nuclear-news

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

1C rise in atmospheric temperature causes rapid changes to world’s largest High Arctic lake

An interdisciplinary team of scientists explores Lake Hazen’s response to climate change, Science Daily 
April 6, 2018

Source:
University of Alberta
Summary:
An interdisciplinary team of scientists examining everything from glaciology to freshwater ecology discovered drastic changes over the past decade to the world’s largest High Arctic lake. And from glacial melt to the declining lake ice to changes in lake ecology, the results from Lake Hazen on Ellesmere Island in Canada are alarming……..https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180406155402.htm

April 9, 2018 Posted by | Canada, climate change | Leave a comment

Pressure on assistant professor to downplay dangers of nuclear power

Hokkaido METI bureau requested changes to nuclear energy part of high school lecture https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20180407/p2a/00m/0na/017000c  (Mainichi Japan) SAPPORO –– High-ranking officials from the local bureau of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) requested that an assistant professor change an October 2017 lecture to high school students pointing out the dangers of nuclear power, it has been learned.

“We will review our operations so as not to cause misunderstandings,” stated industry minister Hiroshige Seko regarding the request by the Hokkaido Bureau of Economy, Trade and Industry.

The lecture at Hokkaido Niseko High School in the prefectural town of Niseko was on energy issues. The school had been chosen by the Agency for Natural Resources and Energy, an industry ministry-affiliated body, as a model for energy education last academic year, and the lecture by Hokkaido University assistant professor Sadamu Yamagata was supported by a government grant.

According to multiple sources close to the matter, Yamagata sent his lecture materials to the school beforehand to be printed, and the school handed the documents over to METI’s Hokkaido bureau at the latter’s request. Two high-ranking officials from the bureau then visited Yamagata and requested that he make changes to a section of the materials explaining the dangers and costs of nuclear power, illustrated with a photo of the aftermath of a hydrogen explosion at the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant. The officials told Yamagata that this was “only one perspective” and that called it “impression manipulation.”

Yamagata added the statement, “natural energy is not necessarily 100 percent safe” along with a photo of a collapsed windmill, but did not comply with the request to change the section about nuclear energy.

“I found it uncomfortable that (the request for changes) was focused on nuclear power,” Yamagata told the Mainichi Shimbun. Hokkaido Niseko High School principal Noboru Baba said, “The lecture content was good. I don’t know if there was intrusion (by the ministry) into education.” However, residents who were aware of what had happened view the flow of events as meddling by the government in education, and the Niseko Municipal Government has held three meetings to explain the situation to locals.

Industry minister Seko told a post-Cabinet meeting news conference on April 6, “It’s common sense that the government takes responsibility for the content of an agency-commissioned program, but with the focus (by the bureau officials) only on nuclear energy, misunderstandings can arise easily.”

The incident comes on the heels of criticism of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology for pressuring the Nagoya Municipal Board of Education by requesting a report about a lecture given by former vice minister of education Kihei Maekawa.

But how should the Hokkaido case be understood? The class taught by Maekawa was set up by the school and the Nagoya education board, completely independently of the central government. On the other hand, the Hokkaido case was funded by a central government grant, and Japan’s stance has so far been that funding gives related government bodies a say in how the monies are used.

The Hokkaido bureau’s Natural Resources, Energy and Environment Department denied intervening, telling the Mainichi, “The purpose was to show both the merits and demerits of all types of energy sources, and if the lecture had hypothetically been extremely critical of natural energy resources, the same request for alternations would have been made. If only the shortcomings of nuclear energy are presented while ignoring the benefits, that is a problem.”

However, experts are critical. Hokkaido University emeritus professor Yoichi Anezaki said, “The case of the education ministry requesting a report of Maekawa’s class was also problematic, but in this case with the industry ministry, which plays a key role in nuclear power policies, requesting that a section pointing out the issues with nuclear energy be changed, it’s an intrusion into education by authority and is much worse. It’s tantamount to censorship.”

“The belief that just because the government provided the grant, it means that it can have its say on the content of education doesn’t make sense,” said Kyoto University of Art and Design professor and former education ministry bureaucrat Ken Terawaki. “If we allow for this, then it means that it’s fine for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to promote the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Ministry of Defense the necessity of military affairs in the classroom. Intrusion into education is a serious matter.”

(Japanese original by Ryuko Tadokoro, Hokkaido News Department)

April 9, 2018 Posted by | civil liberties, Japan | 1 Comment

What if terrorists unleashed a dirty bomb, or even a small nuclear bomb, on a city?

Bulletin of Atomic Scientists 21st Feb 2018, As seen by recent events such as the bombing in Manchester, UK, terrorism  can occur anywhere, at any time. So far, the terrorist incidents have been
relatively low-tech – such as improvised explosive devices detonating
inside pressure cookers, trucks driving down crowded sidewalks, or bombs
exploding in backpacks containing metal bolts and screws.

But what if terrorists were to build a dirty bomb that contained radioactive materials
instead of bits of metal shrapnel, and set it off in a major city? Or,
worse, what if they managed to build a fully functioning nuclear weapon,
cart it to the downtown of a city, and then detonate it – even a small,
rudimentary one that was much smaller than the atomic bomb dropped on
Hiroshima?

What would the social, economic, and political impacts of the
successful terrorist use of a nuclear weapon look like? What planning has
the international community done for such an event?
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2018.1436812

April 9, 2018 Posted by | general | Leave a comment

The heavy health and environmental toll of rare earths mining in China

Rare-earth mining in China comes at a heavy cost for local villages https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/07/china-rare-earth-village-pollution Pollution is poisoning the farms and villages of the region that processes the precious minerals, Guardian,  Cécile Bontron, 7 Apr 18,

From the air it looks like a huge lake, fed by many tributaries, but on the ground it turns out to be a murky expanse of water, in which no fish or algae can survive. The shore is coated with a black crust, so thick you can walk on it. Into this huge, 10 sq km tailings pond nearby factories discharge water loaded with chemicals used to process the 17 most sought after minerals in the world, collectively known as rare earths.

The town of Baotou, in Inner Mongolia, is the largest Chinese source of these strategic elements, essential to advanced technology, from smartphones to GPS receivers, but also to wind farms and, above all, electric cars. The minerals are mined at Bayan Obo, 120km farther north, then brought to Baotou for processing.

The concentration of rare earths in the ore is very low, so they must be separated and purified, using hydro-metallurgical techniques and acid baths. Chinaaccounts for 97% of global output of these precious substances, with two-thirds produced in Baotou.

The foul waters of the tailings pond contain all sorts of toxic chemicals, but also radioactive elements such as thorium which, if ingested, cause cancers of the pancreas and lungs, and leukaemia. “Before the factories were built, there were just fields here as far as the eye can see. In the place of this radioactive sludge, there were watermelons, aubergines and tomatoes,” says Li Guirong with a sigh.

It was in 1958 – when he was 10 – that a state-owned concern, the Baotou Iron and Steel company (Baogang), started producing rare-earth minerals. The lake appeared at that time. “To begin with we didn’t notice the pollution it was causing. How could we have known?” As secretary general of the local branch of the Communist party, he is one of the few residents who dares to speak out.

Towards the end of the 1980s, Li explains, crops in nearby villages started to fail: “Plants grew badly. They would flower all right, but sometimes there was no fruit or they were small or smelt awful.” Ten years later the villagers had to accept that vegetables simply would not grow any longer. In the village of Xinguang Sancun – much as in all those near the Baotou factories – farmers let some fields run wild and stopped planting anything but wheat and corn.

A study by the municipal environmental protection agency showed that rare-earth minerals were the source of their problems. The minerals themselves caused pollution, but also the dozens of new factories that had sprung up around the processing facilities and a fossil-fuel power station feeding Baotou’s new industrial fabric. Residents of what was now known as the “rare-earth capital of the world” were inhaling solvent vapour, particularly sulphuric acid, as well as coal dust, clearly visible in the air between houses.

Now the soil and groundwater are saturated with toxic substances. Five years ago Li had to get rid of his sick pigs, the last survivors of a collection of cows, horses, chickens and goats, killed off by the toxins.

The farmers have moved away. Most of the small brick houses in Xinguang Sancun, huddling close to one another, are going to rack and ruin. In just 10 years the population has dropped from 2,000 to 300 people.

Lu Yongqing, 56, was one of the first to go. “I couldn’t feed my family any longer,” he says. He tried his luck at Baotou, working as a mason, then carrying bricks in a factory, finally resorting to selling vegetables at local markets, with odd jobs on the side. Registered as farmers in their identity papers, the refugees from Xinguang Sancun are treated as second-class citizens and mercilessly exploited.

The farmers who have stayed on tend to gather near the mahjong hall. “I have aching legs, like many of the villagers. There’s a lot of diabetes, osteoporosis and chest problems. All the families are affected by illness,” says He Guixiang, 60. “I’ve been knocking on government doors for nearly 20 years,” she says. “To begin with I’d go every day, except Sundays.”

By maintaining the pressure, the villagers have obtained the promise of financial compensation, as yet only partly fulfilled. There has been talk of new housing, too. Neatly arranged tower blocks have gone up a few kilometres west of their homes. They were funded by compensation paid by Baogang to the local government.

But the buildings stand empty. The government is demanding that the villagers buy the right to occupy their flat, but they will not be able to pass it on to their children.

Some tried to sell waste from the pond, which still has a high rare-earth content, to reprocessing plants. The sludge fetched about $300 a tonne.

But the central government has recently deprived them of even this resource. One of their number is on trial and may incur a 10-year prison sentence.

This article originally appeared in Le Monde

April 9, 2018 Posted by | China, RARE EARTHS | Leave a comment

 The dramatic melting of Arctic icebergs – in pictures

cthttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/gallery/2018/apr/04/the-dramatic-melting-of-arctic-icebergs-in-pictures 
Photographer Francesco Bosso travelled to Greenland to capture images of the melting icebergs, which he describes as ‘gems of nature in danger of extinction’. The results are presented in his new book, Last Diamonds

April 9, 2018 Posted by | general | Leave a comment

Cumbria Trust gives advice on UK’s Community Consultation regarding nuclear waste dumping

There is a risk that this method of funding will act to ensure that deprived areas, rather than geologically suitable areas, are more likely to volunteer.
Communities should have access to a truly independent scientific body such as MKG in Sweden
 what is described as an open and transparent process, could be a long way from that.

there needs to be more honesty and openness about the negative aspects.

 ← CT responds to the BEIS consultation: “Working With Communities”https://cumbriatrust.wordpress.com/2018/04/08/working-with-communities-guidance-notes-for-your-own-response-to-the-consultation/

“Working With Communities” – Guidance notes for your own response to the consultation. April 8, 2018 

The Working With Communities consultation document can be found here.  Cumbria Trust has submitted its response to the consultation here .  The final date for responses is the 19th April 2018.

You can respond online here and you may wish to include some of the following points in your response to the consultation:

CONSULTATION QUESTION 1: Do you agree with this approach of identifying communities? Do you have any other suggestions that we should consider?

The geological screening report appears to be little more than a broad overview, which is a missed opportunity.  A lesson from the previous MRWS process was that early information on geology would help communities to make a decision on volunteering.

There needs to be a test of public support before a community joins the process.  It is a long term commitment which could cause significant blight.

Neighbouring local authorities should also have a say in the process.  4.21 suggests that they will be excluded from any test of public support even if a GDF could be close to their boundary.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 2: Do you agree with the approach of formative engagement? Do you support the use of a formative engagement team to carry out information gathering activities? Are there any other approaches we should consider?

This appears to be a process which is very easy to join, but difficult to leave.

There is a need for a test of public support before a community enters the process.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 3: Do you agree with this approach to forming a Community Partnership? Are there other approaches we should consider?

Radioactive Waste Management (RWM) should not be part of the Community Partnership, but should be available to answer its questions.

Frequent tests of public support are required to ensure that the Community Partnership continues to reflect the view of the community throughout this 20 year process.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4: Do you agree with the approach to engaging people more widely in the community through a Community Stakeholder Forum? Are there other approaches we should consider?

A Community Stakeholder Forum could be appropriate if their views are taken seriously. Previous experience of forums in this area suggests that this may not happen.

The Chair of the Stakeholder Forum must not be part of the Community Partnership – there is a need for independence.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 5: Do you agree with the proposal for a Community Agreement and what it could potentially include? Are there other approaches we should consider?

The suggestion that a local authority may be able to overrule the remaining members of the Community Partnership is unworkable.  Partnerships cannot function in that way.

The Community Agreement should be put to a public vote before it is accepted, since it may have a significant impact on the community.  The public (rather than just the Community Partnership) must be confident that they have an acceptable right of withdrawal before entering the process.  The failure to draw up an adequate right of withdrawal during MRWS was one of the causes of the process being halted before stage 4.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 6: Do you agree with the proposed approach to the way community investment funding would be provided? Are there alternatives that we should consider?

There is a risk that this method of funding will act to ensure that deprived areas, rather than geologically suitable areas, are more likely to volunteer.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 7: Do you agree with the proposed process for the right of withdrawal? Do you have views on how else this could be decided? Are there alternatives that we should consider?

The ongoing right of withdrawal must rest with the community, not the Community Partnership.  In order to ensure that there is alignment between the community and Community Partnership, frequent tests of public support are required.

The withdrawal process is unnecessarily complex.  There should be no requirement to go through a pre-defined process.  If the public vote to withdraw, that should happen with immediate effect.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 8: Do you agree with the approach to the test of public support? Do you agree that the Community Partnership should decide how and when the test of public support should be carried out? Do you have views on how else this could be decided? Are there alternatives that we should consider?

It cannot be right that there is a single test of public support after 20 years.  What possible reason could there be for suggesting this, other than to trap a community within the process?  If this is a genuine voluntary process then there must be frequent tests of public support.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 9: Do you feel this process provides suitably defined roles for local authorities in the siting process? Are there alternatives that we should consider?

The local authority must not be able to overrule the remainder of the Community Partnership.  The scale of this project also requires approval at county level.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 10: Do you have any other views on the matters presented in this consultation?

Communities should have access to a truly independent scientific body such as MKG in Sweden

The current consultation is likely to lead to an early breakdown of trust, since the public are kept at a distance from decision making by the Community Partnership, and appear to have almost no control of it.

It appears that lessons have not been learnt from the MRWS process, and what is described as an open and transparent process, could be a long way from that.

The investigation process, which includes a borehole drilling programme may cause significant blight to an area, particularly if an area’s economy depends on tourism.  In addition to setting out the benefits of hosting a GDF, or entering the siting process, there needs to be more honesty and openness about the negative aspects.

April 9, 2018 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

    Next Entries »