Valencia, November 10, 2017 (11H)
Commission of Research and Information
Independent on Radioactivity
29 courses Manuel de Falla / 26000 Valence / France
. 33 (0) 4 75 41 82 50 / bruno.chareyron@criirad.org
RUTHENIUM 106
Contamination with ruthenium 106
Radioactive releases are considerable and would come from Russia or from nearby countries!
Officials are finally concerned about the importance of the ruthenium 106 discharges
from September 2017, and the risks incurred as close as possible to the source term! At first, the Official releases have simply emphasized the absence of risk in France and Europe.
The CRIIRAD had alerted as early as October 5, but to no avail, about the risks incurred by local populations. However, we know since Chernobyl that we must act very quickly because the exposure is major in the first days and the first weeks.
Reminder: Abnormal presence of ruthenium 106 1 in European air detected at the end of September
In a press release 2 of 4 October 2017, IRSN stated that ruthenium 106 had been
detected in the air of several European countries and concluded, without any reservations on the levels at the accident site and in nearby areas: “Very low levels of contamination atmospheric ruthenium 106 observed to date by the European monitoring networks are without consequences for the environment and for health. Nevertheless, IRSN maintains vigilance monitoring of this presence of ruthenium in the air “. CRIIRAD expressed concern on 5 October
In its communiqué of 5 October 2017, CRIIRAD stated: “The origin of the
phenomenon and risk levels closer to the source term “. “It is important that the origin of these rejections of ruthenium 106 is found. From this point of view, the lack of information is worrying. Yes, the installation at the origin of the discharges is not aware of it, it has not been able to put in place radiation protection, while the doses to residents or workers concerned may not be be negligible. If it is concealment, the situation is even more problematic. ” The Russian track
More than a month has elapsed and, to our knowledge, the exact origin of this contamination is not elucidated. Simulations carried out by French radiation protection agencies (IRSN) and German (BfS), evoked an origin south of the Urals. The Russian authorities had reacted by denying any responsibility.
1
Ruthenium 106 is an artificial radionuclide (fission product), a radiation emitter beta period relatively long (1.02 years). It disintegrates, giving birth to rhodium 106, a radiation emitter beta and gamma period 29.8 seconds.
2 http://www.irsn.fr/FR/Actualites_presse/Actualites/Pages/20171004_Detection-ruthenium-106-en-
europe.aspx # .WgSLhXbkV8x
3
1 / 3A colossal rejection between the Volga and the Urals?
In a new press release of 9 November 2017, IRSN states that the assumption of the impact on earth of a ruthenium-containing satellite was rejected by the IAEA (International Atomic Energy).
Assume then that ruthenium 106 comes from landfill releases, and from
the simulation database, IRSN indicates “the most plausible zone of rejection lies between the Volga and the Urals without it being possible, with the available data, to specify the exact location of the point of discharge.
Indeed, it is in this geographical area that the simulation of a rejection of ruthenium makes it possible to better to reproduce the measurements obtained in Europe “and” For the most plausible rejection zone, the quantity of ruthenium-106 rejected estimated by the IRSN simulations is very important, between 100 and 300 terabecquerels. The release, accidental with regard to the quantity released, would have occurred during the last week of the month of September 2017 “.
If it is a question of emissions coming from a single installation of up to 300 Terabecquerels,
corresponds to a colossal amount, 300 thousand billion becquerels is a figure, as a
comparison, 375,000 times the maximum allowed annual discharge 6 of the Cruas nuclear power plant.
Ruthenium 106 is an artificial fission product that, once dropped on the ground and on the plant cover, will induce a lasting contamination, it takes more than a year for its radioactivity to be divided by two.
As the IRSN notes: “Due to the quantities rejected, the consequences of an accident of this magnitude in France would have required locally to implement measures to protect populations on a radius of the order of a few kilometers around the place of rejection. With regard to foodstuffs exceedances of maximum allowable levels (NMA) (1250 Bq / kg for ruthenium-106 and for products other than milk) would be observed over distances of the order of a few ens of kilometers around the point of rejection “.
It was therefore essential, as requested by CRIIRAD on 5 October 2017, to identify
the installation at the origin of the ruthenium 106 pollution and to implement
protection for the nearby population. And all the more because, as CRIIRAD has denounced several [times?]
Once again, the criteria for intervention 7 adopted by the French authorities to implement protective measures are excessively high. However, the documents analyzed by CRIIRAD show that, as a first step, the official services in Europe have simply insisted on the absence of health consequences on the European territory.
This situation raises many questions about the effectiveness of the IAEA (International Energy AgencyAtomic) and official radiation protection agencies of European countries.
At the scale of Europe and France, why controls on aircraft likely to have
flew over the offending sectors have not been put in place?
Why did the embassies of the European countries not quickly put in place
in countries that are likely to be at the origin of these massive releases of
ruthenium 106 (collection of soil samples, plant cover, foodstuffs)?
5 http://www.irsn.fr/FR/Actualites_presse/Actualites/Pages/20171109_Detection-Ruthenium-106-en-france-et-en-
europe-result-of-investigation-from-IRSN.aspx # .WgR77nbkV8x
6
For fission and activation products beta and gamma emitters such as ruthenium 106.
7
IRSN for example refers to the applicable Maximum Admissibility Levels (NAM) for radioactive contamination food after a nuclear accident or other radiological emergency. CRIIRAD recalls that it has defeated against the adoption of these limits set at excessively high levels and based on a ratio expertise riddled with anomalies. In addition, the device should only be used in case of contamination massive barrier to access to uncontaminated food. Who wants to eat mushrooms containing 100 ruthenium becquerels 106 per kg on the pretext that in the event of an accident the authorized limit is 1,250 Bq / kg?
Consumers have the right to know and choose.
Ruthenium 106 Europe
CHAREYRON – CRIIRAD
2 / 3
If the European States did not underline the potential gravity of the situation for the populations and workers close to the facility, they could have at least worried about the protection of their nationals traveling or staying in the offending countries.
Protect people close to the place of emmision
To have lost more than 1 month to alert effectively is a serious mistake. In case of massive rejection of radioactive substances in the atmosphere, action must be taken quickly to limit the doses to populations close to the offending facility. In the absence of protective measures, the doses suffered could have gone well beyond health limits.
If it is probably too late to limit the risks associated with inhalation in the plume (we can think since the discharges have stopped for several weeks), the populations close to the facility are radiation-related radiation from ruthenium 106 and contamination by
ingestion of contaminated food. It is therefore important, depending on the levels of fallout, put in place appropriate countermeasures (evacuation or decontamination of soil).
It is equally important to advise them not to consume food that has been
foliar deposition or delayed contamination.
To the extent that some States are not able to ensure the radiological protection of citizens, it is more than ever necessary to support local NGOs and develop independent radiological controls . For the French authorities there is nothing more to do?
With regard to the risks for people living in France, IRSN considers “on the one hand that the probability of a scenario that would see the importation into France of foodstuffs (especially mushrooms) contaminated with ruthenium-106 in the vicinity of the source of releases is extremely low and on the other hand, the potential health risk associated with this scenario is also very low. It does not appear necessary to put in place systematic controls of the contamination of imported food. This position is taken up by ASN in its communiqué 8 of 9 November. CRIIRAD considers, on the contrary, that it is essential to mobilize all States’ means Europeans (controls on foodstuffs and products from the offending areas, actions at embassies) to precisely determine the origin of the discharges and to weigh benefit from protective measures (even if they are late). We must think of local people and to nationals of foreign countries likely to be closer to the source term!
A systematic control of the imported food is not necessarily the most suitable, on the other hand, it is necessary for a specific radiological monitoring program to be implemented at European Union to verify ruthenium-106 contamination of risky foods from incriminated countries, but also by other less mobile radioactive substances that could be present in the local fallout without being detectable in the air at great distances.
Editor: Bruno CHAREYRON, nuclear physics engineer, director of the CRIIRAD laboratory.
Contact: bruno.chareyron@criirad.org
8 https://www.asn.fr/Informer/Actualites/Ruthenium-106-dans-l-air-ambiant-en-France-pas-de-risque-identifie-
for the population
Ruthenium 106 Europe
CHAREYRON – CRIIRAD
As more corporates commit to sourcing 100 per cent renewable power, calls grow for clean power to play a central role in revamped national climate plans, Business Green, James Murray, 10 Nov 17
A wide-ranging coalition of businesses, NGOs, and energy industry experts have today unveiled a raft of new measures at the COP23 Summit in Bonn designed to accelerate the roll out of renewable energy technologies globally.
To mark the Summit’s Energy Day The Climate Group, IEA, IRENA and Sustainable Energy for All (SEforALL) initiative came together to put forward a series of reports and proposals that promise to beef up energy industry decarbonisation efforts through to 2020 and beyond.
Presented under the UN’s Marrakesh Partnership – which aims to encourage governments and businesses to step up climate action measures prior to the Paris Agreement coming in to full effect in 2020 – the group today unveiled fresh research on how national action plans can be strengthened to enable faster deployment of renewables, new corporate support for clean technologies, and additional funding for renewables research.
“With the price of renewable and storage technologies tumbling, and greater understanding on how to set the policy table for a cleaner energy mix and more integrated energy planning, the question before decision makers is, why wait?” said Rachel Kyte, Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General and CEO, Sustainable Energy for All.
She added that there was now ample evidence that clean energy investment could support both development efforts and the Paris Agreement. “The energy transition that we can see is underway and must be a transition towards energy systems around the world that secure sustainable energy for all,” she said. “This means placing energy efficiency first, adopting a laser like focus on ending energy poverty and using the renewable energy revolution to achieve universal access and a bending of the emissions curve.”
The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) today published new research detailing how the national climate action plans – or Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) in the UN jargon – are failing to keep pace with the renewables deployment being delivered by the energy industry.
The report argues that there is “substantial scope” for NDCs to be strengthened to take advantage of the falling cost of renewables and support the roll out of clean technologies that would help move countries on to the most cost effective emissions reduction trajectory.
“Two-thirds of global greenhouse gas emissions stem from energy production and use, which puts the energy sector front and centre of global efforts to combat climate change,” said Adnan Z. Amin, director-general at IRENA. “Our analysis shows that renewables and energy efficiency can together provide over 90 per cent of the mitigation needed in the energy system by 2050 to achieve the ambitions of the Paris Agreement, while also boosting the economy, creating jobs and improving human health and well-being.”
“We have a large, untapped, and affordable renewable energy potential waiting to be developed,” he added. “Revising the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) gives countries an opportunity to take a fresh look at how to harvest this potential, not only for mitigation, but in light of the multiple socio-economic benefits of renewables, also for adaptation.”
Women’s voices for ocean and climate https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/story/womens-voices-ocean-and-climate10 Nov 17,The crucial yet under-recognized role that the world’s women play as agents of change and healers of the ocean and climate was the focus of a side event at the 23rd UN Climate Change Conference (COP23) in Bonn, Germany on 6 November.
The event – hosted jointly by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), UN Environment and the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme – aimed to draw attention to the value of inclusive ocean and climate management.
“Women are leaders in resource management and agents for building resilient communities, and their valuable work bridges across climate action, sustainable development, and nature protection,” said Ms. Raumanu Pranjivan-Sharma, a senior legal officer for the Government of Fiji who is serving as a liaison officer for the COP23 presidency. “I want to reiterate the COP23 presidency’s commitment to the work on gender and climate change.”
The event, “The Role of Women as Healers of the Ocean at the Frontlines of the Climate-Resilient Development–Nature Nexus”, showcased the varied and valuable roles of women amidst the rising tide of challenges brought on by climate change and other human-induced changes.
“We also know that when women are well represented in decision-making processes, their ability to share skills and knowledge strengthens our collective effort to face the challenge of climate change,” said Ms. Pranjivan-Sharma.
The speakers, ranging from government officials and academics to women from coastal communities whose livelihoods depend on the ocean, shed light on how women continue to punch above their weight in trying to maintain their way of life amid the challenges facing our ocean and climate-dependent livelihoods.
The discussion highlighted the value of empowering women in engaging in ocean governance and climate adaptation and mitigation, using locally appropriate methods.
The different social and cultural differences must be recognized. We cannot come in blazing about being inclusive,” said Ms. Monifa Fiu, coordinator of the Laje.Rotuma Initiative, Vice President of the Fiji voyaging Uto Ni Yalo Trust, and Climate Adaptation Planner and Adviser with the Rotary Pacific Water Foundation. “Understanding that local scenario is key.”
Mobilizing women to be part of decision-making processes at all levels will help to ensure that women’s voices, needs and concerns are taken into consideration in planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluating climate actions.
Other speakers included Ms. Ingrid-Gabriela Hoven, Director-General, Global Issues-Sector Policies and Programmes at the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), Germany; Professor Elisabeth Holland, Director of the Pacific Center for Environment and Sustainable Development, University of the South Pacific; and Ms. Penina Moce, WWF Community Climate Witness, Fiji. The side event was moderated by Ms. Carol Phua from the MPA Action Agenda (WWF Netherlands).
The COP23 event builds on a multi-agency initiative to showcase experiences of women in the Asia-Pacific region in ocean management. The event premiered an Ocean Witness film of Roziah Jahalid from Semporna, Malaysia. Ocean Witness is a collection of stories told by people fully dedicated to the preservation of the ocean. Through the Ocean Witness platform, WWF and partners highlight tangible problems and solutions that are relevant to policymakers and the public.
Soil from Luckey clean-up project not going to local landfill, The Press by Larry Limpf, November 10, 2017 At least one waste stream from the clean-up project at the former Brush Beryllium plant site near the Village of Luckey won’t be disposed at the Evergreen landfill in Northwood
In a project update, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said it would not dispose of soils from the plant site at the landfill, which is operated by Waste Management.
Arleen K. Kreusch, a spokesperson for the Corps’ environmental project management team, said the decision was made after a “thorough evaluation.”
The Evergreen facility was one of two disposal sites the Corps had been considering for disposal as soils and other contaminated materials are removed during the project; the other site, the U.S. Ecology Wayne Disposal Facility, Belleville, Mich., received approval from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality to receive soils.
Kreusch said some soil and materials have already been transported to the Michigan facility…….
The site is a former beryllium production facility the Atomic Energy Commission operated in the 1950s as part of the national defense program.
The Corps has identified soils contaminated with beryllium, lead, radium-226, thorium-230, uranium-234 and uranium-238 for removal.
The 40-acre L-shaped parcel includes several trenches, lagoons and waste areas where solutions and sludge from the operation were stored, as well as manufacturing facilities, warehouses and utility buildings.
Department of Energy Cites Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC for Worker Safety and Health Program Violation https://energy.gov/articles/department-energy-cites-savannah-river-nuclear-solutions-llc-worker-safety-and-health-0, NOVEMBER 8, 2017 WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today issued a Preliminary Notice of Violation (PNOV) to Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC (SRNS) for a violation of worker safety and health requirements. The violation is associated with worker retaliation by SRNS against an employee at the Savannah River Site in 2015.
DOE’s Office of Enforcement conducted an investigation following a determination by the DOE Office of Hearing and Appeals (OHA) that SRNS subjected the employee to a reprisal prohibited under the Enhancement of Contractor Protection from Reprisal for Disclosure of Certain Information Act, Title 41 United State Code, Section 4712. The OHA Decision and Order required SRNS to provide relief for the employee in the form of compensation and reinstatement.
In addition to the prohibitions specified in the Act, subjecting an employee to reprisal for expressing a workplace safety and health concern also constitutes a violation of 10 C.F.R.
Part 851, DOE’s Worker Safety and Health Program rule. The PNOV cites one Severity Level I violation of requirements enforceable under 10 C.F.R. Part 851, Worker Safety and Health Program in the area of contractor management responsibilities and worker rights. DOE proposes an escalated civil penalty of $320,000. DOE considers the safety significance of the Part 851 violation as particularly egregious given the involvement of SRNS senior management in the retaliatory act.
Section 234C of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, authorizes the Energy Department to pursue regulatory enforcement under 10 C.F.R. Part 851 against DOE contractors for violations of worker safety and health requirements. DOE’s enforcement program encourages contractors to identify and correct worker safety and health program deficiencies at an early stage, before they contribute to, or result in more serious safety and health events.
SRNS is the management and operations contractor for the Savannah River Site located in Aiken, South Carolina.
Russia’s Rosatom hopes to win Saudi nuclear plants’ tender, DANANG, Vietnam, Nov 10 (Reuters) – Russian state nuclear company Rosatom hopes to win a tender announced by Saudi Arabia to build nuclear plants in the kingdom, Alexei Likhachyov, head of Rosatom, told reporters.
“As far as I understand, they (Saudi Arabia) should make a decision next year about the construction and a constructor. We hope it will be us,” he said.
Rosatom has sent initial proposals to Saudi Arabia for nuclear power generation and would make a bid if a tender is announced, the company said earlier this month.
Saudi Arabia is considering building 17.6 gigawatts of nuclear capacity by 2032, the equivalent of about 17 reactors, making it one of the biggest prospects for an industry struggling after the 2011 nuclear disaster in Japan. (Reporting by Denis Pinchuk; writing by Katya Golubkova; editing by Vladimir Soldatkin)DANANG, Vietnam, Nov 10 (Reuters) – Russian state nuclear company Rosatom hopes to win a tender announced by Saudi Arabia to build nuclear plants in the kingdom, Alexei Likhachyov, head of Rosatom, told reporters.
“As far as I understand, they (Saudi Arabia) should make a decision next year about the construction and a constructor. We hope it will be us,” he said.
Rosatom has sent initial proposals to Saudi Arabia for nuclear power generation and would make a bid if a tender is announced, the company said earlier this month.
Saudi Arabia is considering building 17.6 gigawatts of nuclear capacity by 2032, the equivalent of about 17 reactors, making it one of the biggest prospects for an industry struggling after the 2011 nuclear disaster in Japan. (Reporting by Denis Pinchuk; writing by Katya Golubkova; editing by Vladimir Soldatkin)
Informal Labour, Local Citizens and the Tokyo Electric Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Crisis: Responses to Neoliberal Disaster Management. ANU, Adam Broinowski, 7 Nov 17, “…..Conditions for Residents of Post-3.11 Radiation-Affected Areas
For roughly 30 years, the exclusion zone around Chernobyl has been set at 30 kilometres. Between 1 and 5 mSv/y is the assisted evacuation level and mandatory evacuation is 5 mSv/y and above. Unlike the approach adopted for Chernobyl, which was to achieve containment (a sarcophagus was built in eight months) and permanent resettlement of 350,000 people, the government and TEPCO have adopted a ‘dilution’ approach—to widely disperse and redistribute (‘share’) radioactive materials and waste and decontaminate residential areas. To date, this has permitted the permanent release through venting, dumping and incinerating of radioactive materials into the air, land, water and sea, and circulation in the food chain and recycled materials on a daily basis since March 2011.
Over the first few days at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station, severity (International Nuclear Event Scale) levels were steadily raised from level 3 to level 5 to level 7, and the mandatory evacuation zone was gradually expanded from 10 to 30 kilometres. On 16 March 2011, readings in Aizu-Wakamatsu Middle School (100 kilometres from FDNPS) in Fukushima Prefecture returned 2.57 microSv/h (microsieverts per hour),27 and Kōriyama (60 kilometres) recordings returned 3.6–3.9 microSv/h. Inside people’s homes in Kōriyama, levels were between 1.5 and 2.0 microSv/h and 8.2 microSv/h in the downpipes.28 This data was made public only three months later. On 6 April, schools in Fukushima Prefecture were reopened. As the boundaries, legal limits and information were gradually altered, populations were urged to return to work. At the same time the legal safety level for mandatory evacuation for the public (radiation safety level 1972) was raised from 1 to 20 mSv/y,29 based on a cumulative 100 mSv dose averaged over five years, suddenly shifting the parameters for ‘low-level’ radiation and designating the general public with the level previously designated to nuclear workers.
The US Government advised a mandatory evacuation zone of 50 miles (80 kilometres). Several nations’ embassies in Tokyo evacuated their staff. Of roughly 2 million in Fukushima Prefecture, about 80,000 people from 11 municipalities were ordered to evacuate while another 80,000 evacuated voluntarily. By late 2015, about 118,862 remained evacuated.30 Sixty thousand of these people live in temporary housing and many lacked basic needs. There were many evacuees who sought public housing who have been turned away.31 There are additional evacuees affected by the earthquakes and tsunami who come from other prefectures (including parts of Miyagi and Ibaraki), some of whom were also affected by radiation exposure.
The situation in many villages within contaminated areas signifies how government policies have further exposed a wide range of people—farmers, shopkeepers, taxi drivers, factory workers, mothers (as reproductive workers), school students, local public servants—to conditions informal workers have long had to endure. In several cases (i.e. Iitate, Minami Soma, Namie), the notification of residents of radiation danger was delayed and potassium iodide pills were not distributed. Similarly, data on weather patterns and distribution gathered by the SPEEDI monitoring system32 was suppressed. These populations were not adequately informed of what the dose readings meant in terms of health risk. When people did seek measurement and treatment for their likely exposures, hospitals and other institutions with the requisite measuring technologies refused to measure them, as it was deemed ‘there was no reason for internal contamination and so there was no reason to measure’.33 These people unwittingly became hibakusha (被曝者), broadly defined as victims of radiation exposure.
Even though the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster has caused near-permanent pollution, the conflation of the radiation problem with tsunami and earthquake destruction to be managed as a single large-scale ‘clean-up’, reconstruction and revitalisation operation as instituted by the National Resilience Council 2013 has occluded the materiality of radiation.
Informal workers on ‘decontamination projects’ washed down public buildings and homes and scraped up and replaced soil and sludge contaminated at levels found for example at between 84,000–446,000 Becquerels per kilogram (Bq/kg) in Kōriyama (60 km from Fukushima Daiichi).34 They also collected waste that included radioactive debris, uniforms and tools. The organic waste is stored on government-purchased land in black industrial bags piled in large walls and mounds to create a sort of buffer zone on town margins and in areas determined as long-term irradiated zones.35 Other contaminated waste is burned in newly constructed incinerators in towns nearest the plant (such as Futaba, Okuma, Naraha, Tamura, Tomioka, with more planned) in addition to the incineration already underway in major cities since 3.11, even while evacuees are being compelled to return to some of them (Tamura, Kawauchi, Naraha) where evacuation orders have been lifted. In addition, in June 2016 the Ministry of the Environment approved radioactive soil of up to 8,000 Bq/kg to be reused in national public works. Although stipulated to be used for roads and barriers (such as sea walls) under a layer of non-contaminated materials, there is concern that these will corrode over time leading to recirculation in the environment.
As compensation schemes are contingent upon where evacuees come from (whether these are areas where there are plans to lift evacuation orders, areas pending decontamination in the shorter term, or those deemed difficult to return to), those mandatory evacuees without property have received on average 100,000 yen per month while voluntary evacuees have received 60,000 yen per month, even if radiation levels in their residential areas were high.
The return to towns that received over 50 mSv/y (Futaba, Namie, Okuma) remains unlikely for decades, but if evacuees do return to other villages, they risk lifetime re-exposures of up to 20 mSv/y. In late 2015, Iitate village, for example, was divided into Areas 1 and 2, which are being prepared for repopulation (54,000 people), and Area 3, which so far remains out of bounds. Although the topsoil contaminated with Caesium was stripped and replaced (i.e. returning 0.6 microSv/h) and its houses and roads were washed down, 96 per cent of Iitate remained at 1 microSv/h. As Iitate is 75 per cent forest, which trapped a large stock of contamination, the land re-concentrates through radiation circulation (hence, quickly returned to 2.6 microSv/h).36 If the majority in Iitate, who are primarily agricultural workers, can no longer harvest vegetables, rice, wild mushrooms and vegetables (sansai 山菜) or burn wood for heat, and their houses are re-irradiated, then only the semi-autonomous elderly are likely to return. By August 2015, less than 10 per cent of roughly 14,000 eligible had applied for temporary return.37
So-called ‘decontamination’ and ‘remediation’ has been deployed to justify redefining evacuation boundaries and lifting evacuation orders so as to cut compensation payments. Following the 37th National Emergency Response Headquarters meeting held at the Prime Minister’s Office in June 2015 in which the Prime Minister decreed that ‘evacuees must return to their hometowns as quickly as possible and start new lives’,38 in late August 2015 evacuees were told if they chose to return home they would receive a one-off payment of 100,000 yen per household. If they did not, once evacuation orders had been lifted, ‘free rent’ (yachin hojo 家賃補助) for voluntary evacuees would be cut by March 2017 at the very latest.39 Further, the government announced its intention to partially lift the restriction on the ‘difficult-to-return zone’ by 2022 so as to counteract the negative image of the area and its produce.40 Without alternative income, and with a significant housing shortage due to the restriction of new public housing, many have been and will be forced to return to contaminated areas, to endure radiation exposure without compensation. If only the elderly return, there will be few prospects for young families in such towns where there is little local business and infrastructure, and public facilities and housing are in disrepair.
In Naraha, between May and August 2015, ambient readings in populated areas officially determined as ‘low or moderate’ returned 0.3–0.7 microSv/h and soil samples returned 26,480–52,500 Bq/kg of Caesium 137 and 134 combined (and 18,700 Bq/kg in the town’s water reservoir).41 While the majority of former residents are more likely to either pull down their houses and sell the land or maintain their homes as vacationers, there is additional private and state pressure to industrialise these former idylls as ‘reconstruction hubs’. As part of the ‘Innovation Coast’ plan, for example, 1,000 irregular workers have resided on the town’s outskirts as they built a giant research facility (estimated cost: 85 billion yen) to train hundreds of workers in reactor simulations and use of specialised robots. As industry colonises and transforms such towns, the pressing concern of unmitigated radiation levels in soil, forests and water, whether from distribution or recirculation, remains due to the long-lived decay and harmful effects of these radionuclides.
Similarly, in the effort to stimulate business, highways (Route 6) and train lines (Jōban line) passing directly through the (former) evacuation zone were reopened in 2015, although traffic must still travel with closed windows at the time of writing. Regular users of these corridors such as railway and transport workers and irregular nuclear workers accumulate higher doses from regular exposure while radioactive particles attached to vehicles are dispersed beyond contaminated areas. Clearly, a containment and permanent resettlement approach has been deemed untenable in the belief it would disrupt economic productivity levels. As one high school student insightfully observed, ‘Sensei … If they [really wanted to turn] Fukushima into an evacuation zone they’d have to block the Route 4 highway, Tōhoku expressway and Shinkansen’.42 Nevertheless, in lieu of overall reconstruction costs less conservatively estimated at half a trillion dollars, it may have been cheaper in the longer term to adopt permanent resettlement, education, health treatment and work creation strategies……http://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/n2335/html/ch06.xhtml?referer=2335&page=11
¶ “Cities Stand United on Paris Agreement at COP23” • Cities face a new reality of monster storms, unprecedented flooding, dangerous and record-breaking heat and drought, wildfires, and other challenges. More than 350 US “Climate Mayors” have pledged to commit to reduce emissions 80% by 2050, as laid out in Paris. [Natural Resources Defense Council]
Bonn, site of COP23 (Pixabay image)
Science and Technology:
¶ Self-driving systems don’t have to be perfect to save tens of thousands of lives, the RAND Corporation says in a report, The Enemy of Good: Estimating the Cost of Waiting for Nearly Perfect. If autonomous vehicles systems drive only slightly better than humans, they could prevent hundreds of thousands of fatalities worldwide over the next 30 years. [CleanTechnica]
World:
¶ A report by the International Energy Agency underscores the important implications of the recent rapid cost reductions in solar PVs…
“Suddenly what was once thought to be a problem confined to the third world has arrived in southern Europe.” — Euronews. ***** We’ve been taught that human-caused climate change through fossil fuel burning only affects poor people. That it only affects the third world. That if you’re rich, or if you live in places like […]
Pope Francis has condemned the ‘false sense of security’ created by nuclear weapons
Nuclear weapons create a “false sense of security” and serve a “mentality of fear” that affects the entire human race, Pope Francis said today.
Condemning the escalation of the arms race and the price of modernising and developing weaponry, he said the result is that “the real priorities” such as the fight against poverty, the promotion of peace, the undertaking of educational, ecological and healthcare projects, and the development of human rights, are relegated to second place
“Nor can we fail to be genuinely concerned by the catastrophic humanitarian and environmental effects of any employment of nuclear devices,” he added.
Pope Francis was addressing participants in an International Symposium, “Prospects for a World Free from Nuclear Weapons and for Integral Disarmament”, organised by the Vatican’s Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development.
The conference follows the approval of the “Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons”, signed by 122 countries including the Holy See in New York on 7 July 2017, which determined that nuclear weapons are not only immoral, but also should be regarded as an illegal means of warfare.
In Rome for the conference are eleven Nobel Peace Laureates, UN and NATO top representatives, diplomats from the Russian Federation, United States, South Korea and Iran as well as top experts on armaments and weapons and the heads of major foundations and other organisations involved in the debate.
Particularly significant is the presence of Masako Wada, assistant secretary general of Nihon Hidankyo, one of the last survivors of the Hiroshima’s nuclear attack, representing the victims of nuclear weapons and of nuclear experiments.
Pope Francis referred explicitly to the “witness” of the survivors of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, together with other victims of nuclear arms testing. “May their prophetic voice serve as a warning, above all for coming generations,” he said.
He warned of the risk of accidental detonation, condemning the threat of the use of nuclear weapons as well as their very possession. “For they exist in the service of a mentality of fear that affects not only the parties in conflict but the entire human race,” he said.
“International relations cannot be held captive to military force, mutual intimidation, and the parading of stockpiles of arms. Weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons, create nothing but a false sense of security. They cannot constitute the basis for peaceful coexistence between members of the human family, which must rather be inspired by an ethics of solidarity.
“Furthermore, weapons that result in the destruction of the human race are senseless even from a tactical standpoint. For that matter, while true science is always at the service of humanity, in our time we are increasingly troubled by the misuse of certain projects originally conceived for a good cause. ”
He warned that nuclear technologies are spreading, also through digital communications, and that the instruments of international law have not prevented new states from joining those who already have them. “The resulting scenarios are deeply disturbing if we consider the challenges of contemporary geopolitics, like terrorism or asymmetric warfare.”
But he also welcomed the recent UN vote, describing it as “historic”. He said: “At the same time, a healthy realism continues to shine a light of hope on our unruly world.”
This year marks the fiftieth anniversary of the Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio of Pope Paul VI which set forth the notion of integral human development and proposed it as “the new name of peace”. Pope Paul VI stated in this letter that “development cannot be restricted to economic growth alone. To be authentic, it must be integral; it must foster the development of each man and of the whole man.
COLUMBIA, S.C. — The South Carolina House speaker is proposing six laws aimed at protecting consumers from the consequences of a failed project to build two nuclear reactors.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. and the state-owned utility Santee Cooper have sought to insulate themselves from the hemorrhaging costs of their ill-fated joint venture at the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, which they abandoned on July 31 after Westinghouse, the chief contractor, declared bankruptcy. The utilities had already spent more than $9 billion by then, collecting nearly $2 billion in interest from ratepayers along the way.
House Speaker Jay Lucas of Hartsville announced his proposals on Thursday, saying they would “gut existing laws” that allowed utilities to charge customers before the reactors were complete, and help avoid another expensive construction failure.
“The legislation introduced today lowers current rates and prevents consumers from paying a single penny more for the costly failed project,” the Republican’s statement said.
Lucas’ legislation would cut SCE&G customer rates by 18 per cent, the amount they’re currently paying for the project. A typical residential customer would save about $27 per month. The hit to SCE&G would total about $37 million per month, or nearly $450 million per year.
Another proposal would allow refunds of what customers have already paid, if regulators conclude there had been “poor management” by SCE&G. Still another would prevent Santee Cooper from collecting money to reimburse itself the costs of ending the project.
Currently, Santee Cooper is not subject to Public Service Commission oversight. The proposed legislation would change that, and shake up its management structure as well, removing Santee Cooper’s board of directors, the Public Service Commissioners and even the panel that that interviews prospective members of the regulatory panel. Their replacements would be required to pass rigorous qualifications.
Lucas also would give the Office of Regulatory staff, a state watchdog agency, more power.
Santee Cooper spokeswoman Mollie Gore said the utility is reviewing the proposals. SCE&G had no immediate comment, but previously dismissed such ideas as “radical and disruptive.”
Incoming CEO Jimmy Addison of SCANA, SCE&G’s parent company, said making the utility pay its share of the project would scare off investors and lenders, making it harder to finance day-to-day operations, including purchasing fuel, hiring contractors for repairs and paying employees. Already, SCANA stock has dropped 25 per cent, reducing the company’s market capitalization to $6.3 billion, since the project was abandoned.
A cloud of radioactive pollution over Europe in recent weeks indicates that an accident has happened in a nuclear facility in Russia or Kazakhstan in the last week of September, French nuclear safety institute IRSN said on Thursday.
The IRSN ruled out an accident in a nuclear reactor, saying it was likely to be in a nuclear fuel treatment site or centre for radioactive medicine. There has been no impact on human health or the environment in Europe, the IRSN said.
IRSN, the technical arm of French nuclear regulator ASN, said in a statement it could not pinpoint the location of the release of radioactive material but that based on weather patterns, the most plausible zone lay south of the Ural mountains, between the Urals and the Volga river.
This could indicate Russia or possibly Kazakhstan, an IRSN official said.
Note; Looking over EURDEP radiation mapping i could only find a few high peaks in Greece (Data points stop after 28th October) and Macedonia. There was also some missing data points found near the Chernobyl disaster site. These are similar geographically to past releases from Europes IAEA Isotope medical reactor in located in Hungary. The IAEA tried to blame Pakistan then Japan for the release in 2011.
In a recent interview with Edward Snowden in Japan he discussed the implications of the Japanese Secrets Act of 2013 (that was used to stop any information from whistleblowers concerning the Fukushima nuclear disaster).
The interview is 1 hour long and during the session he described how Japan had to enact the Secrets Act legislation for them to be able to access the 5 Eyes surveillance network. He explains that Japan will only be a 2nd tier partner because only white privileged countries (like the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and of course the USA) can be part of the 1st Tier partners.
The UK enacted a similar Secrets Act in April 2014 that would make nuclear information “Official Sensitive”, meaning that this data would not be available to the media and civil society groups. The UK also added that nuclear and health data from both public and private companies would have this type of information censored from before the Act was made law.
During the 2012 Olympics in the UK civil society groups were targeted by police and the security services and this damaged the confidence in the public to voice opposition and largely continues up to today with new anti extremist laws being used against activists.
Two recent cases of abuse by the state have come to my notice concerning stakeholder groups in the UK. I was informed that Richard Bramhall has been having serious problems with both his emails disappearing and data being removed from the Low Level Radiation Campaign website. Prof Chris Busby, in a recent interview, explained how he was chased around a Swedish airport by a London based man with no luggage whilst heading towards a UK based government meeting (The Minister who was supposed to show up did not). I have experienced CND UK main offices having their phones blocked (2015) in strange ways and I also have many experiences of hacking and overt operations against me (I had to leave the UK in the end).
The full interview explaining why these surveillance systems are bad for Japans democracy and legal system. There are Japanese subtitles and the audio is in English.
nuclear-news 