the book itself and the 1959 movie made from it? Recently, after watching a 2013 documentary called Fallout (produced by Rough Trade Pictures in association with Screen Australia and Film Victoria) that ponders these questions, I sat down with Karen Sharpe Kramer, widow of the producer-director of On the Beach. Stanley Kramer was well-known for releasing such “message” films as Judgment at Nuremberg, Inherit the Wind, and Ship of Fools. Of On the Beach he once wrote, “Its subject was as serious and compelling as any ever attempted in a motion picture—the very destruction of mankind and the entire planet.” Kramer died in 2001, but as the Iran nuclear agreement, renewed US-Russian nuclear tensions, and the 70th anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings make headlines, his Eisenhower-era movie retains an unfortunate relevance.
A different time—or maybe not so different.
Recently Found Fukushima Daiichi’s Reactor 2 High Level of Radiation Does not Mean Radiation Increase
There is some dispute about the recent high level of radiation measured inside the Fukushima Daiichi reactor 2, thanks to the Japan Times unprecise english translation of the Kyodo News Japanese language article.
They have been able to measure these highest radiation levels only now because they couldn’t get as close to where they think the melted fuel may be with monitors before. Not the highest levels ever present at the site. That would have been around the time of the accident, or soon after. The radiation levels at the site do not appear to be rising, they are just now able to get deeper inside the reactor containment before the monitors fail, and so they get better readings.
The unprecise english translation of the Kyodo News Japanese language article published by the Japan Times opened the door to possible misconstruction of the real facts by other media, western media and websites relying on that Japan Times article. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/02/03/national/fukushima-radiation-level-highest-since-march-11/#.WJY4ffLraM_
The Japan Times article’s title is ok: “Highest radiation reading since 3/11 detected at Fukushima No. 1 reactor”. Yes, it is the highest radiation reading found since 3/11 because since 3/11 Tepco had not been able to reach such deep place to measure the radiation there. So this recent reading is the highest found since 3/11.
The Japan Times article in itself does not mention directly any radiation increase or “spike. But their wording “has reached” in “The radiation level in the containment vessel of reactor 2 at the crippled Fukushima No. 1 power plant has reached a maximum of 530 sieverts per hour, the highest since the triple core meltdown in March 2011, Tokyo Electric Power Co. Holdings Inc. said” could be misconstrued as meaning that the high level recently found is resulting from an increase of radiation, when compared to the lower level previously found . Which is not the case. Their previous reading was lower because they had not been able to go that deep before to monitor radiation there.
The Japan Times article then misled some western media, such as the Guardian, Popular Mechanic and others to themselves publish misconstrued articles based on the Japan Times article as their source.
The Popular Mechanics article’s title was ok: “Highest Radiation Levels Since Meltdown Recorded at Fukushima” but their subtitle is entirely wrong and misleading: “Levels haven’t been this high since the actual meltdown in 2011.” That subtitle is wrong, the levels were maybe that high or even higher, but Tepco had not been able to reach there before to find out, to take such measure in that place, at that deep level. That subtitle is wrong, suggesting that there is an increase. Popular Mechanics misconstrued the article of Japan Times and drawed the wrong conclusion. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a25034/radiation-spikes-fukushima-possible-breach/
The Guardian ‘s article title is in itself misleading: ” Fukushima nuclear reactor radiation at highest level since 2011 meltdown”. A title such as “Fukushima nuclear reactor radiation highest level to date found since 2011 meltdown” would have been better and more accurate. The added words “to date found” would clarify that it was maybe already there before but that it had not been found yet, because they had not been able to reach that place and that deep before to take such measure. In its text it fails to mention the real reason why the measure recently found is higher than the previous measure. This all results in the Guardian article saying that this highest recent measure compared to the lower previous one is due to an increase of radiation. This is absolutely wrong, a complete misconstruction of the real facts. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/03/fukushima-daiichi-radiation-levels-highest-since-2011-meltdown?CMP=share_btn_fb
And many other western media and websites went along and repeated the same blind misconstruction.
Thanks heavens there were two websites who noticed the error made by those mainstream media and many other websites. They stepped in trying to correct that misconstruction and to re-establish the true facts. The Simply Info Fukuleaks website and the Safecast website, thanks to both websites’ bloggers team for their vigilance and their efforts in keeping the facts straight.
No, Fukushima Daiichi Did Not See A Radiation Spike http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/?p=16094
No, radiation levels at Fukushima Daiichi are not rising http://blog.safecast.org/2017/02/no-radiation-levels-at-fukushima-daiichi-are-not-rising/
We can’t say that there has been an increase in radiation because we do not know that. To know that we would need to have a previous measure at the same deep at the same place to compare both measures. But such previous measure that deep at that place we do not have, so it is impossible to draw any conclusion at this stage, only that it is very high.
Now what we really need is a second probe at the same deep at the same place, to confirm the first probe readings, but also to compare the recent readings and the next readings so as to assess if the radiation levels there are stable or not, if there will be an increase of radiation between the two probes or not…Until such second probing takes place, at this stage no one can say anything about any occuring increase…
For more information: TEPCO Reports:
Pre-investigation results of the area inside the pedestal for the Unit 2 Primary Containment Vessel Investigation at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station(examination results of digital images)
Images Inside Fukushima Daiichi Unit 2 Need Further Examination Including The Possibility Of Fuel Debris
TEPCO Photos:
http://photo.tepco.co.jp/en/index-e.html
http://photo.tepco.co.jp/en/date/2017/201702-e/170202-01e.html
http://photo.tepco.co.jp/en/date/2017/201701-e/170130-01e.html
Video here: NHK Video (in Japanese)
Nuclear waste dump saga continues in Canada
5 February 2017
Last February, the Canadian government asked Ontario Power Generation to study the feasibility of alternative locations for the nuclear waste dump it is proposing for the shoreline of Lake Huron.
Given the request, the average citizen might have expected OPG to pinpoint specific sites and compare them – environmentally and economically – to the deep geological repository for low and intermediate nuclear waste proposed for Kincardine, Ontario, Canada, about 110 miles up-lake from Port Huron.
The average citizen would be wrong.
In OPG’s response to the government, there was no pinpointing. Instead, OPG outlined – in the broadest fashion imaginable – two massive geological formations comprising about 75 percent of the entire province.
The firm chose the crystalline rock of the Canadian Shield, which is about a billion years old, and the sedimentary rock formations of southern Ontario, which are 354 million to 543 million years old. Both formations are at least 200 meters deep.
“The crystalline alternate location is in the Canadian Shield and extends through central and northern Ontario,” OPG said in its 90-page report on alternate locations.
It covers more than half of the entire province.
“The sedimentary alternate location extends through the western portion of southern Ontario,” said OPG.
It covers the entire southwestern tip of Ontario, everything west of imaginary line running southeast from Georgian Bay to the Western Basin of Lake Erie.
The critics
The failure of OPG to consider sites other than its own property on Lake Huron for the nuclear waste dump has long been criticized by opponents of the repository.
The company’s recent consideration of vast geological locations did go over any better.
“The proponent has confirmed that it won’t look at actual alternate locations,” Beverly Fernandez wrote in a letter to Catherine McKenna, minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Fernandez is the founder of Stop the Great Lakes Nuclear Dump. “It has provided merely a generic description of what two alternate geologic regions might be like with no actual site identification or testing done or considered. It didn’t want to start over again. As a result of this failure to conduct any meaningful alternate site studies, it is obviously impossible for anyone to objectively conclude on any basis that Kincardine should be the site for the burial of this nuclear waste.”
Kevin Kamps, a nuclear waste specialist with the Maryland-based Beyond Nuclear, agreed.
“As U.S. Rep. Dan Kildee, (D-Flint Township), has stated, ‘Surely in the vast land mass that comprises Canada, there must be a better place to permanently store nuclear waste than on the shores of Lake Huron,’” Kamps said in a Jan. 4 statement.
Canada has the second largest land mass of any country, after Russia, said Kamps.
“OPG has refused to name the specific sites it has so hurriedly studied as alternative dumpsites to the Great Lakes shore, despite Canadian Environment Minister Catherine McKenna’s explicit instructions in her request for additional information,” said Kamps. “For this reason alone, OPG must be given a failing grade and its coveted Great Lakes shore DUD (deep underground dump) rejected outright.”
More time for public comment
The general public now has an extra 16 days to comment on the 350 pages of additional information submitted by Ontario Power Generation to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency in support of its bid to excavate a 2,230-foot deep repository for nuclear waste.
The new deadline is March 6, the agency announced on Jan. 27.
The previous deadline, announced Jan. 18, was Feb. 17.
“The additional time was requested by the public to provide more time to comment on the information,” said the CEAA.
In addition to the section on alternate locations, the second part of OPG’s submission, its “Updated Analysis of Cumulative Environmental Effects,” is 76 pages long. The third part is the firm’s “Mitigation Measures Report” at 184 pages.
OPG’s submissions can be found online at ceaa-acee.gc.ca.
Trump gets letter
Thirteen U.S. Congressional representatives sent a letter to President Donald Trump on Feb. 1 asking him to press Ottawa to deny OPG the license to build the dump.
“The Great Lakes make up one-fifth of the world’s fresh surface water supply and are a source of drinking water for 40 million people,” read the letter in part. “This plan poses a danger to a crucial water source and a failure at the site would disrupt both Michigan and Canadian tourism and commerce.”
Eight of bipartisan signees were from Michigan: Republicans Paul Mitchell, who replaced Candice Miller, Jack Bergman, Mike Bishop, Bill Huizenga and Dan Trott, and Democrats Dan Kilbee, Debbie Dingell and Sander Levin.
Jim Bloch is a freelance writer.
China says willing to discuss “possibilities” with India on nuclear group
[BEIJING] China is willing to discuss”possibilities” with India on its bid to become a fully fledged member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), a senior Chinese diplomat said on Monday, holding out an olive branch ahead of a summit in India.
India last month said it had held “substantive” talks with China on its attempt to join the NSG, a 48-member grouping of countries that trades in civil nuclear technology.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is campaigning to join the NSG to back a multi-billion-dollar drive to build nuclear power plants in partnership with Russia, the United States and France, and reduce India’s reliance on polluting fossil fuels.
Yet his bid to win accession to the group, founded in response to India’s first atomic weapons test in 1974, has failed to win over strategic rival China, which enjoys a de facto veto because it operates by consensus.
Speaking to reporters ahead of a visit to India this week by Chinese President Xi Jinping for a summit of the Brics group of emerging nations, Vice Foreign Minister Li Baodong said new NSG members needed to be agreed upon by all existing members.
“On the issue of joining the NSG, China and India have all along had very good communications, and (China) is willing to have further communications with the Indian side, to increase consensus,” he said.
“On this, China is willing to jointly explore all kinds of possibilities with India, but this must accord with the charter of the NSG, and certain rules need to be respected by all sides,” Mr Li said, without elaborating.
The nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) recognises the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council – the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France – as nuclear weapons powers but not others.
India has ruled out signing the NPT but says its track record of non-proliferation should entitle it to join the Nuclear Suppliers Group.
India was granted an NSG waiver in 2008 that allows it to engage in nuclear commerce, but deprives it of a vote in the organisation’s decision making.
Backers of India’s NSG bid, who include the United States, hope a deal can be reached despite a setback at the group’s annual meeting in Seoul in June.
Mr Xi will also visit Bangladesh and Cambodia on his Asian trip.
The Brics group of emerging nations include Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.
REUTERS
Saudis take new interest in renewable energy and its bye bye to nuclear programs
Kingdom is now ready to roll out robust plans to develop nascent solar and wind power capabilities that could have far-reaching effects.
http://www.thearabweekly.com/Economy/7767/Saudis-take-new-interest-in-renewable-energy
2017/02/05 by Jareer Elass
Washington – Plans to develop renewable energy sources in Saudi Arabia are gaining new life as part of Saudi Vision 2030, the massive economic revamping brainchild of Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz.
Fledgling efforts during former King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud’s era began six years before he was installed in office. With King Fahd’s incapacitating illness, Crown Prince Abdullah’s role to introduce renewables, such as solar and wind power, were moving at a snail’s pace. They were effectively put on hold in the first two years of King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud’s reign as the kingdom prioritised making fundamental changes to how the Saudi government works and shifting its oil-centric economy towards a more diversified one with an enhanced private sector.
The kingdom is now ready to roll out robust plans to develop nascent solar and wind power capabilities that could have far-reaching effects outside its borders.
In mid-January, Saudi Oil Minister Khalid al-Falih announced that the government was weeks away from introducing a renewable energy programme that would involve investment of $30 billion-$50 billion by 2023. Falih said the first round of bidding for projects under the programme would begin within weeks. The first tender is reportedly for 400 megawatts (MW) of wind capacity and 300MW of solar capacity, valued at $700 million.
Saudi Arabia’s domestic power demand is growing 8% each year and the kingdom burns as much crude oil products as it does natural gas to generate electricity. The Saudis are thus motivated to develop renewables and other energy sources so as to not lose potential export revenue from crude that is currently used to meet domestic consumption.
Unwilling to assume the full financial burden that these energy projects will require, the Saudi government wants to work with domestic and foreign firms that will take on much of the cost and risk.
When Saudi Vision 2030 was unveiled last April, it pointed to renewable energy as an essential component of the diversification away from an oil-dependent economy. The 5-year National Transformation Programme (NTP) announced in June established a target of 3.45 gigawatts (GW) — 4% of total power consumption — from renewable energy by 2023, though Saudi Aramco recently stated that the 3.45GW goal was being accelerated to 2020.
The kingdom generates less than 1% of its total energy from renewable energy. In May 2012, the King Abdullah City for Atomic and Renewable Energy announced its plan to install 41GW of solar power by 2032, which was considered far-fetched given that the kingdom was essentially starting from scratch. In January 2015, it pushed back that timeframe from 2032 to 2040. It is unclear whether that 41GW target for 2040 is still in play in the latest plans that have been announced.
King Salman’s government says the effects of cultivating Saudi solar and wind power can extend beyond the kingdom’s borders and benefit not only the government’s coffers but meet the electricity needs of other regions. Speaking January 20th at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Falih suggested that Saudi Arabia could become a “major exporter” of renewable energy, saying, “solar that is produced in Saudi Arabia can be exported all the way to Europe through a network”.
Speaking at an energy conference in Abu Dhabi a few days earlier, Falih pointed to Africa as a potential recipient of Saudi renewable energy, saying that the kingdom was developing ways to connect its renewable energy projects with Yemen, Egypt and Jordan. The Saudi government hopes not only to export power from its renewable energy sources but also supply other regions with solar panels and wind turbines.
The Saudi government, Falih said, is also planning to make “significant investment in nuclear energy”. He said the government was in the early stages of feasibility and design studies for the construction of two commercial nuclear reactors that together would produce 2.8GW. Although Saudi Arabia has in recent years signed a number of nuclear energy cooperation accords with other governments, agreements with France, South Korea and Russia go further by including feasibility studies for atomic power plants and fuel cycle work in the kingdom.
In 2011, King Abdullah City for Atomic and Renewable Energy announced its intention to build 16 nuclear power reactors by 2032 to produce up to 17.6GW of power. It estimated that the cost of constructing that number of nuclear plants would be $80 billion and Saudi Arabia’s recent financial constraints have dampened momentum on making that type of commitment.
King Salman’s government has not indicated whether it is sticking to the proposed schedule and nuclear power generation target. It is also unclear how much of a stake the Saudis would allow private domestic firms or foreign state companies in partial ownership of the nuclear power facilities.
1 This Month.
Let’s keep radioactive waste away from our river!
Nuclear Power? -Never again
(Switzerland –https://www.greenpeace.ch/de/handeln/atomkraft-nie-wieder/+)
PETITION – Close Down the Monticello Nuclear Reactor on the Mississippi River!
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- December 2025 (223)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
- January 2025 (250)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 