2017 November 15 « nuclear-news

Who’s Really Driving Nuclear-Weapons Production? Follow the money.

By William D. Hartung [This piece has been updated and adapted from William D. Hartung’s “Nuclear Politics” in Sleepwalking to Armageddon: The Threat of Nuclear Annihilation, edited by Helen Caldicott and just published by the New Press.] The Nation, 14 Nov 17

Until recently, few of us woke up worrying about the threat of nuclear war. Such dangers seemed like Cold War relics, associated with outmoded practices like building fallout shelters and “duck and cover” drills.

But give Donald Trump credit. When it comes to nukes, he’s gotten our attention. He’s prompted renewed concern, if not outright alarm, about the possibility that such weaponry could actually be used for the first time since the 6th and 9th of August 1945. That’s what happens when the man in the Oval Office begins threatening to rain “fire and fury like the world has never seen” on another country or, as he did in his presidential campaign, claiming cryptically that, when it comes to nuclear weapons, “the devastation is very important to me.”

Trump’s pronouncements are at least as unnerving as President Ronald Reagan’s infamous “joke” that “we begin bombing [the Soviet Union] in five minutes” or the comment of a Reagan aide that, “with enough shovels,” the United States could survive a superpower nuclear exchange.

Whether in the 1980s or today, a tough-guy attitude on nuclear weapons, when combined with an apparent ignorance about their world-ending potential, adds up to a toxic brew. An unprecedented global anti-nuclear movement—spearheaded by the European Nuclear Disarmament campaign and, in the United States, the Nuclear Freeze campaign—helped turn President Reagan around, so much so that he later agreed to substantial nuclear cuts and acknowledged that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”

It remains to be seen whether anything could similarly influence Donald Trump. One thing is certain, however: The president has plenty of nuclear weapons to back up his aggressive rhetoric—more than 4,000 of them in the active US stockpile, when a mere handful of them could obliterate North Korea at the cost of millions of lives. Indeed, a few hundred nuclear warheads could do the same for even the largest of nations and those 4,000, if ever used, could essentially destroy the planet.

In other words, in every sense of the term, the US nuclear arsenal already represents overkill on an almost unimaginable scale. Independent experts from US war colleges suggest that about 300 warheads would be more than enough to deter any country from launching a nuclear attack on the United States.

Despite this, Donald Trump is all in (and more) on the Pentagon’s plan—developed under Barack Obama—to build a new generation of nuclear-armed bombers, submarines, and missiles, as well as new generations of warheads to go with them. The cost of this “modernization” program? The Congressional Budget Office recently pegged it at $1.7 trillion over the next three decades, adjusted for inflation. As Derek Johnson, director of the antinuclear organization Global Zero, has noted, “That’s money we don’t have for an arsenal we don’t need……………”https://www.thenation.com/article/whos-really-driving-nuclear-weapons-production/

November 15, 2017 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Minerals deal needed to fuel the clean energy transition

http://reneweconomy.com.au/minerals-deal-needed-fuel-clean-energy-transition-24352/

By Damien Giurco Nicholas Arndt and Saleem H. Ali on 15 November 2017 The Conversation Representatives from around the world are meeting in Bonn this week to discuss progress towards the goals of the Paris climate agreement.

A large part of this challenge involves rapidly scaling up the deployment of renewable energy, while curbing fossil fuel use – but little attention has been paid to the minerals that will be needed to build these technologies.

Wind and solar infrastructure, batteries and electric vehicles all require vast amounts of mined (and recycled) resources. These range from copper for wires and electric motors, to lithium and cobalt for batteries, to smaller amounts of rare metals like indium and gallium for solar cells.

Challenges for minerals supply

While the Paris agreement has created a global framework for managing carbon, nothing similar exists for minerals. This leaves the pursuit of sustainable resource development largely in the hands of mining companies and state-owned enterprises.

Mining these resources generates significant water and air pollution. This problem is increasing: for example, global copper ore quality is declining over time. That means that copper mining now requires excavating twice as much ore as ten years ago to yield the same amount of copper, creating much more mine waste.

Lower commodity prices have meant that investment in exploring new mine sites has fallen. But it takes a long time to develop new mines – it can often take 20 years to go from finding a metal deposit to beginning mining, and only around 20% of discoveries since 2000 have led to an operating mine.

Lack of investment in exploration is driven by short-term thinking, rather than a long-term plan to supply rising demand.

In parallel, resistance to mining, often at a local level, is increasing worldwide. Environmental catastrophes, of which there have been many examples, erode social trust, often delaying or stopping mine development.

A new global mechanism to more effectively plan resource supply could help rebuild trust in local communities, limit price spikes to ensure equitable access to metal resources, and balance the international tension which arises as industries and governments compete for minerals from a shrinking list of countries able to tolerate and profit from sustaining a mining industry.

A global agreement on mineral resources

Developing a global mechanism will of course be difficult, requiring substantive dialogue and strong leadership. But there are organisations that could step up, such as the United Nations Environment Assembly, or the newly established Intergovernmental Forum on Mining Metals and Sustainable Development.

The global community is well aware of the threat that rising sea levels pose to low-lying countries. We need similar awareness of the crucial role minerals are playing in the energy transition, and the risk that supply problems could derail sustainability goals.

To that end, we need to globally coordinate several crucial aspects of mineral development. To start with, while most detailed information on where minerals are mined and sold is privately held, there is publicly available data that could be used to predict possible imbalances in supply and demand internationally (for example copper, iron, lithium, indium).

Publicly-funded institutions have an important role here. They can assess how known supply will meet future demand, and deliver insight into the changing environmental impact.

It should also be entirely possible to develop inventories of recyclable metals, which can be an important supplement to large mining operations.

Compiling inventories of recyclable metals is underway across Europe as part of a move towards a circular economy (where as much waste as possible is repurposed).

While recycling for for metals like lithium for less than 1%, around 40% of steel demand is met from scrap recycled during manufacturing and from end-of-life products and infrastructure. Thinking smarter about eventual dismantling of buildings at the time when they are built, can support better use of recycled resources.

Geoscience agencies already offer maps of underground minerals, demonstrating that this kind of co-ordinated perspective is feasible. Extending this approach to recyclables can mitigate environmental impact and ease the social objections to new mines.

A global mechanism for mineral exploration and supply could also be an opportunity to promote best-practice for responsible mining, with a focus on social license and fair and transparent royalty arrangements.

Overcoming resistance

It’s a challenging proposition, especially as many countries display less enthusiasm for international agreements. However, it will be increasingly difficult to meet the Paris targets without tackling this problem.

In the decades ahead, our mineral supply will still need to double or triple to meet the demand for electric vehicles and other technologies required by our growing global population.

In short, resource efficiency and jobs of the future depend on an assured mineral supply. This should be a nonpartisan issue, across the global political spectrum.

November 15, 2017 Posted by Christina Macpherson | RARE EARTHS, renewable | Leave a comment

Nuclear radiation harmed 3 generations of family, claims British veteran

Veteran claims three generations of family left with deformities due to nuclear test radiation exposure http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/nuclear-test-veteran-from-norfolk-claims-radiation-caused-family-deformities-1-5276518 Luke Powell, luke.powell@archant.co.uk, @LukePowell88 13 November 2017

When Robert Fleming watched one of the world’s most powerful weapons detonate 60 years ago, little did he know of the lasting impact it would have on future generations. Aged just 24, the RAF serviceman was stationed on an island in the Pacific Ocean when Britain tested its first megaton-class thermonuclear bomb.

Now aged 83, he believes his prolonged exposure to radiation in the following weeks has led to deformities in three generations of his family.

He said his grandson and great grandson suffered problems with their genitals, while his youngest daughter was born with extra knuckles.

In total, he said eight members of his family – mostly grandchildren and great grandchildren – were born with severe health defects.

Mr Fleming is one of several veterans from Norfolk who claim their ill health is linked to the nuclear bomb tests they witnessed in the 1950s.

Many have now shared their stories to mark the 60th anniversary of the UK’s first true hydrogen bomb test on November 8, 1957, codenamed Grapple X.

Around 22,000 men, many on National Service, were ordered to Australia and Christmas Island in the South Pacific from 1952 to witness the explosion of dozens of atomic and hydrogen bombs.

In the following years, many reported increased cases of blood, thyroid and tongue cancers, as well as rare blood disorders. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has always denied blame.

Mr Fleming, who lives in Downham Market, was on a beach on Christmas Island during the Grapple X test.

He was one of around 3,000 servicemen stationed within a 23-mile radius of the planned detonation point.

The men, who were from the RAF, Navy and Army, were given no protective clothing or individual dosimeters to measure radiation levels. Instead, they were told to sit with their backs to the blast and cover their eyes.

Mr Fleming, who also took part in the Grapple Y test months later, believed radioactive fallout contaminated water sources on the island.

He said: “We used to swim in the sea and in the lagoons, shower in sea water and eat fish that were caught there.

“It was all contaminated, but I didn’t think anything of it at the time.”

Mr Fleming said he avoided any major health issues until his later years.

Instead, it was his youngest daughter who was the first to show signs of ill-health. She was born with extra knuckles on both hands, and lost her teeth by the time she was 30.

His wife, Jean, 79, said: “It was frightening. When one of our children fell pregnant we would just think ‘please god let them be alright’.

“But they just started getting more and more wrong with them.”

Mrs Fleming said one grandson was born with his knee caps out of place, while another suffered from a condition affecting his genitals.

Their great grandchildren, meanwhile, suffer from a wide range of health defects, including having no enamel on their teeth, hypermobility, eyesight problems, and genital issues.

Fellow Grapple X veteran Derek Chappell, who lives in Swaffham, said he developed a rare blood disorder decades after the tests.

Known as polycythaemia vera, the condition causes too many red blood cells to be produced in the bone marrow. Cancer Research UK said exposure to radiation can increase the risk of developing the disorder.

Mr Chappell, who was 20 when he witnessed the explosion, had been tasked with recording the blast from the back of an old signals truck.

The 81-year-old said: “There has to be justice for what has happened, but of course everyone who was involved is now getting on a bit.”

Earlier this year, London’s Brunel University announced it was launching a study looking at possible genetic damage caused to nuclear test veterans.

Blood samples were taken from 50 men present at explosions in Christmas Island and South Australia in the 1950s and 1960s.

Samples will also be taken from the men’s wives and children to see if any genetic damage has been passed on.

The UK remains the only nuclear power to deny recognition to its bomb test veterans. France, Russia, the USA, China, Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and even the Isle of Man all admit their citizens were harmed by radiation and pay some form of compensation.

My gums started to bleed and my teeth fell out

Veteran David Freeman said his gums started to bleed in the weeks after the Grapple X test.

And within a year, the 78-year-old, from Thorpe St Andrew, said his teeth started to fall out.

But, much like fellow test veteran Robert Fleming, Mr Freeman said it was not just himself who has suffered.

He claimed his daughter also started to lose her teeth, while one grandchild was born deaf, and another only had one kidney.

Mr Freeman, meanwhile, has suffered bowel and bladder cancer.

“When you are exposed to something in the megaton range, you are bound to be affected by radiation of some sort,” he said.

“We must have had the lot, because when it rained on the island, we were walking through six to seven inches of water.”

He also claimed there was an instance on Christmas Island where discoloured rain fell from the sky – a claim backed up by other veterans.

MoD response

The MoD said it was “grateful” to those who participated in the British nuclear testing programme.

But it added: “Other than what we have paid out for, we have seen no valid evidence to link these tests to ill health.”

The MoD said there was no published peer-reviewed evidence of excess illness or mortality among nuclear test veterans as a group, which could be linked to their participation in the tests, and claimed there were “state-of-the-art” procedures in place to ensure the health and safety of those taking part.

The MoD said a possible increase in leukaemia in the first 25 years had been identified. As a result, awards were made under the War Pensions Scheme.

Nuclear test veterans took their case to the Supreme Court but in March 2012 seven justices handed down a majority decision in favour of the MoD.

It said: “All seven justices recognised the veterans would face great difficulty proving a causal link between illnesses suffered and attendance at the tests.”

The nuclear tests

Operation Grapple was the code-name given to a series of nuclear weapon tests carried out by the British in the late 1950s.

Between 1957 and 1958, nine hydrogen bombs were detonated at Malden Island and Christmas Island.

The first series of Grapple tests at Malden Island failed to reach the predicted destructive yield.

But months later on November 8, the Grapple X thermonuclear bomb was dropped by a Valiant bomber five miles off the south east point of Christmas Island.

It detonated after 52 seconds of freefall and created Britain’s first megaton-class explosion, with a yield of 1.8 megatons, 100 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

The following test, Grapple Y, was in April 1958 and became the most powerful nuclear weapon ever tested by the UK, with a yield of around three megatons.

In 1958, a moratorium came into effect and Britain never resumed atmospheric testing.

DDT spray over Christmas Island

Radioactive fallout was not the only potential health risk to those stationed on Christmas Island.

Test veteran Gordon Wilcox, 80, from Attleborough, said aircraft would regularly spray the island with the insecticide DDT.

The substance was banned by most developed countries in the 1970s and 1980s.

Mr Wilcox, who is chairman of the Anglia branch of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association (BNTVA), said: “There is credible anecdotal evidence to the effect that many individuals would eat their meals in the open air to escape the heat in the mess tents.

“Consequently, they and their food would be invariably exposed to the spray.”

Tests veteran Ron Neal, who attended the anniversary event in Norwich on Wednesday, managed to photograph an aircraft spraying the chemical.

The BNTVA said tests found that DDT is of low hazard and low toxicity to man

November 15, 2017 Posted by Christina Macpherson | health, PERSONAL STORIES, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Hanford board says billions more needed for nuke cleanup

, by Associated Press http://keprtv.com/news/local/hanford-board-says-billions-more-needed-for-nuke-cleanup 14 Nov 17RICHLAND, Wash. (AP) – The Hanford Advisory Board says more money is needed to clean up the Hanford Nuclear Reservation.

The board says Congress needs to give Hanford some $4 billion per year to reach cleanup deadlines.

The Tri-City Herald reports Hanford currently receives $2.2 billion to $2.5 billion per year.

The board is composed of people from the Tri-Cities and the Northwest who have an interest in cleaning up the site.

The board at a meeting last week said the current funding level is “dangerous and destructive.”

Hanford is located near the Tri-Cities and for decades made plutonium for nuclear weapons. The site is now engaged in cleaning up the resulting radioactive wastes.

November 15, 2017 Posted by Christina Macpherson | general | Leave a comment

Drop in EDF share price as Hinkley nuclear saga drags on

FT 13th Nov 2017, Shares in French energy company EDF dropped more than 10 per cent on Monday
after it cut its profit and cash flow targets because of falling demand and
delays in restarting some of its nuclear reactors. The state-backed company
said earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation for 2018
were now expected to be between €14.6bn and €15.3bn, compared with its
earlier assumption of at least €15.2bn. It also said it was less confident

about achieving positive cash flow, saying it will be “slightly
positive or close to balance”. It had previously said it would return to
positive cash flow, after dividend payments, in 2018.

EDF, which is in charge of the controversial new nuclear power development at Hinkley Point
in the UK, blamed lower electricity consumption in France, lower
availability of some of its nuclear reactors in France and the risk that it
might sell less energy in the UK and at a lower price. “Basically, this
is the market taking into account the series of bad news that has been
coming,” said one sector specialist.

“It’s Hinkley Point, it’s the
number of plants that have had to be stopped due to the regulator and
fundamentally a Nicolas Hulot climate that is not very positive.” Mr
Hulot is a climate campaigner and strident critic of nuclear power who is
now France’s energy minister. Morgan Stanley suggested that additional
risks included “possible delays in the delivery of nuclear plants”,
while Mr Jeffery said there is “a strong risk the issue caused by the
nuclear regulator’s ongoing investigation into EDF’s existing nuclear
plants could roll on beyond early 2018 as anticipated by EDF”.

November 15, 2017 Posted by Christina Macpherson | general | Leave a comment

French government considers changing focus of EDF from nuclear to renewables

FT 14th Nov 2017, France is considering changing the governance of state-owned utility EDF to
shift its focus from nuclear to renewable energy as Emmanuel Macron’s
government seeks to cut the country’s reliance on atomic power — the
backbone of its energy policy for five decades. Nicolas Hulot, energy and
environment minister, told the Financial Times the country’s largest
electricity producer needed to embrace a transition towards environmentally
friendly energy rather than “resist” it. The process may require
revisiting the structure of the company, in addition to a plan to close up
to 35 of the 58 nuclear reactors it operates across France within the next
15 years.
https://www.ft.com/content/132f512a-c89f-11e7-ab18-7a9fb7d6163e

November 15, 2017 Posted by Christina Macpherson | France, politics | Leave a comment

Next Entries »