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

Climate change will mean three times the number of migrants reaching Europe by 2100

Climate Change To Triple Number Of Migrants Reaching European Union By 2100, Study Predicts, Clean Technica, December 28th, 2017 by James Ayre 

The number of migrants making their way into the European Union will nearly triple by the year 2100 if rapid climate warming occurs, according to a new study published in the journal Science.

The new study — which was actually requested by the European Commission itself — relates directly only to climate warming, it should noted — mass migrations triggered by wars and cultural conflicts would be in addition to those discussed by the study……

the reality is that the findings are likely a vast underestimate of what will be occurring during the second half of the 21st century — as climate warming and weirding intensify; and as the common human activities of projection, scapegoating, and lazy thinking do as well.

According to the new study, asylum applications to the EU (from across 103 different nations) tended “to rise in the 2000–2014 period when temperatures at home were far hotter or colder than the ideal for growing maize.”

The projection put forward by the study is that asylum applications could climb to 1.01 million per year by 2100 (up from an average of 351,000 during 2000-2014) under a scenario that sees temperatures rise fairly fast. The primary driver of this rise would be reduced agricultural productivity (again, the human conflict aspects of what’s coming aren’t being factored into this work).

As I noted above, the reality is that even that figure is likely a vast underestimate of what’s coming — based on a look back at earlier periods of rapid climatic change and/or ecological collapse (soil fertility loss included) and taking into account more factors than the research did………

won’t rising temperatures and falling agricultural yields lead directly to weakening civil institutions (self-consumption), political repression, and civil war? Isn’t that exactly what’s happened in Syria over the last decade?

I’ll end things here with the study’s assertion that “our findings support the assessment that climate change, especially continued warming, will add another ‘threat multiplier’ that induces people to seek refuge abroad.”

December 29, 2017 Posted by | climate change, EUROPE | Leave a comment

Is Nuclear War Inevitable? THE DOOMSDAY MACHINE 

December 29, 2017 Posted by | general | Leave a comment

What now for South Carolina, having wasted $9 Billion on Nuclear Reactors that will never work

South Carolina Spent $9 Billion on Nuclear Reactors That Will Never Run. Now What? The legislature must decide whether residents will keep being charged, possibly for decades, for the failed project. Governing. BY ALAN GREENBLATT JANUARY 2018 It has to be one of the greatest wastes of money in any state’s history. Last summer, two utility companies halted construction on nuclear reactors in South Carolina. They had already sunk more than $9 billion into the project, which will never be completed or generate a kilowatt of power. The state is now trying to figure out who’s to blame, and who will pay.

The story started a dozen years ago. Back in 2006, South Carolina, along with several other states, passed legislation to try to jumpstart the moribund nuclear construction industry………

Customers have already been billed some $2 billion for the reactors. Under current regulations, the utilities continue to collect $37 million per month. That means the average ratepayer is paying an additional $250 per year, or 18 percent of the bill. This could go on for 60 years. “You will literally have your children and grandchildren pay for this mistake,” says Bursey.

Some legislators have argued that consumers shouldn’t be on the hook for the billions already charged. But it may not be legally possible to recover the money. It may not even be feasible. The utilities don’t have the cash to give back, even if they wanted to. “That would be the fair thing, but it’s not realistic,” Massey says.

Instead, the fight in the legislature this year will be about whether to curtail additional payments going forward. Needless to say, the utilities are opposed to that idea. They insist they must collect the money, or they won’t be able to continue operating or have access to capital. They aren’t sympathetic actors, but Santee Cooper is state-owned so legislators will have to take its concerns seriously…..

December 29, 2017 Posted by | business and costs, politics, USA | Leave a comment

Michael Shellenberger’s misinformation on Chernobyl and Fukushima

Exposing the misinformation of Michael Shellenberger and ‘Environmental Progress’ Jim Green, 

Nuclear Monitor Issue: #853 4689 30/10/2017  “…..Chernobyl and Fukushima

Shellenberger says that at a recent talk in Berlin: “Many Germans simply could not believe how few people died and will die from the Chernobyl accident (under 200) and that nobody died or will die from the meltdowns at Fukushima. How could it be that everything we were told is not only wrong, but often the opposite of the truth?”4

There’s a simple reason that Germans didn’t believe Shellenberger’s claims about Chernobyl and Fukushima ‒ they are false.

Shellenberger claims that “under 200” people have died and will die from the Chernobyl disaster. In fact, the lowest of the estimates of the Chernobyl cancer death toll is the World Health Organization’s estimate of “up to 9,000 excess cancer deaths” in the most contaminated parts of the former Soviet Union.29 And of course there are higher estimates for the death toll across Europe.30,31

Shellenberger claims that the Fukushima meltdowns “killed precisely no one” and that “nobody died or will die from the meltdowns at Fukushima”.4 An EP report has this to say about Fukushima: “[T]he science is unequivocal: nobody has gotten sick much less died from the radiation that escaped from three meltdowns followed by three hydrogen gas explosions. And there will be no increase in cancer rates.”3

In support of those assertions, EP cites a World Health Organization report that directly contradicts EP’s claims. The WHO report concluded that for people in the most contaminated areas in Fukushima Prefecture, the estimated increased risk for all solid cancers will be around 4% in females exposed as infants; a 6% increased risk of breast cancer for females exposed as infants; a 7% increased risk of leukaemia for males exposed as infants; and for thyroid cancer among females exposed as infants, an increased risk of up to 70% (from a 0.75% lifetime risk up to 1.25%).32

Applying a linear-no threshold (LNT) risk factor to the estimated collective radiation dose from Fukushima fallout gives an estimated long-term cancer death toll of around 5,000 people.33 Nuclear lobbyists are quick to point out that LNT may overestimate risks from low dose and low dose-rate exposure. But LNT may also underestimate the risks. The 2006 report of the US National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) states: “The committee recognizes that its risk estimates become more uncertain when applied to very low doses. Departures from a linear model at low doses, however, could either increase or decrease the risk per unit dose.”34 And the BEIR report states that “combined analyses are compatible with a range of possibilities, from a reduction of risk at low doses to risks twice those upon which current radiation protection recommendations are based.”34

Fukushima evacuation

Shellenberger claims that the Fukushima evacuation was “entirely unnecessary and indeed counterproductive” and it was the “outcome of the kind of fear-mongering engaged in by Moon, FOE, and Greenpeace.”4 But of course Moon Jae-in, FOE and Greenpeace had nothing to do with the evacuation of 160,000 people in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster. Evacuations were ordered not on the basis of fear-mongering by nuclear critics; they were ordered on the basis of multiple fires, hydrogen explosions and presumed meltdowns.

EP states: “In 2013, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) concluded that the vast majority of the Fukushima evacuation zone is safe and nearly all residents could have returned long ago ‒ indeed, most should never have left.”3 But the UNSCEAR report didn’t conclude that the vast majority of the Fukushima evacuation zone is safe or that nearly all residents could have returned long ago, and it didn’t state that most evacuees should never have left.35 The UNSCEAR report states: “The actions taken to protect the public significantly reduced the radiation exposures that could have been received. This was particularly the case for settlements within the 20-km evacuation zone and the deliberate evacuation zones, where the protective measures reduced the potential exposures in the first year by up to a factor of 10.”35

An EP report berates the Japanese government for failing to follow “normal protocols” by ordering Fukushima residents to evacuate instead of sheltering in place.3 EP cites a 2015 IAEA report36 in support of that argument, but nowhere in the IAEA report (or any IAEA report) is there a proscription against evacuation in response to nuclear accidents. No IAEA report states that sheltering in place should be the “normal protocol” in the event of a nuclear accident ‒ the appropriate response depends entirely on the circumstances. A 2011 IAEA report points to the impracticality of sheltering in place as a long-term response to elevated radiation levels following nuclear accidents: “Lesson 12: The use of long term sheltering is not an effective approach and has been abandoned and concepts of ‘deliberate evacuation’ and ‘evacuation-prepared area’ were introduced for effective long term countermeasures using guidelines of the ICRP [International Commission on Radiological Protection] and IAEA.”37

The 2015 IAEA report notes that radiation levels were astronomical in some areas in the days after the Fukushima disaster ‒ even in some locations beyond the 20 km exclusion zone, dose rates of the order of a few hundred microsieverts per hour were measured from 15 March 2011 onward.36 Thus the annual public limit of 1 millisievert from anthropogenic sources would be reached in just a few hours, and the Japanese government’s new limit of 20 millisieverts in Fukushima-contaminated regions would be reached in just a few days.

December 29, 2017 Posted by | spinbuster, USA | Leave a comment

Five important lawsuits about climate going on

On the boil: five climate lawsuits to watch in 2018 Reuters

December 29, 2017 Posted by | 2 WORLD, climate change, Legal | Leave a comment

December 28 Energy News



¶ “2017: The year climate change hit” • “Crazy” weather has been a hot topic for elevator conversations this year, as extremes are becoming the new normal. No continent was spared by 2017’s extreme weather. From droughts to hurricanes, from smog to forest fires, events killing thousands of people have been directly linked to climate change. [Deutsche Welle]

Flooding in the Philippines

¶ “Green tech will be everywhere in 2018” • With climate change problems mounting, national and local governments are pushing for more renewable energy and an end to fossil-fueled cars, despite hostility from President Donald Trump. People want fewer gas-powered vehicles and coal plants, and more EVs, solar panels and wind turbines. [Yahoo Finance UK]


¶ The Loeriesfontein and Khobab wind farms in South Africa are operational, with 280 MW of capacity. Lekela Power said the commercial operations were achieved “on schedule, on…

View original post 775 more words

December 29, 2017 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Are we all safe now from nuclear attacks? New York Removes Old Nuclear Fallout Shelter Signs

New York Removes Old Nuclear Fallout Shelter Signs in Move That Seems Premature, Gizmodo

December 29, 2017 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Help for nuclear power workers with mesothelioma

Mesothelioma Compensation Center Now Offers Guidance for a Nuclear Power Worker or Navy Veteran With Mesothelioma to Ensure They Hire the Nation’s Top Lawyers for Compensation, NEW YORKDec. 28, 2017 /PRNewswire/ — The Mesothelioma Compensation Center says, “We are the only group in the nation that specializes in assisting nuclear power plant workers or US Navy Veterans who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma and our number one objective is a person like this receives the very best possible financial compensation. If a nuclear power worker or Navy Veteran calls us at 800-714-0303 we will have them talking directly to some of the nation’s most skilled, experienced and capable mesothelioma attorneys typically within 20 or 30 minutes.” http://MesotheliomaCompensationCenter.Com

The reason the Mesothelioma Compensation Center frequently mentions nuclear power plant workers and US Navy Veterans with mesothelioma in the same sentence is because many nuclear power plant workers received their initial training about reactors in the US Navy. The US Navy literally has a school where navy sailors learn about nuclear reactors and it is called ‘Nuke School.’

According to the Mesothelioma Compensation Center, “The mesothelioma lawyers we suggest work their mesothelioma compensation claims extremely hard and they typically get the best financial compensation results for their clients on a nationwide basis.

A case work up typically involves every single place or instance where a diagnosed person could have been exposed to asbestos. Further there is no charge for their services if there is not a financial settlement.

“When it comes to receiving the best possible mesothelioma financial compensation it is absolutely vital you hire the most qualified mesothelioma attorneys, as we would like to discuss anytime at 800-714-0303 – especially if you are a nuclear power plant worker or US Navy Veteran. The potential compensation for a nuclear power worker or Navy Veteran with mesothelioma could easily exceed a million dollars provided they have the best legal representation.” http://MesotheliomaCompensationCenter.Com

The Mesothelioma Compensation Center is especially focused on assisting nuclear power workers or Navy Veterans with mesothelioma in the following states:

  • California
  • New York
  • Texas
  • Florida
  • Washington
  • Connecticut
  • Arizona
  • Georgia
  • South Carolina
  • Pennsylvania
  • Michigan
  • Ohio
  • Tennessee
  • Maine

For more information, a nuclear power worker or a US Navy Veteran with confirmed mesothelioma, or their family members, are encouraged to call the Mesothelioma Compensation Center anytime at 800-714-0303 for their unsurpassed free services, or they can contact the group via its web site at http://MesotheliomaCompensationCenter.Com

The Mesothelioma Compensation Center specializes in assisting US Navy Veterans, power plant workers, shipyard workers, oil refinery workers, public utility workers, hydro-electric workers, chemical plant workers, nuclear power plant workers, manufacturing workers, oil and gas field production workers, plumbers, electricians, millwrights, pipefitters and welders who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma. In most instances these people were exposed to asbestos during the1950’s, 1960’s, 1970’s, or 1980’s.

US Navy Veterans account for a significant portion of all diagnosed victims of mesothelioma each year. The average age for a diagnosed victim of mesothelioma is about 70 years old. Each year between 2,500 and 3,000 US citizens will be diagnosed with mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is attributable to exposure to asbestos.

According to the CDC, the states indicated with the highest incidence of mesothelioma include MaineMassachusettsConnecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, PennsylvaniaOhioWest Virginia, Virginia, Michigan, IllinoisMinnesotaLouisianaWashington, and Oregon. However, a nuclear power plant worker or Navy Veteran who worked on nuclear reactors with mesothelioma could live in any state including CaliforniaNew York, Florida, Texas, Illinois, OhioMissouri, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, KansasNebraskaNew MexicoArizona, Nevada, Idaho, or Alaska.

For more information about mesothelioma please refer to the National Institutes of Health’s web site related to this rare form of cancer:

Media Contact:

Michael Thomas

SOURCE Mesothelioma Compensation Center

Related Links


December 29, 2017 Posted by | health, Legal, USA | Leave a comment

Cold weather in USA in no way refutes climate change

A Response For People Using Record Cold U.S. Weather To Refute Climate Change, Forbes, 

 “……..Weekly or daily weather patterns tell you nothing about longer-term climate change (and that goes for the warm days too). Climate is defined as the statistical properties of the atmosphere: averages, extremes, frequency of occurrence, deviations from normal, and so forth. The clothes that you have on today do not describe what you have in your closet but rather how you dressed for today’s weather. ……
our weather is governed by a series of undulations or wave patterns. The “valleys” (troughs) in those waves allow cold, dense air to ooze into the U.S. The “hills” (ridges) in the waves are typically associated with warm conditions. If you search Arctic Amplification on the Internet, there is some evidence that climate change is causing more wavy, high amplitude “valleys” and “hills” in the jet stream pattern. This could be associated with more extreme cold events and more extreme heat/drought events. The science is still emerging on this process, but it should be monitored and not dismissed.

The other thing to point out is that because one part of the world is cold (in that valley), there is likely another part of the world experiencing abnormally warm conditions (in the hill part of the wave pattern). In the temperature map tweeted by long-time weather observer Joe Stepansky, it is clear that on December 28th the United States and parts of Canada are experiencing the anomalously cold weather. …..

there are some studies that suggest that a warming climate (because more water vapor is available to a warmer atmosphere) may fuel bigger blizzards or snowstorms. That science is also emerging…….

December 29, 2017 Posted by | climate change, USA | Leave a comment

Michael Shellenberger uses disinformation to attack environmental groups

Exposing the misinformation of Michael Shellenberger and ‘Environmental Progress’ Jim Green, Nuclear Monitor Issue: #853 4689 30/10/2017

“…….Attacking environment groups

Shellenberger reduces the complexities of environmental opposition to nuclear power to the claim that in the 1960s, an “influential group of conservationists within Sierra Club feared that cheap, abundant electricity from nuclear would result in overpopulation and resource depletion” and therefore decided to campaign against nuclear power.4

If such views had any currency in the 1960s, they certainly don’t now. Yet EP asserts that Greenpeace and FOE “oppose cheap and abundant energy”3 and Shellenberger asserts that “the FOE-Greenpeace agenda has never been to protect humankind but rather to punish us for our supposed transgressions.”4 And Shellenberger suggests that such views are still current by asserting that the anti-nuclear movement has a “long history of Malthusian anti-humanism aimed at preventing “overpopulation” and “overconsumption” by keeping poor countries poor.”8 Again we see Shellenberger’s M.O. of relentless repetition of falsehoods in the hope that mud will stick.

In an ‘investigative piece’ ‒ titled ‘Enemies of the Earth: Unmasking the Dirty War Against Clean Energy in South Korea by Friends of the Earth (FOE) and Greenpeace’ ‒ Shellenberger lists three groups which he claims have accepted donations “from fossil fuel and renewable energy investors, as well as others who stand to benefit from killing nuclear plants”.4 FOE and Greenpeace don’t feature among the three groups even though the ‘investigative piece’ is aimed squarely at them.

Undeterred by his failure to present any evidence of FOE and Greenpeace accepting fossil fuel funding (they don’t), Shellenberger asserts that the donors and board members of FOE and Greenpeace “are the ones who win the government contracts to build solar and wind farms, burn dirty “renewable” biomass, and import natural gas from the United States and Russia.”4 Really? Where’s the evidence? There’s none in Shellenberger’s ‘investigative piece’.

In an article for a South Korean newspaper, Shellenberger states: “Should we be surprised that natural gas companies fund many of the anti-nuclear groups that spread misinformation about nuclear? The anti-nuclear group Friends of the Earth ‒ which has representatives in South Korea ‒ received its initial funding from a wealthy oil man …”45He fails to note that the donation was in 1969! And he fails to substantiate his false insinuation that FOE accepts funding from natural gas companies, or his false claim that natural gas companies fund “many of the anti-nuclear groups”.

Shellenberger’s ‘investigative piece’ falsely claims4 that FOE keeps its donors secret, and in support of that falsehood he cites an article8 (written by Shellenberger) that doesn’t even mention FOE. EP falsely claims that FOE has hundreds of millions of dollars in its bank and stock accounts.3

EP has an annual budget of US$1.5 million, Shellenberger claims, and he asks how EP “can possibly succeed against the anti-nuclear Goliath with 500 times the resources.”8

An anti-nuclear Goliath with 500 times EP’s budget of US$1.5 million, or US$750 million in annual expenditure on anti-nuclear campaigns? Shellenberger claims that Greenpeace has annual income of US$400 million to finance its work in 55 nations8 ‒ but he doesn’t note that only a small fraction of that funding is directed to anti-nuclear campaigns. FOE’s worldwide budget is US$12 million according to EP3 ‒ but only a small fraction is directed to anti-nuclear campaigns.


December 29, 2017 Posted by | spinbuster, USA | Leave a comment

Hinkley nuclear “strike price” of £92.50 per megawatt hour – time for UK to get out of nuclear

Paul Donovan: As renewable energy gets cheaper and cheaper, ministers minds are clouded by the ridiculously high guaranteed “strike price” of £92.50 per megawatt hour for Hinkley generated power, who can
be surprised?

The government should be looking to get out of nuclear power entirely and join the rest of the world in the renewables revolution.

December 29, 2017 Posted by | general | Leave a comment