The repercussions of the Russian explosion at a missile test centre continue. However, the radiation release was brief, and did not extend beyond the region, and not to neighbouring countries. There was confusion and secrecy following the explosion and Russian doctors were kept in the dark about patients being nuclear accident victims.
Attention has moved to questioning the missile project, – a mystery new nuclear weapon, dubbed Russia’s ‘flying Chernobyl’. What is clear, is that, in the month when we commemorate the nuclear tragedies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, – the world, led by Donald Trump, is ripping up arms control measures, and ramping up nuclear weapons development.
I haven’t been able to keep up with the news on climate change – extreme weather events in various countries, the UN report including humanitarian effects, the costs, injustices, and inability to meet the goal of confining temperature rise to 1.5 C. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHdcpxmJ6vg In a powerful symbol, Iceland holds a funeral for the first glacier lost to climate change.
A bit of good news: a win for Aboriginal people in the abandonment of uranium mining in Australia’s Northern Territory. Mirrarr people to lead the Kakadu region’s transition.
Investigative journalism: Australian investigative journalist Mark Davis explodes the myths around Julian Assange. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZkyLoaMvRg
Climate change killing nuclear power? nuclear reactors can’t cope with water needs, as temperatures rise.
Cyber wars – as dangerous and deadly as nuclear wars ? Warning of 10 year totally dark Earth. – after a nuclear war between the US and Russia.
The Anthropocene is not an epoch. It’s a passing blink in geological time.
ARCTIC. Melting Ice Everywhere — Arctic Sea Ice Extent Hit New Record Lows in Late July and Early August. Arctic sea ice could disappear completely through September if temps increase 2 degrees.
USA.
RUSSIA. Russia says small nuclear reactor blew up in deadly accident. Russian Region Orders Gas Masks After Deadly Nuclear Blast. ‘Dirty bomb’: Mystery Russian ‘superweapon’ kills five. Russia Testing Nuclear-Powered Mega-Torpedo Near Where Deadly Explosion Occurred. USA abandoned the Nuclear-Powered Missile long ago due to its extreme danger. It seems that Russia just tried it again. Russia’s fast nuclear reactor project is postponed.
JAPAN. Anxiety over risks of radiation and heat at the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. Fukushima: Nuclear-contaminated water raises 2020 Games site fears. Swim marathon: Tokyo 2020, FINA watching water quality, temperature. Japan’s govt urges Fukushima evacuees to return – in drive to promote 2020 Olympics. Will the propaganda ploy – the Tokyo 2020 Olympics really revitalise the nuclear industry and Fukushima?
Fukushima Daiichi’s radioactive water to run out of tanks in 2022. Japan to resume effort to tackle contaminated water problem at Fukushima. Tepco toughens stance toward nuclear disaster damages settlement. Fukushima students speak on 2011 disaster in Berlin.
SOUTH KOREA. South Korea Wary of Japan’s Plans to Dump Fukushima Daiichi Radioactive Water into the Pacific.
KASHMIR. Kashmir – a “nuclear flashpoint“?
PAKISTAN. Pakistan’s “triad” of nuclear weaponry.
INDIA. India ponders changing its “no first use” nuclear weapons policy. Implications for India if it revokes its No First Use nuclear weapons policy.
UKRAINE. HBO “Chernobyl”series grasped the truth about the conditions that led to the disaster.
UK. Hinkley nuclear project: UK govt faces questions about involvement of US export blacklisted Chinese firm. Revealed: mental health crisis at Hinkley Point C nuclear construction site. UK’s nuclear waste plans – squabbles in a local Council. No it wasn’t the wind turbines that caused a UK blackout.
CHINA. Li Yang’s photography of 404: China’s abandoned nuclear city. Solar power is now cheaper than grid electricity in cities across China.
GERMANY. Germany shows how it can lead the world in neatly shutting down nuclear power.
SAUDI ARABIA. Saudi Arabia wind farm claims world record low energy cost.
August 19, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Christina's notes |
1 Comment
The nuclear arms race is back … and ever more dangerous now https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/17/nuclear-arms-race-is-back-and-more-dangerous-than-before Simon Tisdall Donald Trump has increased spending on America’s arsenal while ripping up cold war treaties. Russia and China are following suit. Imagine the uproar if the entire populations of York, Portsmouth or Swindon were suddenly exposed to three times the permissible level of penetrating gamma radiation, or what the nuclear physicist Ernest Rutherford termed gamma rays. The outpouring of rage and fear would be heard across the world.
That’s what happened to the roughly 200,000 people who live in the similarly sized northern Russian city of Severodvinsk on 8 August, after an explosion at a nearby top-secret missile testing range. Russia’s weather service, Rosgidromet, recorded radiation levels up to 16 times higher than the usual ambient rate.
Yet the incident has been met with surly silence by Russia. It was five days before officials confirmed a blast at the Nyonoksa range had killed several people, including nuclear scientists. No apologies were offered to Severodvinsk residents. There is still little reliable information. “Accidents, unfortunately, happen,” a Kremlin spokesman said.
That callous insouciance is not universally shared. According to western experts, the explosion was caused by the launch failure of a new nuclear-powered cruise missile, one of many advanced weapons being developed by Russia, the US and China in an accelerating global nuclear arms race
Vladimir Putin unveiled the missile, known in Russia as the Storm Petrel and by Nato as Skyfall, in March last year, claiming its unlimited range and manoeuvrability would render it “invincible”. The Russian president’s boasts look less credible now.
But Putin is undeterred. Denying suggestions that the missile is unreliable, the Kremlin insisted Russia was winning the nuclear race. “Our president has repeatedly said that Russian engineering in this sector significantly outstrips … other countries,” a spokesman said.
Now fast-forward to 16 August, and another threatening event: the test-firing by North Korea of potentially nuclear-capable ballistic missiles, the sixth round of launches since July. More than two years of vanity diplomacy by Donald Trump has not convinced Pyongyang it is safe to give up its nukes – proof, if it were needed, that unilateral counter-proliferation initiatives do not work.
Arms control experts say a consistent, joined-up international approach is woefully lacking. Thus Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal is tolerated, and the idea of a bomb developed by Saudi Arabia is no longer ruled out. But the merest hint that Iran may build a nuclear weapon is greeted with megatons of hypocritical horror.
In a sense, the problem is circular. Putin argues that Russia’s build-up is a response to destabilising US moves to modernise and expand its own nuclear arsenal – and he has a point. Barack Obama, the former president, developed a $1.2tn plan to maintain and replace the “triad” of US air, sea and land-based nuclear weapons.
Trump has gone much further. The Pentagon’s nuclear posture review, published last year, proposed an additional $500bn in spending, including $17bn for low-yield, tactical nuclear weapons that could be used on conventional battlefields. The first of these new warheads is due to become operational next month.
Critics in Congress say low-yield weapons make nuclear warfare more likely, and oppose Trump’s budget increases. But with US planners saying the biggest national security threat is no longer terrorism but nuclear-armed states, there is little doubt that many new weapons projects will get the go-ahead.
The renewed nuclear arms race is a product of Trump’s America First outlook and that of comparable ultra-nationalist and insecure regimes elsewhere. Trump’s emphasis on defending the “homeland” is leading inexorably to the militarisation of US society, whether at the Mexican border, on inner-city streets or in its approach to international security.
“We have far more money than anybody else by far,” Trump said last October. “We’ll build up until [Russia and China] come to their senses.” Outspending the opposition was a tactic employed by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. And Trump is putting taxpayers’ money where his mouth is. Overall, annual US military spending is soaring, from $716bn this year to a proposed $750bn next year.
The paradox is that even as the risk of nuclear confrontation grows, the cold war system of treaties that helped prevent Armageddon is being dismantled, largely at Trump’s behest. Earlier this month, the US withdrew from the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty with Russia (which rid Britain and Europe of US missiles deployed in the early 80s).
The US is also signalling it will not renew the New Start strategic nuclear weapons treaty when it expires in 2021. Washington claims Moscow cheated on the INF pact; Russia denies it. But the real US concern is that both treaties tie its hands, especially regarding China – another example of the impact of America First thinking.
This increasingly unregulated, three-way contest poses indisputable dangers. The US plans were “unnecessary, unsustainable, and unsafe” and “increase the risks of miscalculation, unintended escalation, and accelerated global nuclear competition”, the independent US-based Arms Control Association said in April.
With a much smaller arsenal than the US and Russia, China, too, is “aggressively developing its next generation of nuclear weapons”, according to a major Chinese weapons research institute. Nor, given Moscow’s and Washington’s behaviour, has it an incentive to stop, despite Trump’s vague proposal for a trilateral disarmament “grand bargain”.
Like the US, China – while historically pledged to “no first use” – wants potential enemies to believe it may actually use tactical nukes. As Dr Strangelove would doubtless appreciate, this, perversely, increases the chances that it will.
The dreadful example these nuclear arms-racers are setting to non-nuclear states such as Iran is obvious. By failing to uphold arms control agreements, neglecting collaborative counter-proliferation efforts, and building new, more “usable”, dangerously unproved weapons like the one that irradiated Severodvinsk, the nuclear powers are digging their own graves – and ours.
August 19, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics international, USA, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
No, Mr. Stephens, the United States doesn’t need more nuclear weapons, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, By Matt Korda, 
August 17, 2019 Last week, on the 74th anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, many took time to reflect upon the destruction caused by the only uses of nuclear weapons in wartime. But not the New York Times’ Bret Stephens, who took the opportunity to argue in favor of building more nuclear weapons.
In an op-ed entitled “The U.S. Needs More Nukes,” Stephens laid out his case against arms control.…….Contrary to the title of Stephens’ piece, the United States doesn’t need more nukes. As we explain in our latest US Nuclear Notebook, the Trump administration wants to develop two new ones––a low-yield warhead and a sea-launched cruise missile––both of which are dangerous, and neither of which are necessary. Aside from lowering the threshold for nuclear use, the “low-yield” aspect of the low-yield warhead is a misnomer; it’s roughly one-third the yield of the Hiroshima bomb that killed 100,000 people. And the new sea-launched cruise missile is a concept brought back from the dead: the United States had one until 2013, when the Obama administration retired it because it was pointless, wasteful, and politically controversial……
Stephens’ columns are clearly emphasizing ideology over accuracy. And publishing a pro-nukes article on the anniversary of the Nagasaki bombing––without acknowledging the human cost of nuclear weapons, or even the anniversary itself––demonstrates that he is clearly not guided by empathy.
But perhaps most evidently, Stephens’ piece is driven by fear. And understandably so: we’re currently locked into an ever-increasing nuclear arms race with no signs of it slowing down. If you’re not afraid, you’re probably not paying attention. However, crying “more nukes” without articulating any kind of strategic vision isn’t going to get us out of this mess.
In reality, the best way to get out of an arms race is by refusing to play. The United States shouldn’t base the size of its nuclear arsenal in response to how other countries are tweaking theirs––this only makes sense if you believe that nuclear weapons are for fighting wars. But to quote Reagan’s old adage, “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” Instead, as explained in Global Zero’s Alternative Nuclear Posture Review, the United States should move towards a “deterrence-only” nuclear posture, which would allow for sizable cuts to the US nuclear arsenal without changing the strategic balance.
Very simply, we need to start enacting ambitious solutions that are equal to the problems that we face. Not just reflexively demanding more nukes. https://thebulletin.org/2019/08/no-mr-stephens-the-united-states-doesnt-need-more-nuclear-weapons/
August 19, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
general |
Leave a comment
We Can’t Confront Climate Change While Lavishly Funding the Pentagon, BY JP Sottile, Truthout. August 18, 2019
The Pentagon is staring down the barrel of what could become the longest, hottest war in U.S. history. This titanic clash pits the largest military the world has ever seen against an omnipresent opponent that can marshal resources like no enemy it has ever encountered.
That opponent is climate change, and according to a
joint investigationby
NBC News and
InsideClimate News, the extreme heat it brings is already generating military casualties. But soldiers like
Sgt. Sylvester Cline are not dying where you might expect, such as scorching, oil-rich targets like Iraq, where Cline served during a lie-tainted war. Unlike the overwhelming majority of Uncle Sam’s
long list of military conflicts, this war is also being waged on U.S. soil. Sadly, the Arkansas-based sergeant was just one of “at least 17 troops to die of heat exposure during training exercises at U.S. military bases since 2008.”
In fact, the total number of heat-strokes and cases of heat exhaustion suffered by active-duty service members rose by 60 percent between 2008 and 2018 (from 1,766 to 2,792). Forty percent of these incidents occurred in the Southeastern United States in places like Fort Benning (Georgia), Camp Lejeune (North Carolina) and Fort Polk (Louisiana). Over that same period, the Southeast region has experienced average summer temperatures that were the nation’s hottest on record, and a staggering 61 percent of major Southeast cities show the effects of these worsening heat waves, according to the
Fourth National Climate Assessmentreleased in 2018.
As Brown University’s Costs of War research project
recently pointed out, the Defense Department “remains the world’s
single largest consumer of oil – and as a result, one of the world’s top greenhouse gas emitters.” British researchers at Durham University and Lancaster University
published a corroborating report detailing the profuse use of hydrocarbons to fuel U.S. military adventurism. They astutely pointed out the dilemma of attempting to confront “the effects of climate change while remaining the largest single institutional consumer of hydrocarbons in the world.” …….
every year the U.S. political system reflexively funds a
world-dominating defense budget that directly benefits the oil industry, client states and the entire hydrocarbon-based economy. Basically, it’s a global protection racket that generates
huge profits for defense companies that sell weapons to the Pentagon.
And the
U.S. governmentalso
pushes arms sales abroad, particularly to
oil-rich clients like those in the Middle East. All of those arms sales sustain
thousands of jobs in states and congressional districts around the U.S. That, in turn, creates constituencies for members of Congress who collect millions in campaign contributions from both the
defense and
oil industries to make sure they can maintain
de facto subsides for their weapons and their oil. Taxpayers and consumers complete the circuit through their “contributions” to the empire’s public-private partnership: They get to keep on buying oil, gas and plastic, while paying taxes for the military. It’s a perpetual ATM fueled by oil.
Meanwhile, U.S. citizens fill the ranks of the military services that guarantee the continuation of a hydrocarbon system that’s now cooking them alive as they train on U.S. soil. It’s the ghoulish internal logic of the oil-driven imperium, one that generates its rationale for being through its continued existence.
Funding the Pentagon, Fueling the Fallout
Now this self-perpetuating system threatens to engulf the thawing Arctic, which is becoming a
new frontier for untapped oil and gas. Of course, there’d be no scramble for the Arctic’s once-impenetrable hydrocarbon resources without the unprecedented melting caused by our hydrocarbon-driven climate crisis. But that sad irony was purposefully ignored by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo at a recent meeting of the eight-nation
Arctic Council in Finland. Unsurprisingly, the
Rapture-ready Pompeo
refused to sign the meeting’s
joint accord because it mentioned the climate crisis now devastating the Arctic’s ecosystems. Instead, Secretary Pompeo
extolled the
supposed benefits of the big melt that’s rapidly altering the pristine landscape of the ever-less frozen frontier:
The Arctic is at the forefront of opportunity and abundance. It houses 13 percent of the world’s undiscovered oil, 30 percent of its undiscovered gas, an abundance of uranium, rare earth minerals, gold, diamonds, and millions of square miles of untapped resources, fisheries galore.
It’s a predictable statement from an
oil-obsessed administration that salivates at the prospect of
drilling, baby, drilling in the Arctic. At the same time, Secretary Pompeo put the world on notice,
stating that the region has become an “arena of global power and competition.” Without irony, he
warned Russia and “
non-Arctic” nations like China against “
aggressive” behavior. Actually, China is
already there and
drilling in cooperation with Russia in
a de facto alliance around the issue of the opening Arctic, a fact that is likely to become
budgetary catnip for U.S. empire. Competition for this new frontier is quickly becoming the latest oily justification to pour money into yet another theatre of operations. In other words, the climate crisis is not only a byproduct of empire, but it’s becoming a rationale for even more empire.
Actually, it’s already started
The troops sent to the border to “assist” U.S. Customs and Border Patrol and to “build” Trump’s wall are, like Sergeant Cline’s heat-related death, a harbinger of things to come. They are not only seeing firsthand the desperation of people willing to walk up to 2,000 milesto flee the fallout from decades of U.S. interventionism in Central America, they are witnessing the start of a widely predicted climate migration crisis. A brutal mix of prolonged drought, water scarcity and deforestation is exacerbating the suffering in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. As InsideClimate News noted, Honduras typifies the unfair paradox of the climate crisis because “like so many developing countries” it “has contributed relatively little to the greenhouse gas emissions,” but “projections suggest it is especially imperiled by climate change.”
Low-emission countries like
Bangladesh,
Mozambique and
Fiji are already feeling the heat of the climate crisis. And, as U.S. troops suffer from heat waves in the Southeast, the impact of climate crisis is also being felt acutely in the U.S. in places like the
Alaskan village of Newtok, which requested and was
finally granted Federal Emergency Management Agency money to flee the relentless march of climate-caused erosion. Obviously, the crisis is not 50-75 years away, as Environmental Protection Agency Administrator and former hydrocarbon lobbyist Andrew Wheeler
smugly proclaimed — and
the Pentagon knows it.
Unfortunately, the longer the U.S. continues to garishly fund the Pentagon and its oil-based protection racket, the harder it will be to deal with the massive ecological and human fallout caused by the hydrocarbon economy. Ultimately, it might be impossible to halt or even mitigate the climate crisis without also ending empire. And if we are not careful, the same forever war mentality that has continually shifted from one enemy to another will find yet another reason to exist — this time as a bulwark against the escalating impacts of a climate crisis it helped to create in the first place.
August 19, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
climate change, USA, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
Kashmir a nuclear flashpoint: Pakistan army spokesman Asif Ghafoor https://www.livemint.com/politics/news/kashmir-a-nuclear-flashpoint-pakistan-army-spokesman-asif-ghafoor-1566058203618.html : 17 Aug 2019, Elizabeth Roche
- Indian defence minister Rajnath Singh on Friday said India could review its nuclear no first use policy
- The UN Security Council on Friday said India and Pakistan should sort out their differences bilaterallyNew Delhi: Pakistan army spokesman Asif Ghafoor on Saturday described Kashmir as a “nuclear flashpoint”, a day after defence minister Rajnath Singh said India could review its nuclear no first use policy.
Ghafoor’s comment, quoted by news reports, could be seen as another attempt by Pakistan to internationalise the Kashmir dispute between the two countries and invite offers of mediation. Western nations have always been wary of tensions flaring up between the two countries that have nuclear weapons.
Ghafoor’s comments also come after the UN Security Council on Friday said India and Pakistan should sort out their differences bilaterally after closed-door consultations. This came after China sought the meeting on Pakistan’s behalf after India revoked a provision in its constitution giving special status to Kashmir.
In his remarks on Saturday, Ghafoor also said Pakistan was ready to repulse any Indian attack, the news reports said.
On Friday, during a visit to Pokhran, defence minister Rajnath Singh said, “Till today, our nuclear policy is ‘No First Use’. What happens in future depends on the circumstances,” media reports said quoting the minister who was at an event in Pokhran, the site of India’s nuclear tests in 1998.
The comments followed heightened tensions between India and Pakistan after the Indian government revoked Article 370that gave special status to Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan had condemned the move.
In a tweet, Rajnath Singh added, “Pokhran is the area which witnessed Atal Ji’s firm resolve to make India a nuclear power and yet remain firmly committed to the doctrine of ‘No First Use’. India has strictly adhered to this doctrine. What happens in future depends on the circumstances.”
August 19, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
India, Pakistan, politics international |
Leave a comment
Nuclear vs. Climate Change: Feeling the Heat, NRDC, August 12, 2019 Christina Chen
Note: This is part one of a two-part blog series on the impacts of climate change on nuclear power plants. Part one covers the impacts of increasing ambient temperatures, while part two will cover the impacts of sea level rise.
This summer’s heatwaves did more than send Parisian swimming in the Trocadero fountains. Unable to cope with high water temperatures and low river flows, six European nuclear reactors were forced to curtail their electricity output and two went offline during a region-wide heatwave late this July. This is not the first (and won’t be the last) time nuclear plants face difficulties operating through extreme heat. In a deadly 2003 summer heat wave in Europe, 30 nuclear units were required to either shut down or reduce their power output.
Nuclear power has been heralded to have the power to “save the world” from the catastrophic impacts of a rapidly changing climate. The problem is, with increasing temperatures already posing threats to many nuclear plants around the world, we are faced with a sobering picture of nuclear energy’s vulnerability to climate change impacts.
What’s the Risk?
Increasing temperatures can result in reduced nuclear reactor efficiency by directly impacting nuclear equipment or warming the plant’s source of cooling water. There is no linear air-water temperature trend given the variability of environmental factors (oxygen content, water levels, industrial activity), nonetheless most rivers in the U.S. show a 0.6-0.8°C increase in water temperature for every 1°C increase in air temperature. This poses a risk for all thermal power plants, not just nuclear units. But, nuclear power is uniquely vulnerable to increasing temperatures because of its reliance on cooling water to ensure operational safety within the core and spent fuel storage.
As the most water-intensive energy generation technology, nuclear reactors are located near a river or the ocean to accommodate hefty water usage, which averages between 1,101 gallons per megawatt of electricity produced to 44,350 gal/MWhdepending on the cooling technology. Just as weather varies with location, the degree to which nuclear plants will experience ambient temperature increases will vary. Thus, inland reactors that use rivers as a source for cooling water are the most at risk during heat waves, which according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are “very likely” to occur more often and last longer in the coming decades.
Where Are the At-risk Nuclear Plants?
Using climate projection models aggregated from the Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) and the Power Reactor Information System (PRIS) global nuclear power reactor database from the International Atomic Energy Association, we mapped projected temperature increases at each existing and planned nuclear site for several climate change scenarios. Of all four representative concentration pathway (RCPs) scenarios, only RCP2.6 is likely to meet the 2 degrees Celsius goals set by the Paris Climate Agreement……..
Under an RCP 4.5 scenario, 26 percent of nuclear power plants worldwide will experience ambient temperature increases of more than 2°C as early as 2040 compared to a 2005 baseline. That’s 131 reactors. Under the same scenario, that number will increase to a whopping 73 percent by 2060.
The nuclear plants that will see the fastest increase in ambient temperature are inland power plants in the U.S. Northeast and Central and Eastern Europe. Under a RCP4.5 scenario, 46 of the 98 operational nuclear reactors in the U.S. (47 percent) will experience ambient temperature increases of more than 2°C by 2040. Under a RCP8.5 business-as-usual scenario, 91 percent of nuclear reactors will have to adapt to mean annual temperature increases of more than 2°C by 2040. …..
Within the last decade, multiple nuclear plants across the US have already scaled back generation due to warmer waters brought by heatwaves. Several have requested and obtained permits to increase their maximum temperature limit for their cooling water. This includes Connecticut’s low-lying Millstone plant, which in 2012 was the first nuclear plant to shut down because of rising water temperatures. Unable to prevent a temporary shut-down when its cooling water exceeded 75°F (23.8°C), the Millstone plant requested to increase the minimum temperature to 80°F (26.7°C). Studies have concluded that repeated thermal discharge from nuclear power plants can threaten marine life and the coastal environment. But, while Long Island’s Suffolk County in 2015 voted to commission an independent study on the impact of Millstone’s thermal plume on the aquatic environment in the Long Island Sound, no study has since emerged……..
This February, the IRSN, a French nuclear safety authority, instructed Electricite de France (EDF), which owns three quarters of nuclear plants in France, to consider hotter and longer heat waves when approving lifetime extensions of reactors.
As nuclear reactors reach the end of their license or if new reactors are sited, it is imperative that climate change projections are not only carefully considered but also accounted for—particularly in the extension of U.S. nuclear plant licenses from 60 to 80 years, a regulatory process called “subsequent relicensing” by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NRDC is currently litigating the adequacy of the environmental analysis of the subsequent license renewal and extension for the Turkey Point Generating Station, a two-unit nuclear plant at the southern tip of Florida, primarily for failure to consider impacts of climate change, specifically the impact of sea-level rise.
While reduced thermal efficiency and electricity output (which raises its own energy security concerns that should not be downplayed) are pressing concerns during scorching heatwaves, rising sea levels coupled with storm surge and increasingly severe weather events can pose even more serious health and safety risks to nuclear plants around the world. If we seek to take advantage of nuclear power’s low carbon attributes, we must carefully assess all risks, including the very crisis that nuclear power aims to help solve—climate change.
For more information about NRDC’s recommendations on Nuclear Energy, see our blog series on our 2017 Pathways Report. https://www.nrdc.org/experts/christina-chen/nuclear-vs-climate-change-feeling-heat-0
August 19, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
2 WORLD, climate change, Reference |
Leave a comment
Russia Testing Nuclear-Powered Mega-Torpedo Near Where Deadly Explosion Occurred https://www.forbes.com/sites/hisutton/2019/08/17/russia-testing-nuclear-powered-mega-torpedo-near-where-deadly-explosion-occurred/#7f3e00632d7fH I Sutton, Aerospace & DefenseI cover the changing world of underwater warfare. Details are still emerging of the explosion of a nuclear-powered engine that killed at least seven people in northern Russia last week. Conflicting reports, rumors and speculation center around whether the engine was for a nuclear-powered cruise missile, codenamed Skyfall by NATO, or some other weapon-related reactor. One of the possible weapons in the frame is the Poseidon mega-torpedo. This new weapon is described as an Intercontinental Nuclear-Powered Nuclear-Armed Autonomous Torpedo by the U.S. government
One of the possible weapons in the frame is the Poseidon mega-torpedo. This new weapon is described as an Intercontinental Nuclear-Powered Nuclear-Armed Autonomous Torpedo by the U.S. government.
The unique drone-like weapon is in an entirely new category. Launched from a large submarine, potentially from under the protection of the arctic ice cap, it would have virtually unlimited range and Russia claims that it will run so deep that it cannot realistically be countered with existing weapons. It’s designed to be armed with a nuclear warhead, reportedly of 2 megatons, which represents a slow but unstoppable death-knell for the residents of coastal cities such as New York or San Francisco in the event of a nuclear war. The Russian Ministry of Defense also claims that it will be usable against high value maritime targets such as the U.S. Navy’s carrier battle groups.
It is massive, around 30 times larger than the heavyweight torpedoes commonly used aboard submarines, and twice as large as submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs). Specially constructed submarines will be able to carry six Poseidon each. Unlike existing missile submarines, which are termed SSBNs, this type of submarine doesn’t even have a designation yet. Possibly SSDN will be used to denote a nuclear powered drone-carrying submarine.
Poseidon is being tested in the region, my analysis of information gathered from public sources shows. For trials it is being launched by a special submarine based in Severodvinsk, near the Nyonoksa testing site where the explosion occurred. The submarine is named Sarov after the city where the All-Russian Scientific Research Institute of Experimental Physics, which developed the nuclear engine involved in the explosion, is based. Sarov is also the city where the victims of the blast were laid to rest. In recent years the Russian Ministry of Defense has been open about Sarov’s role in the tests. The submarine rarely puts to sea but my analysis of information gathered from public sources shows that it did venture out into the White Sea in June, pointing to possible recent test launches.
Poseidon was first revealed to the public in dramatic fashion by Russian state media in the fall of 2015, when a slide on the new weapon was visible during a meeting with President Putin. The apparent security lapse was probably not by accident.
The project itself has since been traced back much further to the end of the Cold War, and defense watchers had an inkling of a giant torpedo-like weapon under development for about five years prior to the staged leak.
The weapon has been in testing since around 2014 and is likely to be nearing the production phase with deployments at sea from the early 2020s. The first submarine slated to carry the weapon operationally was launched in April in Severodvinsk. The gigantic Belgorod submarine is still undergoing fitting out and will not be operational for a few years. The second submarine, Khabarovsk, is also nearing completion and two more SSDNs are expected to follow, providing Russia with a new dimension in nuclear deterrence.
August 19, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Russia, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
A Major Cyber Attack Could Be Just as Deadly as Nuclear Weapons, Says Scientist https://www.sciencealert.com/a-major-cyber-attack-could-be-just-as-damaging-as-a-nuclear-weapon, JEREMY STRAUB, THE CONVERSATION, 18 AUG 2019
People around the world may be worried about nuclear tensions rising, but I think they’re missing the fact that a major cyberattack could be just as damaging – and hackers are already laying the groundwork.
With the US and Russia pulling out of a key nuclear weapons pact – and beginning to develop new nuclear weapons – plus Iran tensions and North Korea again test-launching missiles, the global threat to civilization is high. Some fear a new nuclear arms race.
That threat is serious – but another could be as serious, and is less visible to the public. So far, most of the well-known hacking incidents, even those with foreign government backing, have done little more than steal data.
Unfortunately, there are signs that hackers have placed malicious softwareinside US power and water systems, where it’s lying in wait, ready to be triggered. The US military has also reportedly penetrated the computers that control Russian electrical systems.
Many intrusions already
As someone who studies cybersecurity and information warfare, I’m concerned that a cyberattack with widespread impact, an intrusion in one area that spreads to others or a combination of lots of smaller attacks, could cause significant damage, including mass injury and death rivaling the death toll of a nuclear weapon.
Unlike a nuclear weapon, which would vaporize people within 100 feet and kill almost everyone within a half-mile, the death toll from most cyberattacks would be slower. People might die from a lack of food, power or gas for heator from car crashes resulting from a corrupted traffic light system. This could happen over a wide area, resulting in mass injury and even deaths.
This might sound alarmist, but look at what has been happening in recent years, in the US and around the world.
In early 2016, hackers took control of a US treatment plant for drinking water, and changed the chemical mixture used to purify the water. If changes had been made – and gone unnoticed – this could have led to poisonings, an unusable water supply and a lack of water.
In 2016 and 2017, hackers shut down major sections of the power grid in Ukraine. This attack was milder than it could have been, as no equipment was destroyed during it, despite the ability to do so. Officials think it was designed to send a message.
In 2018, unknown cybercriminals gained access throughout the United Kingdom’s electricity system; in 2019 a similar incursion may have penetrated the US grid.
In August 2017, a Saudi Arabian petrochemical plant was hit by hackers who tried to blow up equipment by taking control of the same types of electronics used in industrial facilities of all kinds throughout the world.
Just a few months later, hackers shut down monitoring systems for oil and gas pipelines across the US This primarily caused logistical problems – but it showed how an insecure contractor’s systems could potentially cause problems for primary ones.
The FBI has even warned that hackers are targeting nuclear facilities. A compromised nuclear facility could result in the discharge of radioactive material, chemicals or even possibly a reactor meltdown.
A cyberattack could cause an event similar to the incident in Chernobyl. That explosion, caused by inadvertent error, resulted in 50 deaths and evacuation of 120,000 and has left parts of the region uninhabitable for thousands of years into the future.
Mutual assured destruction
My concern is not intended to downplay the devastating and immediate effects of a nuclear attack. Rather, it’s to point out that some of the international protections against nuclear conflicts don’t exist for cyberattacks.
For instance, the idea of “mutual assured destruction” suggests that no country should launch a nuclear weapon at another nuclear-armed nation: The launch would likely be detected, and the target nation would launch its own weapons in response, destroying both nations.
Cyberattackers have fewer inhibitions. For one thing, it’s much easier to disguise the source of a digital incursion than it is to hide where a missile blasted off from.
Further, cyberwarfare can start small, targeting even a single phone or laptop. Larger attacks might target businesses, such as banks or hotels, or a government agency. But those aren’t enough to escalate a conflict to the nuclear scale.
Nuclear grade cyberattacks
There are three basic scenarios for how a nuclear grade cyberattack might develop. It could start modestly, with one country’s intelligence service stealing, deleting or compromising another nation’s military data.
Successive rounds of retaliation could expand the scope of the attacks and the severity of the damage to civilian life.
In another situation, a nation or a terrorist organization could unleash a massively destructive cyberattack – targeting several electricity utilities, water treatment facilities or industrial plants at once, or in combination with each other to compound the damage.
Perhaps the most concerning possibility, though, is that it might happen by mistake. On several occasions, human and mechanical errors very nearly destroyed the world during the Cold War; something analogous could happen in the software and hardware of the digital realm.
Defending against disaster
Just as there is no way to completely protect against a nuclear attack, there are only ways to make devastating cyberattacks less likely.
The first is that governments, businesses and regular people need to secure their systems to prevent outside intruders from finding their way in, and then exploiting their connections and access to dive deeper.
Critical systems, like those at public utilities, transportation companies and firms that use hazardous chemicals, need to be much more secure.
One analysis found that only about one-fifth of companies that use computers to control industrial machinery in the US even monitor their equipment to detect potential attacks – and that in 40 percent of the attacks they did catch, the intruder had been accessing the system for more than a year.
Another survey found that nearly three-quarters of energy companies had experienced some sort of network intrusion in the previous year.
But all those systems can’t be protected without skilled cybersecurity staffs to handle the work. At present, nearly a quarter of all cybersecurity jobs in the US are vacant, with more positions opening up than there are people to fill them.
One recruiter has expressed concern that even some of the jobs that are filled are held by people who aren’t qualified to do them. The solution is more training and education, to teach people the skills they need to do cybersecurity work, and to keep existing workers up to date on the latest threats and defense strategies.
If the world is to hold off major cyberattacks – including some with the potential to be as damaging as a nuclear strike – it will be up to each person, each company, each government agency to work on its own and together to secure the vital systems on which people’s lives depend. 
Jeremy Straub, Assistant Professor of Computer Science, North Dakota State University.
August 19, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
2 WORLD, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
|
Pakistan Has Lots of Nuclear Weapons: Should the World Worry? We take a look. National Interest,
Pakistan currently has a nuclear “triad” of nuclear delivery systems based on land, in the air and at sea. Islamabad is believed to have modified American-built F-16A fighters and possibly French-made Mirage fighters to deliver nuclear bombs by 1995. Since the fighters would have to penetrate India’s air defense network to deliver their payloads against cities and other targets, Pakistani aircraft would likely be deliver tactical nuclear weapons against battlefield targets.Sandwiched between Iran, China, India and Afghanistan, Pakistan lives in a complicated neighborhood with a variety of security issues. One of the nine known states known to have nuclear weapons, Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and doctrine are continually evolving to match perceived threats……[long detailed history of Pakistan’s developmentb of nuclear weapons]
Pakistan is clearly developing a robust nuclear capability that can not only deter but fight a nuclear war. It is also dealing with internal security issues that could threaten the integrity of its nuclear arsenal. Pakistan and India are clearly in the midst of a nuclear arms race that could, in relative terms, lead to absurdly high nuclear stockpiles reminiscent of the Cold War. It is clear that an arms-control agreement for the subcontinent is desperately needed. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/pakistan-has-lots-nuclear-weapons-should-world-worry-74516
|
|
August 19, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
general |
Leave a comment
No sign radiation from a missile explosion has spread beyond Russia,
New Scientist :
12 August 2019, By Adam Vaughan, An explosion at a missile testing range in north-western Russia killed five people working for the state nuclear energy agency and saw radiation levels spike locally, but there is no sign the radiation has spread to other countries……
“Russian authorities have confirmed the involvement of radioactive materials in the accident, but not the specific weapons system that was being tested,” says Ankit Panda at the Federation of American Scientists in Washington, D.C. “It’s important to clarify that the radiological event in this case is not due to the presence of nuclear weaponry, but what may be a prototype nuclear propulsion unit for a cruise missile.” He believes the difficulties and dangers of such a system mean it may never see deployment.
Radiation levels in Severodvinsk, 25 miles away, jumped for nearly an hour, at levels of up to 2 microsieverts per hour, which is below levels considered dangerous. A statement on the city’s website reported a “short-term” spike on Thursday, but the statement had been removed by Friday…….
no radiation from the recent incident appears to have reached Europe. The Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority says it has detected nothing unusual yet, and the UK’s radiation monitoring network, RIMNET, told New Scientist it has had no reports of other countries recording increases in radiation levels.
“Lack of detection by Norway and Finland so far makes us assume only trace concentrations may reach Europe,” says Rashid Alimov at Greenpeace Russia. Modelling by Ivan Kovalyets at the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine suggests only small concentrations might reach into Ukraine. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2213200-no-sign-radiation-from-a-missile-explosion-has-spread-beyond-russia/
August 19, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
environment, Russia |
Leave a comment
Regulators formalise technical collaboration on SMR regulation,WNN, 16 August 2019 Canadian and US nuclear regulators have signed a first-of-a-kind Memorandum of Cooperation (MoC) that will see them collaborate on the technical reviews of advanced reactor and small modular reactor (SMR) technologies. Meanwhile, the US Department of Energy has awarded funds to build SMR simulators at three US universities.
The MoC was signed on 15 August in Ottawa by Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) President Rumina Velshi and US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Chairman Christine Svinicki and follows a Memorandum of Understanding signed two years ago. …..
The US DOE has awarded three grants to support the installation of a NuScale reactor plant simulators at Oregon State University, Texas A&M University-College Station and the University of Idaho, NuScale Power announced on 15 August. The simulators will be used for research and educational purposes…..
We are very grateful to our university partners for their collaboration and eagerness to participate in this project, and to the Department of Energy for its continued support of NuScale’s groundbreaking work in the advanced nuclear industry,” NuScale Chairman and CEO John Hopkins said. “These simulator facilities will create new research opportunities and help ensure that we educate future generations about the important role nuclear power and SMR technology will play in attaining a safe, clean and secure energy future for our country.”The simulator facilities will also be used for educational outreach to school-age students and public advocacy regarding nuclear power and SMR technology. The three grants are awarded through the DOE Nuclear Energy University Program and are worth a total of nearly USD844,000.
The simulators are based on NuScale’s simulator technology and computer models, and include an interface that accepts input from operators in a virtual control room and displays parameters simulating the plant response. They facilitate research into human factors engineering, human-system interface design, advanced diagnostics, cyber security and plant control room automation. In addition to supporting STEM research and education at universities, NuScale’s simulator can be used to show students and members of the public advanced nuclear technology in a control room setting.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Regulators-formalise-technical-collaboration-on-SM?feed=feed
August 19, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Canada, Education, USA |
1 Comment
BACK TO THE DARK AGE Nuclear war between the US and Russia could plunge Earth into a TEN-YEAR winter in total darkness, scientists warn https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9741738/nuclear-war-us-russia-winter-ten-years/Jacob Dirnhuber
A NUCLEAR war between the US and Russia could plunge the Earth into a 10-year winter, scientists have warned.
Fires from ballistic missiles would throw a staggering 147million tonnes of soot and dust into the atmosphere – blocking out sunlight for years. Experts predict it would take ten years for light to return to normal – with average surface temperatures plummeting by 9C.
Atmospheric scientist Joshua Coup of Rutgers University simulated how the climate would respond to all-out nuclear war.
The team compared their findings to a 2007 study by Nasa – which also predicted a lengthy winter.
They warned: “The models agree that a nuclear winter would follow a large scale nuclear war between the United States and Russia. “A full-scale nuclear attack would be suicidal for the country which decides to carry out such an attack.
“The use of nuclear weapons in this manner by the United States and Russia would have disastrous consequences globally.
“Ultimately, the reduction of nuclear arsenals and the eventual disarmament of all nuclear capable parties is needed.”
1
|
|
|
August 19, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
general |
Leave a comment
World War 3: Unexploded US nuclear weapon hiding beneath Japanese waters ‘covered up’ https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1166479/world-war-3-nuclear-bomb-japan-philippine-sea-us-soviet-union-cold-war-sptWORLD WAR 3 could have erupted after the United States Navy accidentally dropped a nuclear bomb in Japanese waters – and it is still there today. by CALLUM HOARE, Aug 18, 2019. On December 5, 1965, just three years after the Cuban Missile Crisis pushed Cold War tensions to the limits, the US made a monumental mistake during a training exercise. A United States Navy Douglas A-4E Skyhawk attack aircraft fell off the side of aircraft carrier USS Ticonderoga while sailing through the Philippine Sea. The pilot, Lieutenant Douglas M Webster, the plane, and the B43 nuclear bomb on board all fell into the water, 68 miles from the coast of Kikai Island, Japan.
However, it was not until 1989 that the Pentagon admitted the loss of a one-megaton hydrogen bomb.
The revelation inspired a diplomatic inquiry from Japan, however, neither the weapon, or the pilot, was ever recovered.The incident, the most serious involving nuclear weapons in the Navy’s history, showed that US warships carried atomic weapons into Japanese ports in violation of policy, according to researchers.
Japanese law banned ships carrying nuclear weapons from sailing in its territorial waters or calling on its ports following the terrible Hiroshima and Nagasaki incidents.
However, the US warship routinely docked in Japan.
William M. Arkin of the liberal Institute for Policy Studies claimed in 1989: “For 24 years, the US Navy has covered up the most politically sensitive accident that has ever taken place.
“The Navy kept the true details of this accident a secret not only because it demonstrates their disregard for the treaty stipulations of foreign governments but because of the questions it raises about nuclear weapons aboard ships in Vietnam.”
The event was highly sensitive, with Japan being the only country to ever be attacked with nuclear weapons at the end of World War 2.
On September 8, 1951, 49 nations drew a line under the devastating event and signed the Treaty of San Francisco – also known as the Treaty of Peace with Japan.
The document officially ended US-led occupation of Japan and marked the start of re-establishing relations with the allied powers.
Meanwhile, In 1965, the US was arguably at the height of tensions with the Soviet Union.
Not only did the accident threaten to spoil already tenuous relations with Japan, but it would have also have given the USSR an excuse to start a nuclear war.
Despite the worrying claims, the US Navy confirmed inn 1989 that the waters were too deep for the weapon to pose a threat.
Worryingly though, it would not be the last of the nuclear gaffes for America. On January 17, 1966, a B-52G USAF bomber collided with a KC-135 tanker during a refuelling mission at 31,000 feet over the Mediterranean Sea.
During the crash, three MK28-type hydrogen bombs headed for land in the small fishing village of Palomares in Almeria, Spain.
Worse still, the explosives in two of the weapons detonated on impact, contaminating the surrounding area of almost one square mile with plutonium.
The fourth sunk off the coast of Spain and was recovered three months later.
August 19, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
general, history, incidents, Reference, USA, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
|
Despite the TV show and the author’s landmark book, the truth about Chernobyl is still contested
|
|
August 19, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
2 WORLD, media, spinbuster |
Leave a comment
Telegraph 15th August 2019 The government faces renewed questions over its decision to allow a
state-owned Chinese firm to be involved in the UK’s power generation
programme after the business was placed on a US export blacklist. China
General Nuclear Power Group (CGN), which has partnered with EDF to help
fund a third of the £20bn cost of the nuclear power station at Hinkley
Point, was on Thursday added to the US commerce department’s so-called
“entity list”. The placement effectively blocks American firms from
selling products and services to the company without written approval.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/08/15/questions-raised-chinas-involvement-hinkley-point-us-trade-blacklist/
August 19, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics international, UK |
Leave a comment
nuclear-news 