UK Kick Nuclear Monthly Newsletter March 2020 – Fukushima Anniversay
Note that the Fukushima Anniversary Public Meeting planned for Thursday March 19th has had to be cancelled due to the Corona Virus epidemic.
However the vigil due to take place this evening outside the Japanese Embassy in London, from 5.30 to 6.30pm, is going ahead, as is the March nad rally this Saturday, March 14th. (See front of newsletter for details.) As these events are in the open air the chances of contagion are less.
KICK NUCLEAR
monthly newsletter
March 2020
(There was no February edition)
Editor: David Polden, Mordechai Vanunu House, 162 Holloway Rd. N7 8DQ
www.kicknuclear.com ; www.nonucleartrains.org.uk ; 020-7700 2393
REGULAR FRIDAY SOLIDARITY VIGILS
Every Friday (since August 2012): leafletting outside the Japanese Embassy, 101-104 Piccadilly (Green Park tube) from 10am-12.30pm; and then outside Tokyo Electric Power Co. offices, 14-18 Holborn (Chancery Lane tube) from 1-1.30pm. Held in solidarity with the anti-nuclear movement in Japan. Organised by: Kick Nuclear and Japanese Against Nuclear UK (JAN UK)
FUKUSHIMA 9th ANNIVERSARY EVENTS
Saturday March 14th: March from Japanese Embassy (address above) to opposite entrance to Downing Street in Whitehall for rally there. Assemble outside Japanese Embassy at noon for 12.30pm start. Rally begins at 2pm.
(The meeting planned for March 19th has been cancelled.)
NUCLEAR TRAIN ACTION GROUP STALLS
Saturday March 21st, 11am-2pm: stall and leafletting near the exit from Brixton tube station. (Nuclear trains pass over a bridge near the exit. Help welcome.
Saturday May 2nd, 2.30-4pm: stall and leafletting outside Bromley South station (Nuclear trains pass through). Organised by Bromley CND with support of NTAG.
NEXT JOINT KN/NTAG PLANNING MEETINGS
Thursday April 23rd, 6.30pm, at CND Office. (Address above.)
50 YEARS “ENRICHING THE FUTURE”
Cheshire-Live reported on a March 4th demonstration at Capenhurst uranium enrichment plant in Cheshire. An edited version of the report follows:
“Urenco’s nuclear plant at Capenhurst [jointly owned by the UK and Dutch governments and German energy companies] this week celebrated 50 years since the company was founded.
“But outside Capenhurst protesters lamented the damage to human health and the environment caused by disasters like Chernobyl, Ukraine and Fukushima.
“Close Capenhurst [group organising the demonstration] campaigners argued that [the nuclear energy industry] was unsafe, from uranium mining to nuclear power production and transportation and storage of highly radioactive waste.
“Concerns have been raised about the Urenco plant itself which enriches uranium for use as fuel in nuclear reactors, with depleted uranium – a low level radioactive and toxic by-product of the process – stored on site.
“Marianne Birkby, an anti-nuclear campaigner [with the “Nuclear-Free Lakeland” campaign], speaking at the [eight-strong] demonstration outside the plant, said: ‘The start of the nuclear fuel cycle is here and where it ends up is Sellafield in Cumbria, and every day, virtually, there’s nuclear waste transported on the roads, rail, sea and nobody wants the waste.
“It’s all very well for Urenco to say ‘enriching the future’ [the plant’s Orwellian slogan] … but nobody wants nuclear waste at the end of the day. And nuclear waste is the product of nuclear power.”
“Japanese campaigner Kaori Mikata-Pralat [from Kick Nuclear] read out a statement on behalf of a group pursuing legal action against the Tokyo Electric Power Company over the 2011 Fukushima disaster.
“Explaining that Fukushima had alerted her to the dangers, she told Cheshire Live: ‘I wasn’t quite aware of the scale of the problem of the nuclear industry.’
She has met victims of nuclear accidents, adding: ‘what they want is this tragedy should not be repeated anywhere in the world. Fukushima people suffered a lot.’
“Kaori said the ocean had also been poisoned. Even nuclear power stations functioning normally affect the eco-system as sea and river water were used to cool the reactors with the hot water put back, harming fish and plant life.
“Pointing at the sun, fellow protester Philip Gilligan said: ‘That nuclear power station up there is supplying the energy. It’s the only nuclear power station we want. So the energy coming to earth could easily be used with zero carbon output and zero nuclear. The problem is we need a bomb. And it’s hidden in statements like ‘energy as cheap as water’ which was current when Sellafield went critical in the ‘70s’.
“He said in fact nuclear power was ‘hugely expensive’.”
Two officials from the plant came out to talk to the protestors.
Kaori from Japanese Against Nuclear UK has posted a video-diary of the event on twitter. See https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2020/03/05/50-years-of-enriching-the-future
FUKUSHIMA UPDATE 2020
Since August 2011, Kick Nuclear and Japanese Against Nuclear UK have organised a weekly Friday vigil outside the Japanese Embassy to remind visitors to the Embassy and passers-by of the continuing 2011 nuclear disaster at Fukushima and calling for the UK to give up nuclear power. Rik, a regular on the vigil, has been producing regular updates, published in English with a Japanese translation, on the unfolding of the disaster.
The recently-published 2020 Update starts by warning athletes and spectators, intending to go to the Tokyo Olympic Games this summer, of some of the dangers they will face. Here is an extract from the Update on this issue:
“Nine years ago, three nuclear reactors melted down in Fukushima. For nine years Japan has put enormous effort into dealing with – and downplaying – the disaster. Why the downplaying and denial? After nine years the wrecked Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant is still dangerous, while further dangers still lurk in the food, water, soil and air. Could it be to protect the Japanese nuclear industry and its embedded bureaucrats?
This past year more evidence has emerged of the highly-radioactive microparticles to which Japan’s Olympic guests risk being exposed this summer. These are microparticles of nuclear reactor fuel, 2-3 micrometres in size and rich in caesium. It is believed that they were formed when reactor 3 exploded, its fuel vapourising at 3,000ºC then rapidly cooling and condensing.
These microparticles have been found as far as 320km away from the nuclear power plant and 200km away in Tokyo, while 80km away, topsoil in some areas has been found to contain as many as 100 particles per gram. They are glassy, near-insoluble and so tiny that they float like dust and, if breathed-in, they penetrate lung tissue and lodge there, permanently, bombarding the surrounding cells with radiation. This can cause cancer. Astonishingly it seems that they have never been part of the public health reaction.
All Olympic visitors are at risk of receiving higher doses of radiation than need be. They can’t avoid breathing, and hot summer air can be dusty. While the South Korean athletes will bring their own food, water and radiation-detectors, other visitors may not be aware of the risks and many will be unable to read labelling, ask about where their rice, tea, plums, etc. are from, or read radiation survey results. It appear that the Japanese government is going out of its way to hide and deny rather than help visitors and residents with this information.
(A copy or copies of the 2020 Update can be obtained from the editor at request – contact details under masthead.)
ENVIRONMENTAL PETITION AGAINST SIZEWELL C
Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) are collecting signatures for a petition. They write: “EDF, wanting to begin preparation works for Sizewell C [have] submitted a planning application to East Suffolk Council for permission to demolish the 100-year old Coronation Wood and turn a large area of priority habitat acidic grassland (Pillbox Field) into a car park.
“East Suffolk Council granted permission in November 2019 for, in effect, Coronation Wood and other areas of the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty to be trashed.
“TASC consider this to be unlawful as Sizewell C has not been given the go-ahead and may never be built.”
Enter TASC Together to get into website.
Japan’s Olympic Games propaganda really tops the lies that cover up the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe
Japan’s Nuclear Cover-up Continues, Nine Years after the Fukushima Disaster, Fairewinds Energy Education, March 10, 2020 by Arnie Gundersen “……. 2020 Olympics
In order for Japan to win its Olympic bid in 2013, two years later, Japan’s next Prime Minister Abe stated that the Fukushima disaster was ‘under control’. This statement was also a blatant lie that succeeded in winning the bid to hold the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo at the expense of the taxpayers and residents of Japan. Don’t take Fairewinds word for it! Read what Japan’s former Prime Minister, Junichiro Koizumi said to Reuters in September 2016. Entitled Abe’s Fukushima ‘under control’ pledge to secure Olympics was a lie: former PM, Reuters wrote,
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s promise that the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant was “under control” in his successful pitch three years ago for Tokyo to host the 2020 Olympic Games “was a lie”, former premier Junichiro Koizumi said on Wednesday.
Frequent readers of the Fairewinds newsletter will remember last year’s posts entitled Atomic Balm 1 and Atomic Balm 2 in which Fairewinds Energy Education described in detail the path of deception that Japan has used to take the world’s attention off of the lives of its own people, who are still being compromised by the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear tragedy. The 2020 Olympics puts the media focus onto something else – so that the world continues to believe that nuclear power reactors are still a safe form of generating electricity.
This nine year legacy of lies by the government of Japan, nuclear incentivized governments worldwide, and the atomic industry are a harbinger for the seemingly inevitable approach of the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. Hopefully mainstream media covering the summer games will finally see through this glamorous marketing scam and identify the fact that Fukushima Prefecture remains severely radiologically contaminated. Real people, who are citizens of Japan, are seeing their health and that of their families being compromised for generations as they are forced to return to radiologically contaminated areas. Entire families and their communities are facing significant health risks simply to enable corporate profiteering of those investors, energy producers, banks, and government officials associated with the ongoing operation of nuclear power plants in Japan and around the world. https://www.fairewinds.org/demystify/japans-nuclear-cover-up-continues-nine-years-after-the-fukushima-disaster
Fukushima, and the ocean’s history of nuclear waste dumping
Fukushima: How the ocean became a dumping ground for radioactive waste, DW, 11 Mar 20, The nuclear disaster at Fukushima sent an unprecedented amount of radiation into the Pacific. But, before then, atomic bomb tests and radioactive waste were contaminating the sea — the effects are still being felt today.
Almost 1.2 million liters (320,000 gallons) of radioactive water from the Fukushima nuclear power plant is to be released into the ocean. That’s on the recommendation of the government’s advisory panel some nine years after the nuclear disaster on Japan’s east coast. The contaminated water has since been used to cool the destroyed reactor blocks to prevent further nuclear meltdowns. It is currently being stored in large tanks, but those are expected to be full by 2022. Exactly how the water should be dealt with has become highly controversial in Japan, not least because the nuclear disaster caused extreme contamination off the coast of Fukushima. At the time, radioactive water flowed “directly into the sea, in quantities we have never seen before in the marine world,” Sabine Charmasson from the French Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN) tells DW. Radiation levels in the sea off Fukushima were millions of times higher than the government’s limit of 100 becquerels. And still today, radioactive substances can be detected off the coast of Japan and in other parts of the Pacific. They’ve even been measured in very small quantities off the US west coast in concentrations “well below the harmful levels set by the World Health Organization,” according to Vincent Rossi, an oceanographer at France’s Mediterranean Institute of Oceanography (MIO). But that doesn’t mean there’s no risk, says Horst Hamm of the Nuclear Free Future Foundation. “A single becquerel that gets into our body is enough to damage a cell that will eventually become a cancer cell,” he says. A study from the European Parliament reached a similar conclusion. The research found that “even the smallest possible dose, a photon passing through a cell nucleus, carries a cancer risk. Although this risk is extremely small, it is still a risk.” And that risk is growing. Radioactive pollution in the ocean has been increasing globally — and not just since the disaster at Fukushima. Atomic bomb tests In 1946, the US became the first country to test an atomic bomb in a marine area, in the Pacific Bikini Atoll. Over the next few decades, more than 250 further nuclear weapons tests were carried out on the high seas. Most of them (193) were conducted by France in French Polynesia, and by the US (42), primarily in the Marshall Islands and the Central Pacific. But the ocean wasn’t just being used as a training ground for nuclear war. Until the early 1990s, it was also a gigantic dump for radioactive waste from nuclear power plants. From 1946 to 1993, more than 200,000 tons of waste, some of it highly radioactive, was dumped in the world’s oceans, mainly in metal drums, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Several nuclear submarines, including nuclear ammunition, were also sunk during this time. Is the ocean a perfect storage site? The lion’s share of dumped nuclear waste came from Britain and the Soviet Union, figures from the IAEA show. By 1991, the US had dropped more than 90,000 barrels and at least 190,000 cubic meters of radioactive waste in the North Atlantic and Pacific. Other countries including Belgium, France, Switzerland and the Netherlands also disposed of tons of radioactive waste in the North Atlantic in the 1960s, 70s and 80s. “Under the motto, ‘out of sight, out of mind,’ the dumping of nuclear waste was the easiest way to get rid of it,” says Horst Hamm. To this day, around 90% of the radiation in the ocean comes from barrels discarded in the North Atlantic, most of which lie north of Russia or off the coast of Western Europe. “The barrels are everywhere,” says ecologist Yannick Rousselet of Greenpeace France. He was present in 2000 when the environmental organization used submarines to dive for dumped drums a few hundred meters off the coast of northern France, at a depth of 60 meters (196 feet). “We were surprised how close they were to the coast,” Rousselet says. “They are rusty and leaking, with the radiation clearly elevated.” Germany also implicated In 1967, Germany also dumped 480 barrels off the coast of Portugal, according to the IAEA. Responding to a 2012 request for information from the Greens about the condition of those barrels, the German government wrote: “The barrels were not designed to ensure the permanent containment of radionuclides on the sea floor. Therefore, it must be assumed that they are at least partially no longer intact.” Germany and France don’t want to salvage the barrels. And even Greenpeace activist Yannick Rousselet says he sees “no safe way to lift the rusted barrels” to the surface. That means nuclear waste will likely continue to contaminate the ocean floor for decades to come. For Horst Hamm, the long-term consequences are clear. The radiation will be “absorbed by the marine animals surrounding it. They will eventually end up caught in fishing nets, and come back to our plates,” he says. In its 2012 response to the Greens, however, the German government described the risk to humans from contaminated fish as “negligible.” Rousselet sees things differently: “The entire area along the coast is contaminated by radiation — not just in the sea, in the grass, in the sand, you can measure it everywhere.” Radioactive dumping ground The main reason behind the radiation along the northern French coastline isn’t the underwater barrels, but rather the nuclear fuel reprocessing plant at La Hague. It is located directly on the coast and “legally discharges 33 million liters of radioactive liquid into the sea each year,” says Rousselet. He thinks it’s scandalous. In recent years, La Hague has also been the scene of several incidents involving increased radioactivity levels. The dumping of nuclear waste in drums was banned in 1993 by the London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution. But discharging liquid contaminated with radiation into the ocean is still permitted internationally. Spike in cancer rates According to a study by the European Parliament, statistics show cancer rates are significantly higher in the region surrounding La Hague. Cancer rates are also high near the nuclear processing plant in Sellafield in northern England. A study from 2014 concluded that the total amount of radioactivity discharged into the sea from the Sellafield plant over the years is equivalent to the amount released by the nuclear meltdown at Fukushima. The report say a link to health effects “cannot be ruled out” even if there is no clear evidence to date of a link between illness and radioactive discharges from nuclear facilities. “The exact effects of radioactive radiation are extremely difficult to measure and prove. We only know that it has an impact,” says Rousselet, adding that it’s crucial to walk away from everything that causes radioactive waste. https://www.dw.com/en/fukushima-how-the-ocean-became-a-dumping-ground-for-radioactive-waste/a-52710277 Dumping more waste at Fukushima In Fukushima, the operating company of the Tokyo Electric Power Company nuclear plant claims that before the cooling water is discharged into the sea as planned, all 62 radioactive elements will be filtered down to safe levels — except for the isotope tritium. The advisory panel in Tokyo considers discharging the cooling water into the sea to be “safer” than other alternatives, such as evaporating the water. Just how harmful tritium is to humans is a source of controversy. According to the plant operator, the concentration of tritium in the collection tanks is sometimes much higher than that of conventional cooling water from nuclear power stations. “The local fishermen and residents cannot accept the discharge of water,” Takami Morita of the National Research Institute of Fisheries Science said in a press release. While fish pollution levels are below the harmful limit, demand for fish from the region has dropped to one-fifth of what it was before the disaster. Releasing the cooling water into the sea “is a good method because of the diluting properties of the water,” Sabine Charmasson of the IRSN says. “There aren’t any real problems on the security side, but it’s difficult, because there are also social implications. It might be an appropriate method, but it’s never easy to release radioactive substances into the environment.” In a press release, Greenpeace said: “There is no justification for additional, deliberate radioactive pollution of the marine environment or atmosphere.” https://www.dw.com/en/fukushima-how-the-ocean-became-a-dumping-ground-for-radioactive-waste/a-52710277 |
|
Fukushima’s huge accumulation of radioactive water – a pressing problem as Olympics approach
Contaminated water at nuclear plant still an issue ahead of Tokyo Olympics, https://www.thecanary.co/global/world-news/2020/03/10/contaminated-water-at-nuclear-plant-still-an-issue-ahead-of-tokyo-olympics/ Work to deal with contaminated water at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant continues as the Olympic Games approach.
Inside a giant decontamination facility at the destroyed plant, workers in hazmat suits monitor radioactive water pumped from three damaged reactors.
The decontamination process is a key element of a contentious debate over what should be done with the nearly 1.2 million tons of still-radioactive water being closely watched by governments and organisations around the world ahead of this summer’s Tokyo Olympics.
The plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company, or Tepco, says it needs to free up space as work to decommission the damaged reactors approaches a critical phase. It is widely expected that Tepco will gradually release the water into the nearby ocean following a government decision allowing it to do so.
The company is still vague on the timing.
But local residents, especially fishermen, are opposed to the plan because they think the water release would hurt the reputation of already battered fisheries, where annual sales remain about half of the level before the nuclear accident, even though the catch has cleared strict radioactivity tests.
Tepco chief decommissioning officer Akira Ono says the water must be disposed as the plant’s decommissioning moves forward because the area used by the tanks is needed to build facilities for the retrieval of melted reactor debris.
Workers are planning to remove a first batch of melted debris by December 2021.
Remote control cranes are dismantling a highly contaminated exhaust tower near Unit 2, the first reactor to get its melted fuel removed.
At Unit 3, spent fuel units are being removed from a cooling pool ahead of the removal of melted fuel.
The dilemma over the ever-growing radioactive water is part of the complex aftermath of the magnitude 9.0 earthquake and tsunami that hit on March 11 2011, destroying key cooling functions at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant.
Three reactors melted, releasing massive amounts of radiation and forcing 160,000 residents to evacuate.
About 40,000 still have not returned.
Except for the highly radioactive buildings that house the melted reactors, most above-ground areas of the plant can now be visited while wearing just a surgical mask, cotton gloves, a helmet and a personal dosimeter.
The area right outside the plant is largely untouched and radiation levels are often higher.
The underground areas remain a hazardous mess.
Radioactive cooling water is leaking from the melted reactors and mixes with groundwater, which must be pumped up to keep it from flowing into the sea and elsewhere.
Separately, even more dangerously contaminated water sits in underground areas and leaks continuously into groundwater outside the plant, experts say. The contaminated water pumped from underground first goes through caesium and strontium removal equipment, after which most is recycled as cooling water for the damaged reactors.
The contaminated water pumped from underground first goes through caesium and strontium removal equipment, after which most is recycled as cooling water for the damaged reactors.
Katsumi Shozugawa, a radiology expert at the University of Tokyo who has been analysing groundwater around the plant, said the long-term consequences of low-dose exposure in the food chain has not been fully investigated.
“At this point, it is difficult to predict a risk,” he said.
“Once the water is released into the environment, it will be very difficult to follow up and monitor its movement.
“So the accuracy of the data before any release is crucial and must be verified.”
After years of discussions about what to do with the contaminated water without destroying the local economy and its reputation, a government panel issued a report earlier this year that narrowed the water disposal options to two: diluting the treated water to levels below the allowable safety limits and then releasing it into the sea in a controlled way, or allowing the water to evaporate in a years-long process.
The report also urged the government to do more to fight the “reputational damage” to Fukushima fishing and farm produce, for instance by promoting food fairs, developing new sales routes and making use of third-party quality accreditation systems.
Tepco and government officials promise the plant will treat the water for a second time to meet legal requirements before any release.
At the end of a tour of the treatment facility, a plant official showed journalists a glass bottle containing clear water taken from the processing equipment.
Workers are required to routinely collect water samples for analysis at laboratories at the plant.
Radiology technicians were analysing the water at one lab.
Officials say the treated water will be diluted with fresh water before it is released into the environment.
Doubts about the plant’s water treatment escalated two years ago when Tepco acknowledged that most of the water stored in the tanks still contains cancer-causing caesium, strontium and other radioactive materials at levels exceeding safety limits.
Nuclear power, then nuclear weapons? for United Arab Emirates
![]() Honorary Senior Research Associate, Energy Institute, UCL March 11, 2020 The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is building the world’s largest concentrated solar power plant, capable of generating 700 megawatts. During daylight, solar power will provide cheap electricity, and at night the UAE will use stored solar heat to generate electricity.But at the same time, four nuclear reactors are nearing completion in the UAE, built by the South Korean Electric Power Corporation, KEPCO. The nuclear power plant is named Barakah – Arabic for divine blessing. The UAE’s investment in these four nuclear reactors risks further destabilising the volatile Gulf region, damaging the environment and raising the possibility of nuclear proliferation. Safety flawsThe UAE nuclear contract remains South Korea’s one and only export order, despite attempts by KEPCO to win contracts in Lithuania, Turkey, Vietnam and the UK. Barakah, construction of which began in 2011, is in the Gharbiya region of Abu Dhabi, on the coast. Although nuclear reactor design has evolved over time, key safety features haven’t been included at Barakah. This is important, since these reactors might not be able to defend against an accidental or deliberate airplane crash, or military attack. Particularly worrying is the lack of a “core-catcher” which, if the emergency reactor core cooling system fails, works to keep in the hot nuclear fuel if it breaches the reactor pressure vessel. Concrete cracking in all four reactor containment buildings hasn’t helped, nor has the installation of faulty safety relief valves. All this is further complicated by large-scale falsification of KEPCO quality control documents, which ended up in a far-reaching criminal investigation and convictions in 2013. Proliferation risksThe tense Gulf strategic geopolitical situation makes new civil nuclear construction in the region even more controversial than elsewhere, as it can mean moves towards nuclear weapon capability, as experience with Iran has shown. Following military strikes against Saudi oil refineries in late 2019, nuclear energy safety in the region increasingly revolves around the broader issue of security. This is especially the case since some armed groups may view the UAE’s military operations in Yemen as a reason to target nuclear installations, or intercept enriched uranium fuel or waste transfers. Such spillover from foreign policy – and politics more generally – will increasingly dovetail with nuclear safety considerations in the region. Perhaps disconcertingly, Yemeni rebels already claim to have fired a missile at the Barakah nuclear power plant site in 2017. Although UAE denied the claim, saying it had an air defence system capable of dealing with any threat, protection of Barakah won’t be an easy task. Time to scramble fighter aircraft or fire surface-to-air missiles may be limited, as the attacks in Saudi Arabia indicated. Not only that, but the increase in transport of radioactive materials into and through the Gulf once the reactors at Barakah start up will, unfortunately, present a major maritime risk. Environmental concernsThe Gulf is one of the most water-scarce regions in the world, and Gulf states rely on desalination. Radioactive release to the marine environment following an accident or deliberate incident at Barakah would have significant pollution consequences for desalination and drinking water in the region. And the UAE coast is a vulnerable environment, critically important for a very large range of marine life. Extensive mangrove habitats grow on and in coastal fine sediments and mudflats, notable for their ability to sequester radioactivity. Acting as a “sink” and concentrating radioactivity over time, normal operational nuclear discharge from Barakah will inevitably lead to human inhalation and ingestion. The debate over nuclear power and climate is hotting up, with some scientists suggesting new nuclear can help. Yet, the International Panel on Climate Change recently reported that extreme sea-level events will significantly increase, whether emissions are curbed or not. All coastal nuclear plants, including Barakah, will be increasingly vulnerable to sea-level rise, storm surges, flooding of reactor and spent fuel stores. The UAE’s governmental environmental assessment of global heating’s impact on Barakah is conspicuous by its absence. Since not all energy policy choices are equal, the case for nuclear power in the Middle East has never been strong. While lower CO₂ emissions and improvement in renewable technology is one explanation for the dynamic global ramp in new renewable generation and the fall in new nuclear – the main driver seems to be the plummeting costs of the former and the increasing costs of the latter. So it’s strange that the UAE has cast significant resources at nuclear power, when other viable options already exist. Since new nuclear seems to make little economic sense in the Gulf, which has some of the best solar energy resources in the world, the nature of Emirate interest in nuclear may lie hidden in plain sight – nuclear weapon proliferation. |
|
The planet’s largest ecosystems could collapse faster than we thought
The planet’s largest ecosystems could collapse faster than we thought https://www.ehn.org/ecosystems-collapse-2645447028.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1
Massive, vital ecosystems that have existed for thousands of years could breakdown in just a few decades, according to a new study, Brian Bienkowski 11 Mar, 20
If put under the kind of environmental stress increasingly seen on our planet, large ecosystems —such as the Amazon rainforest or the Caribbean coral reefs—could collapse in just a few decades, according to a study released today in Nature Communications.
In the case of Amazon forests, stressors could cause collapse in just 49 years. In Caribbean coral reefs, it could take as little as 15 years.
“The messages here are stark,” said lead researcher John Dearing, a professor in physical geography at the University of Southampton, in a statement.
Those estimates come from Dearing and colleagues who examined data on how 42 natural environments—small and large, and on both land and water—have transformed. They found that larger ecosystems may take longer than small ones to collapse, but the rate of their decline is much more rapid.
Ecosystem stress can come in many forms such as climate change, deforestation, overfishing, pollution and ocean acidification.
Humanity now needs to prepare for changes in ecosystems that are faster than we previously envisaged through our traditional linear view of the world, including across Earth ‘s largest and most iconic ecosystems, and the social–ecological systems that they support,” the authors wrote.
Larger ecosystems are made up of smaller “sub-systems” of species and habitats, which provide some resilience against rapid change. However, once these smaller systems start to collapse, the new study finds the large ecosystems as a whole fall apart much faster than previously expected.
Researchers pointed to the destructive Australian and Amazon rainforest wildfires as recent examples of this dangerous fast rate of collapse.
“These findings are yet another call for halting the current damage being imposed on our natural environments that pushes ecosystems to their limits,” Dearing added.
See the full study in Nature Communications.
Joe Biden to encourage nuclear power, and Bernie Sanders is not all that anti nuclear
![]() BREAKING DOWN BERNIE’S NUCLEAR PLAN: Sen. Bernie Sanders has pledged to secure 100 percent of U.S. electricity from renewable sources by 2030, and he’d do so in part by ending new licenses to nuclear power plants. But his opposition to nuclear energy may not be as radical as his critics fear, Pro’s Gavin Bade reports this morning. Sanders’ campaign says he would not order the vast majority of existing reactors in the U.S. to shut down, and campaign aides privately acknowledge that Sanders will lack the tools to bring an end to nuclear power within the next decade.Sanders’ opposition to nuclear power stands in contrast to former Vice President Joe Biden, who promises to “identify the future of nuclear power,” including new waste disposal systems and small, modular reactors that the industry hopes will be safer and easier to deploy. The nuclear issue could affect upcoming Democratic primaries in states like Illinois, New Jersey, Ohio and Connecticut, where state nuclear subsidies keep plants running and employ thousands of union jobs. Sanders’ allies say the candidate would prioritize phasing out natural gas and coal-fired power before shutting any nuclear generators. The campaign declined to give further detail on how it would ensure nuclear plants are not replaced by gas, but emphasized Sanders’ call for a complete phase-out of fossil fuels and a ban on hydraulic fracking for gas. …..https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-energy/2020/03/10/bernies-nuclear-plan-explained-785957 |
|
The lies about nuclear waste dumping in Scotland – from U.S. nuclear submarines
We were lied to in the past about dumping of nuclear waste https://www.thenational.scot/politics/18295704.lied-past-dumping-nuclear-waste/
By Iain Ramsay, Greenock & Inverclyde 11 Mar 20, QUITE a few years back, when I was a local SNP candidate here in Inverclyde, the local small boat owners and fishermen’s association approached me with their worries and problems, which resulted in me taking up the cudgels on their behalf.One of their spokesmen, who had a prawn fishing boat, was the late Brian Penny, who explained the problem and gave me the astounding fact that all the sea life had died in the Holy Loch.
The obvious cause of this was the USA nuclear submarine base of Polaris submarines, which must be discharging or dumping nuclear waste into the loch. With the help of the Greenock Telegraph we made a complaint to the far-off powers in Westminster who (according to them) sent a naval investigation team and took samples of sand, and water from the Loch, and assuring all concerned, that there was no need for any worry, as their tests had shown that the Loch was clean and no contamination was found.
So who was to be believed, our local men who worked the river, or the boffins from the Anglo/Brit Navy? It was their expert word against our on-the-spot working fishermen. The result was that, as usual, nothing happened, until long after the USA navy left, the commander of the Holy Loch base retired and confessed to dumping tons of radio active waste into the loch.
Along with this admission was his statement that the base would have been illegal in America, as such nuclear bases have got to be more than 20 miles from the nearest town.This Holy Loch base was bang in the middle of the river Clyde, and only two miles from Greenock, the second-largest town in Scotland.
This confession by this former USA commander made the Royal Navy tests a total lie. No such tests were made. Proof of the pudding resulted in a permanently based dredger, working for well over a year on the very spot where the American commander’s mother ship was moored. I hope since that panic clean-up, sea life may have made a comeback, although some types of nuclear waste are a danger for a hundred years or more. I hope the USA were back charged for this long and hazardous clean-up, or did we taxpayers foot that bill also?
This doesn’t end the story of contamination, and if anything is only the beginning of a long line of attacks on our fragile environment. The English-flag-flying Royal Navy have taken over where the Yankees left off. Just across the river we have a nuclear submarine base, which not only admits to discharging radioactive waste from Faslane into the Gairloch but announces that this will increase by 50% when the new nuclear subs arrive.
The fact is, the only enemy attack we have to thole right now is from this highly dangerous Cobalt-60 and Tritium cocktail, a GIFT from the Royal Navy. However if you look up GIFT in a German dictionary, it means poison or venom. There are no contingency plans for our children’s health, when only less than two miles away we have a unique seawater swimming pool in Gourock which will eventually filter this contamination through, to be shared by all.
No, to Mr Donald Doull, the base commander, don’t install that new pipeline which will spew out this dangerous filth into our beloved Clyde. Rather fill your navy tankers with the effluent, and sail it down to the River Thames, when opposite the Westminster Parliament discharge this contaminated water into the river. Let’s see how long the Londoners would tolerate such muck spreading on their patch. You will find the English are not as gullible as to accept your stupid comment that this waste is of an acceptable radioactive level. Acceptable by whom, may I ask?
Groups question the viability of the three coastal sites for UK’s new nuclear plants

2018. According to minutes of meetings held by ONR’s group of climate
change experts, projections of sea level rise for the year 2100 contain
“considerable uncertainty” and ” small changes to UK storm systems can
alter the height of storm surges significantly”. Crucially, sea level has a
huge effect on the severity of storm surges. An increase in sea level of
one metre could mean that a storm of a severity currently expected only
once every thousand years is likely to occur once every decade. The meeting
took place in Bridgwater on 28th January 2020. Stop Hinkley was joined by
Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) and Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group
(BANNG). The groups are questioning the viability of the three coastal
sites which are all vulnerable to the impacts of flooding, storm surges and
coastal processes which will inevitably intensify in coming years.
U.S. Department of Energy’s plans could mean delay in Hanford nuclear waste clean-up
Nuclear waste cleanup efforts in Washington could be delayed https://triblive.com/news/world/nuclear-waste-cleanup-efforts-in-washington-could-be-delayed/, ASSOCIATED PRESS | Wednesday, March 11, 2020 RICHLAND, Wash. — The Department of Energy has announced priority plans for environmental cleanup nationwide and indicates a slower process for the decommissioned nuclear site in Washington state, a report said.
The focus at the Hanford Site will be to start treating waste at the $17 billion vitrification plant, but the report does not detail other work at the 580-square-mile site, the Tri-City Herald reported Tuesday. The report does not mention moving radioactive capsules to safer storage and cleaning up a radioactive spill under one of the buildings a mile north of Richland. “It is shocking that DOE would propose to delay projects like the cesium-strontium capsules and the 324 Building contamination, which pose such great risks to the workers and public,” said Tom Carpenter, executive director for Hanford Challenge, a watchdog and worker advocacy group. The “Environmental Management Vision 2020-2030: A Time of Transition and Transformation” report may also signal delays and decreased commitment to current plans for up to 10 years, including cleanup of contaminated groundwater flowing toward the Columbia River, the newspaper said. “Proactively addressing these hazards before they pose an imminent risk is critically important, and frankly, they can’t wait until sometime in the 2030s,” said David Reeploeg, the Tri-City Development Council vice president for federal program. A budget request for upcoming year by President Donald Trump’s administration proposes cleaning up 56 gallons of radioactive waste held in underground tanks at the site. Reeploeg added that he was pleased there is some commitment to treat tank waste. Hanford produced plutonium for nuclear weapons during the Cold War and World War II. |
|
-
Archives
- January 2023 (388)
- December 2022 (277)
- November 2022 (336)
- October 2022 (363)
- September 2022 (259)
- August 2022 (367)
- July 2022 (368)
- June 2022 (277)
- May 2022 (375)
- April 2022 (378)
- March 2022 (405)
- February 2022 (333)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS