Tokyo Olympic torch relay to start on March 25, 2021 in Fukushima
Same time same place next year …The relay will start from the J-Village soccer training center and last for 121 days while traversing all of Japan’s 47 prefectures. The previous schedule for each region was maintained aside from a one-day adjustment to fit next year’s calendar.
September 28, 2020
The Tokyo Olympic torch relay will start on March 25 in Fukushima Prefecture, Tokyo Games organizers said Monday, in keeping with the plan that was developed prior to the games’ one-year postponement due to the coronavirus pandemic.
The relay will start from the J-Village soccer training center and last for 121 days while traversing all of Japan’s 47 prefectures. The previous schedule for each region was maintained aside from a one-day adjustment to fit next year’s calendar.
The Olympics are slated to open on July 23 next summer followed by the Paralympics on Aug. 24.
Approximately 10,000 runners who had already been selected will be given priority for the nationwide relay. Organizers said they will stick with the local routes and events that were already planned in principle but may make future adjustments according to the status of each region.
The Paralympic torch relay will be held in August.
Athens Olympics women’s marathon gold medalist Mizuki Noguchi (L) receives the Tokyo Olympics flame from first runner Anna Korakaki, the 2016 Rio Games shooting gold medalist, in the torch relay in Olympia, Greece, on March 12, 2020.
Organizers had been seeking to shorten the torch relay schedule in order to reduce swelling costs caused by the games’ delay but abandoned the idea after receiving strong disapproval from local governments already banking on the event.
As a result, only reducing the size of the vehicle convoys, staff and pageantry of some of the events connected to the relay are under review as potential areas for cost cutting and streamlining the games.
The Olympic flame was lit earlier this year at the site of ancient Olympia in Greece and arrived in Japan four days before the games were postponed on March 24.
The flame has remained in the host country since and is currently on public display at the Japan Olympic Museum near the main stadium for the games in central Tokyo until Nov. 1.
Prime Minister Suga Visits Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant
Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga visits the disaster-stricken Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant on Saturday.
Suga visits disaster-hit Fukushima nuclear power plant
September 26, 2020
FUKUSHIMA – Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga on Saturday visited the disaster-stricken Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, where decommissioning work is taking place.
The day trip is Suga’s first since he replaced former leader Shinzo Abe, who stepped down for health reasons, and is aimed at demonstrating the government’s continued commitment to rebuilding areas of Tohoku affected by the massive March 2011 earthquake and tsunami and ensuing nuclear crisis.
While the Abe administration’s set of basic policies included the pillar of disaster recovery from its inception in 2012, Suga’s Cabinet platform, adopted at its first meeting on Sept. 16, made no mention of the disasters that left nearly 15,900 people dead and more than 2,500 unaccounted for.
Suga said during a Friday meeting on the rebuilding of the region that he will “inherit the policy” from the previous administration and keep pushing reconstruction forward.
His trip also includes a visit to a museum on the disaster and a meeting with students from local junior and senior high schools.
Japan PM Suga visits disaster-hit Fukushima nuclear power plant
FUKUSHIMA, Japan (Kyodo) — Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga vowed Saturday to press forward with reconstruction efforts for areas devastated by the 2011 earthquake and tsunami, as he visited the Fukushima nuclear power plant crippled by the disasters.
He made the comment after there was no mention of the disasters, or rebuilding work for the northeastern Tohoku region, in his Cabinet’s basic policies adopted at its first meeting last week.
Suga told reporters during his first official trip since he took office to succeed Shinzo Abe on Sept. 16 that when he formed the new Cabinet, he wrote of the need to continue reconstruction efforts in instructions handed out to all the Cabinet members.
“There is no recovery of Tohoku, without recovery of Fukushima, and there is no revival of Japan without recovery of Tohoku. This is a basic policy of my Cabinet,” he said.
Fukushima is one of three prefectures in northeastern Japan hit hardest by the disasters that left nearly 15,900 people dead and more than 2,500 unaccounted for, and triggered the world’s worst nuclear crisis since the 1986 Chernobyl accident.
The Abe administration’s set of basic policies included the pillar of disaster recovery from its inception in 2012. Suga said Friday during a meeting on the rebuilding of the devastated areas that he will “inherit the policy” from the previous administration.
“We want to make a decision as soon as possible” on radioactive water now being stored at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station, he said.
The government and the plant owner, Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc., are considering how to dispose of the water, which has been contaminated with radioactive materials after being used to cool the melted fuel cores at the plant.
They are looking at options such as releasing it into the Pacific Ocean or evaporation but local fishermen have voiced opposition due to fears consumers would shun seafood caught nearby.
The water is being treated using an advanced liquid processing system, or ALPS, to remove most contaminants other than the relatively nontoxic tritium. It is being stored in tanks on the facility’s premises but space is expected to run out by the summer of 2022.
Suga also visited a museum on the disasters and met with students from local junior and senior high schools as part of the official trip.
https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20200926/p2g/00m/0na/078000c
Fukushima and freedom of expression
September 23, 2020
According to Asahi, guides welcoming visitors to the disaster museum, which opened on September 20 in Futaba, have no right to criticize either TEPCo or the government. The 29 guides are victims of the disaster or trained people. Each guided tour lasts one hour and is paid 3,500 yen.
During the trainings that took place this summer, the distributed manual stated that one should avoid “criticizing or defaming certain organizations, people or other facilities”. And if a visitor asks the guide about their feelings about TEPCo’s responsibility, the answer should be evasive and the visitor referred to museum staff. Each guide must also put his words in writing and submit it to the museum management who corrects it. And if they ever criticize an organization, their presentation will be immediately stopped and they will never be able to be a guide in that museum again.
Some guides took offense: as victims, they should be able to criticize TEPCo and the government, which are responsible for the nuclear disaster. Another guide saw their script corrected after mentioning this responsibility. Yet official investigative reports pointed to the responsibility of TEPCo and the government. Not being able to mention it in a museum dedicated to the nuclear disaster is scandalous.
Ironically, Le Canard Enchaîné published an article that same day on the dismissal of an IRSN researcher who was working on the consequences of the Fukushima disaster and who did not agree to have her work censored by his hierarchy. In response, ACRO left the Research Orientation Committee (COR) of this Institute. The resignation letter is on the association’s website and reproduced below.
According to Le Canard Enchaîné, the direct superior of Christine Fassert, the licensed researcher, “wanted to impose changes, even censor words and sentences [of] an article,” in order to “avoid criticism of post-management. accident of the Japanese government, and the civilian nuclear sector in general “, and” to minimize and relativize the risk related to radiation exposure “.
This event is very disturbing because it shows that IRSN is unwilling to accept research results that challenge its prejudices. And when you’re in charge of nuclear safety, it’s particularly serious. He is not the only person to have suffered the rigidity of this institute, but it is the first time that it has led to a dismissal, which is scandalous.
We have already emphasized, twice, in July 2018 and March 2019, the originality of the work of Christine Fassert, socio-anthropologist, risk specialist at IRSN, who worked on trust, as part of the Shinrai project. in partnership with Sciences Po and Tôkyô Tech University. In Japan, as in France, she went, with her Japanese colleagues, to meet all the protagonists and interviewed both officials and independent experts, as can be seen in this presentation (copy).
At IRSN, we prefer to focus on people who show that it is possible to live in contaminated areas. And the dominant paradigm is that we must avoid evacuating and bringing evacuees back as quickly as possible, bypassing the UN directives on internally displaced persons which guarantee them protection, the right to choose between return and resettlement, as well as their full participation in decisions (see our 2016 report: Fukushima, return to abnormal?). It is also obvious in the European research programs in which IRSN participates, where the reduction of uncertainties in the modeling of radioactive fallout should make it possible to avoid unnecessary evacuation of populations (see page 58 of this presentation, for example) , while the faults in the modeling in Fukushima also led to not evacuating people who should have been! This is the case for the contaminated territories which extend up to forty kilometers to the Northwest. The evacuation order did not arrive until April 22, 2011, when the disaster began on March 11, 2011.
In practice, IRSN did not hesitate to work on and highlight an unscrupulous researcher, as we reported in January 2019, but who said what the institute wanted to hear. This is also the object of the Fukushima “dialogues” supported by IRSN shown in the web documentary “Kotoba” (which means “word” and not “dialogue”): no radioactive waste, no sick, no residents who don’t want to come in… Just a few small worries, but in twelve “dialogues”, everything is settled! The results of these dialogues by IRSN are a distressing list of banalities. This is worrying for post-accident management in the event of an accident in France.
Christine Fassert, for her part, also went to meet people who have left and who do not want to return, giving visibility to a category of populations that everyone wants to ignore, although it is the most numerous. The project also examined the pitfalls of an essentially “reassuring” communication on radiological risk, the difficulty of the role of radiation protection experts in direct contact with the public, the tension between a government policy of evacuations and returns devised by Tokoite elites and the implementation of these directives by the mayors in the region of Fukushima… Only subjects which did not fall within the narrow framework of what was expected. So, it was the frame or her!
Resignation message sent on September 18, 2020 to COR members:
Madame President,
Following the dismissal of an IRSN researcher, I would like to resign from COR. If the IRSN is not able to accept unique voices internally, it cannot open up to society.
In its opinion on the post-accident, the COR stressed, for the “populations and governance” section: “The WG thinks that it would be important to conduct research on this subject taking into account the opinions of all categories. population. Self-evacuees escape official monitoring in Japan and most of the studies and research in which IRSN participates. The experience feedback cannot be limited to the population who wish to remain in place or return, which is not very representative of all the populations affected by a serious nuclear accident. IRSN would benefit from broadening the scope of its studies and research or from moving closer to other programs involving all the people affected by the disaster, including those who do not wish to stay or return. “
In the event of a nuclear accident in France, IRSN will not be able to choose from among the affected populations. The participation of all stakeholders will be necessary. The licensed researcher is precisely the only person at the institute who was interested in all categories of the population, the “dialogues” program having selected only people in agreement with the dominant paradigm at IRSN.
I have already had the opportunity several times, within the COR, to question and alert IRSN researchers on the freedom to publish and communicate, to no avail. The COR has never agreed to discuss it.
Since the beginning of COR, I have worked for more openness and to take into account the demands of society. I have participated in almost all GTs and chaired two of them. But I fear that all this work has been in vain and that IRSN is not ready to open up sincerely. Under these conditions, I see no other solution than to resign from COR.
Yours truly,
David Boilley
TEPCO’s fitness to operate nuke reactors still open to question
From left, the No. 5 to No. 7 reactors of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant in Niigata Prefecture
September 24, 2020
The Nuclear Regulation Authority has effectively endorsed Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s fitness to operate nuclear reactors in its safety screening of the utility’s plans to restart the No. 6 and No. 7 reactors at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant in Niigata Prefecture.
The nuclear watchdog’s endorsement, based on new legally binding safety rules the utility drafted and pledged to follow, has opened the door for the operator of the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant to start running reactors again.
But TEPCO’s actions concerning safety, the decommissioning of the destroyed Fukushima reactors and compensation for victims of the catastrophic accident have created a deep sense of distrust that is hard to brush off. The NRA’s decision is open to question.
Three years ago, when it cleared the No. 6 and No. 7 reactors under the tougher new reactor safety standards established in response to the Fukushima disaster, the NRA placed great importance on TEPCO’s “fitness” to run reactors.
This has led the utility to incorporate seven new principles into its safety code. They include the company’s commitment to carry through the decommissioning of the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant and hold its president responsible for reactor safety as well as its pledge not to put economic efficiency before safety.
The safety code is legally binding, with a violation potentially provoking an order to suspend operations.
This time, the NRA has examined TEPCO’s seven commitments and acknowledged that they are specific enough to allow the watchdog to identify and punish any violations.
But the seven principles still contain vague elements. It is difficult not to wonder whether they will effectively enable the NRA to monitor and check TEPCO’s operations for violations.
TEPCO, for example, has promised to follow through with the payment of compensation to victims of the Fukushima calamity. In fact, however, the company has rejected many proposed compensation agreements with local residents.
As for decommissioning the stricken plant, the company has left entirely to the government the vital challenge of disposing of radiation-contaminated water being generated by the plant.
These actions of the firm appear to be at odds with the safety code. What does the NRA think about them?
The real question is whether TEPCO’s basic attitude has really changed.
Asahi Shimbun editorials have questioned the company’s reliability to operate nuclear plants safely because it has failed to demonstrate the safety awareness and commitment required for the operator of a nuclear power plant.
TEPCO, for example, failed to report accurately the fact that an important facility at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant does not have sufficient earthquake resistance.
It also avoided publishing voluntarily the fact that contaminated water from the Fukushima plant contains various radioactive materials whose levels are well above the safety standards after treatment. All these facts raised doubts about the firm’s ethical integrity.
Unless the utility changes its culture and behavior, it will be unable to win local support for its plans to restart the reactors.
TEPCO, as the operator of the Fukushima plant, has the responsibility to put the priority on decommissioning the reactors and paying compensation to people who have suffered from the accident.
It is doubtful whether the company will be able to operate reactors safely while grappling with the colossal challenge of decommissioning the plant, a process that will continue for decades.
There are legitimate concerns that the company could be unable to secure sufficient human and other resources for its efforts to ensure the safety of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant.
Instead of sticking to its business strategy, which is focused on restoring its financial health by restarting the reactors at the plant in Niigata Prefecture so that it can bear the huge cost of decommissioning and compensation payments, TEPCO should start exploring carving out a viable future without nuclear power generation for itself.
As the utility’s virtual leading shareholder, the government should urge the firm to reconsider its business strategy.
Japan Struggles to Secure Radioactive Nuclear Waste Dump Sites
A small, aging town grapples with the financial lure of storing radioactive waste underground.
Japan’s worsening depopulation crisis is crippling the public finances of regional towns. Now one small town has made national headlines after expressing interest in storing radioactive nuclear waste underground in a last ditch effort to save itself from impending bankruptcy.
The small town of Suttsu in Hokkaido, the northernmost main island of Japan, has a population of just under 3,000 people. It’s the first local municipality to volunteer for the permanent storage site of highly radioactive nuclear waste and nuclear spent fuel. Suttsu Mayor Kataoka Haruo says the town has no more than 10 years left to find new sources of income after struggling with a slump in sales of seafood due to the global coronavirus pandemic.
Kataoka says there is an impending sense of crisis unless an urgent financial boost in the form of a government grant can be secured. He has called on local residents not to dismiss the idea of applying for the phase one “literature survey” without weighing the ways the grant could be spent — in contrast to the harsh reality of town funds running dry in 10 years’ time.
In Japan there are more than 2,500 containers of nuclear waste being stored in limbo without a permanent disposal site. Currently, the waste is stored temporarily in Aomori prefecture in northwest Japan at the Japan Nuclear Waste Storage Management Center. According to the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry there are also approximately 19,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel stored at each nuclear power plant.
Nuclear waste projects immense heat and it needs to be cooled through exposure to air for between 30 to 50 years before it can be transferred and stored underground. However, it takes roughly 1,000 years to 100,000 years for radiation intensity to drop to safe levels.
The 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster left long-lasting trauma further exasperating Japan’s already vexed relationship with nuclear energy as a resource deficient nation. The aftermath of the disaster and the slow road to recovery prompted many people to object to nuclear waste storage not only on geographic grounds but also out of strong emotional opposition.
Hokkaido has built a global reputation for its high quality dairy, agricultural products, and seafood. Nuclear waste storage, and the negative publicity that would follow, could jeopardize those industries.
With the proposal, local residents in Sutsu have been placed in a difficult situation, weighing up the health of their children and future generations against the town’s financial prospects and viable funding opportunities.
In August, Kataoka said he would not apply for phase one without the understanding of the general public. Last week, Kataoka held a local briefing session aiming to deepen local understanding and consent. But after discussing the damage to the town’s reputation and the possible conflict with a previous ordinance against accepting nuclear waste set by a radioactive waste research facility created in Hokkaido in 2000, Kataoka indicated the application for phase one would likely be delayed.
In 2000 the government enacted the Final Disposal Law, which outlined criteria for electing a permanent storage site. A three-stage investigation process sets out excavation to be deeper than 300 meters below ground and in doing so a survey of volcanoes, active fault lines, and underground rock must be performed in addition to installing an underground survey facility. It’s estimated that steps one through to three will take approximately 20 years in total.
In 2017 the government released a scientific map of Japan, pinpointing towns with suitable geographic conditions to host final disposal sites. If the application and survey are approved successfully, towns are eligible for grants up to 2 billion yen (around $19 million at current exchange rates) from the central government and another 7 billion yen if stage two goes ahead. In 2002 The Nuclear Waste Management of Japan (NUMO) launched an open call for local municipalities to consider applying for an initial investigation stage without success. Three years after the release of the map, NUMO has attempted to garner public support by hosting over 100 local discussion meetings all over Japan. Suttsu was the first town to express interest in phase one out of 900 local municipalities.
The final nuclear waste site is expected to make room underground for 40,000 barrels requiring six to 10 square kilometers — the equivalent of 214 Tokyo Dome Stadiums — to a tune of 3.9 trillion yen.
The government is currently formulating a “nuclear fuel cycle policy,” which aims to reduce the amount of nuclear waste generated by encouraging the recycling and reuse of spent fuel. But one major criticism of Japan’s nuclear power policy is the lack of a comprehensive strategy. The two year period for a “literature survey” has been touted as an opportunity for Japan to seriously consider the cleanup of nuclear power.
The American election- what will the nuclear order look like after this?
image from MENAFN.COM
THE U.S. ELECTION AND NUCLEAR ORDER IN THE POST-PANDEMIC WORLD Limitless Life, LEON V. SIGAL, SEPTEMBER 29 2020Abstract
U.S. power and prestige may have diminished in recent years, but the United States still plays a pivotal role in international institutions, alliances, and mass media, so who becomes its president and which party controls Congress matter a lot for the global nuclear order. However unlikely it is that Donald Trump’s expressed desire to contest the election’s outcome could succeed, whether the nation can avert a violent backlash among disappointed partisans is less clear.
Nuclear weapons are often thought to be the esoteric domain of experts. Yet one need only recall that although mass activism does not guarantee policy change, three of the most significant developments in recent decades – the ban on above-ground nuclear tests, the INF
Treaty, and the collapse of the Berlin Wall – would not have happened without mass protests in many countries. And citizen involvement, organized by NGOs, can even facilitate monitoring of arms agreements and nuclear developments in some countries.
positive change to the global nuclear order will continue to be marginal and fitful. This makes the international milieu critical for the nuclear future – a milieu that a president can influence but not determine.
President Trump’s reelection is likely to have a pernicious effect on that milieu, hindering international cooperation to limit nuclear weapons and accelerating a qualitative arms race that could endanger crisis stability. Yet two of Trump’s more positive impulses are likely to continue. He is unlikely to increase the risk of an intense crisis leading to nuclear war because he wants to avoid U.S. involvement in any wars, not start new ones. He will also try to sustain negotiations
with North Korea to curb nuclear developments there, though whether he is prepared to satisfy Pyongyang’s stiffer demands remains in doubt.His opponent, Joseph Biden, will face those same demands. Personnel is policy, and the Biden administration will likely be staffed with officials who served under President Obama. That means a return to shoring up alliances and international cooperation. It also means continuity with Obama’s nuclear policies. Whether he will curtail Obama’s modernization plans is not clear, but in contrast to Trump, he will try his best to restore the JCPOA, which could head off nuclear weapons development not only in Iran but also in Saudi Arabia. He will also strive to save START, seek technical talks with China, and not abandon the Open Skies accord……….. https://wordpress.com/read/feeds/2663585/posts/2938659215
America’s nuclear waste crisis doesn’t get a mention in Democrats’ or Republicans’ platform
|
Four powerful players want a nuclear waste solution. What’s stopping them? Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists By David Klaus, September 29, 2020 The 92-page platform adopted at the Democratic National Convention does not include a single sentence on the issue of how to manage the more than 80,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel sitting at 70 sites in communities across the country. The Republicans adjourned without adopting any new platform for 2020, leaving their 2016 platform in place—but it also did not address the nuclear waste issue.
Ironically, political interest in addressing the spent fuel issue is decreasing at a time when the number of closed nuclear plants in the United States is increasing—and it is common practice to level the plant and leave the spent fuel behind. If the issue had been as significant a political priority today as it was in the past, it would have been included in one or both of the platforms. In its 2004 and 2008 platforms, the Democratic Party committed to “protect Nevada and its communities from the high-level nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, which has not been proven to be safe by sound science.” Republicans, in their 2012 platform, focused on how “[t]he federal government’s failure to address the storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel has left huge bills for States and taxpayers.” with the 2020 elections around the corner and Congress winding down, it is clear that is nothing is going to happen anytime soon. Why? Because none of the organizations claiming they want a permanent waste disposal facility is actually serious about a solution. The missing coalition. There should be a powerful coalition of diverse interests working to find a permanent disposal path for the thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel held in temporary storage facilities at commercial nuclear plants across the country. That coalition would include:
Such a coalition of diverse interests should be an effective political force. Why hasn’t it produced any results? The answer is that, notwithstanding their public statements, none of these potential interests really supports addressing the spent fuel issue or is willing to make it a political priority. Economic disincentives. For the nuclear utility companies, nuclear waste management is a matter of simple economics. Under current court orders, the US government covers the utilities’ cost for storing spent nuclear fuel. In addition, the courts have put a freeze on utility payments to the Nuclear Waste Fund. Every legislative proposal to address the spent fuel issue reinstates utility payments to the fund and potentially shifts short-term storage costs back to the utilities. For Congress and the White House, enthusiasm for ending the current $600 million per year payments to the utilities is complicated by budget scoring rules. Today, payments to utilities are made out of the federal government’s Judgment Fund, because they are required by court order rather than statute. The Judgment Fund is an indefinite appropriation and is considered to be off-budget, which means payments from the fund are not counted in the budget scoring system or allocated against specific accounts. Legislation to address the spent fuel issue would change that, forcing appropriators to find $600 million in savings from other programs or to identify new revenue sources to offset the expenditure. It’s easier for Congress and the administration to keep their heads in the sand. The nuclear industry’s position in support of spent fuel legislation is tempered by a combination of reality and priorities. While the industry regularly testifies in favor of finding a long-term solution to the spent fuel problem, the reality is that state legislative prohibitions on the construction of new nuclear reactors are meaningless, given that no new reactors are planned in the foreseeable future. It is uneconomic and/or not politically viable to build a new reactor in the United States—even one of the small modular reactors under development. The nuclear industry has other significant political issues related to its existing fleet of reactors, and these have pushed the spent fuel issue toward the bottom of the priority list. ………. Ultimately, leadership on the issue is going to have to come from a president and congressional leaders who take seriously the US government’s legal obligation to accept commercial spent fuel and build a long-term repository to hold it. This obligation is grounded in nonproliferation policy and was established by statute in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. ……. https://thebulletin.org/2020/09/four-powerful-players-want-a-nuclear-waste-solution-whats-stopping-them/ |
|
|
‘We have a chance’: David Attenborough says $500 billion needed to save earth
‘
We have a chance’: David Attenborough says $500 billion needed to save earth, https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/world/2020/10/01/david-attenborough-un-summit-climate-change/ Attenborough: $500 billion a year for natureBritish broadcaster David Attenborough led a call from conservation groups on Wednesday for the world to invest $500 billion a year to halt the destruction of nature. Olivia Chan reports., Matthew Green
British broadcaster Sir David Attenborough is leading a call from conservation groups for the world to invest $US500 billion ($A700 billion) a year to halt the destruction of nature.
Sir David, whose latest film documents the dangers posed by climate change and the extinction of species, issued the call as the United Nations convened a one-day summit aimed at galvanising action to protect wildlife.
“Our natural world is under greater pressure now than at any time in human history, and the future of the entire planet – on which every single one of us depends – is in grave jeopardy,” Sir David, 94, said in a statement on Thursday (Australian time).
“We still have an opportunity to reverse catastrophic biodiversity loss, but time is running out.”
Opening the summit in New York, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned that a million species were at risk of extinction and that climate change and the loss of biodiversity were “destroying earth’s web of life”.
“We are part of that fragile web and we need it to be healthy so we and future generations may thrive,” Mr Guterres said.
The call to redirect financing away from fossil fuels and other polluting industries and into locally led conservation was launched by environmental group Fauna & Flora International and backed by more than 130 organisations.
The world spends an estimated $US80-90 billion ($A112-125 billion) on conservation each year, but studies show that hundreds of billions of dollars may be needed to save ecosystems from collapse.
Britain, Canada and others joined the European Union on Monday in pledging to protect 30 per cent of their land and seas by 2030.
UN officials hope to secure a global agreement on that target at a major round of negotiations on biodiversity due to take place in China in 2021.
Congenital abnormalities. Thorium and uranium, in infants and children living near an active U.S. military base in Iraq
|
“Our study has established the presence of uranium and of thorium, a direct depleted-uranium decay-product, in Nasiriyah children.” Environmental Pollution, 30 Sept 20 Living near an active U.S. military base in Iraq is associated with significantly higher hair thorium and increased likelihood of congenital abnormalities https://www.rnanews.eu/our-study-has-established-the-presence-of-uranium-and-of-thorium-a-direct-depleted-uranium-decay-pr-45757.html?fbclid=IwAR3whvvnZqhwLVq30Rme1Vo6SnRIhpGdpfzs0e99Y4qYSb2ZCWgYaGcGizU M.Savabieasfahani F.Basher Ahamadani A.Mahdavi Damghani Highlights
• We also report on an association between residential proximity to a US army base,Tallil Air Base, and the risk of congenital anomaly. • We show that such proximity is associated with higher levels of uranium and thorium in the biological samples of the study participants. At the same time, we found an increased risk of congenital anomalies associated with higher hair levels of these metals. In Iraq, war contamination is the result of dispensed bombs, bullets, detonation of chemical and conventional weapons, and burn-pit emissions by US bases. Increases in congenital anomalies were reported from Iraqi cities post-2003. These cities were heavily bombed and encircled by US bases with burn-pits. Thorium is a radioactive compound and a direct depleted-uranium decay-product. Radioactive materials, including depleted uranium, are routinely stored in US bases and they have been shown to leak into the environment. We conducted a case-control study to investigate associations of residential proximity to Tallil Air Base, a US military base near Nasiriyah, as well as levels of uranium and thorium in hair and deciduous teeth with congenital anomalies. The study was based on a sample of 19 cases and 10 controls who were recruited during late Summer and early Fall of 2016. We developed mixed effects logistic regression models with village as the random effect, congenital anomaly as the outcome and distance to the US base and hair metal levels (one at a time) as the predictor variable, controlling for child’s age, sex and paternal education. We also explored the mediation of the association between proximity to the base and congenital anomalies by hair metal levels. We found an inverse association between distance to Tallil Air Base and risk of congenital anomalies and hair levels of thorium and uranium. The results of our mediation analyses were less conclusive. Larger studies are necessary to understand the scope of war contamination and its impact on congenital anomalies in Iraq. |
Julian Assange could face life in America’s most dreaded ‘Supermax’ prison
|
Julian Assange ‘faces a fate worse than death’ in a lifetime of isolation at the ‘Supermax’ prison currently home to America’s most violent terrorists and drug lords if he is extradited, a court has heard. The Wikileaks founder, 49, could live out his years alone at maximum security ADX Colorado jail where he would spend 23 hours in a cell if he is convicted of espionage offences in the US. Assange is wanted in the US for allegedly conspiring with army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to expose military secrets between January and May 2010 Prison expert Joel Sickler said the US government had ‘raised the possibility of sending Mr Assange to ADX’. ……… I believe, based on my understanding of the case, that this is a not unlikely proposition.’ He said Supermax was the only prison criticised as inhumane by its own staff, adding: ‘Robert Hood, the Warden says, “this is not built for humanity. I think that being there day by day, it’s worse than death”.’…….. The WikiLeaks founder could be placed on a prison regime called Special Administrative Measures (SAMS). This means he could be deprived of meals, phone calls, visits or interaction with other inmates. Mr Sickler, who advises federal prison defence attorneys, said: ‘Based on decades of experience, over a dozen of my clients committed suicide, it can be done. ‘I think he is only going to go there if he is a SAMS inmate. There is an outside chance he will go there on other grounds. ‘SAMS will seal his fate. If he is given a life sentence he must start at a United State Penitentiary. ‘He is someone our government alleges has knowledge of certain highly qualified information.’……… ‘Officially known as Administrative Maximum-Security United States Penitentiary (“ADX”); it is most known by its shorthand name, “Supermax”,’ Mr Sickler added. ‘This is a facility is the most feared by inmates and is where the most violent offenders in the nation are sent. ‘And this is where the Government, according to its own affidavit, sees as a potential prison placement for Mr Assange. He said it was the solitary nature of the ADX that made it so difficult for its inmates to bear. ‘Should Mr Assange be sent to ADX he will almost certainly spend all his time in ADX in solitary,’ he added……….. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8781275/Julian-Assange-faces-fate-worse-death-WikiLeaks-founder-serve-life-isolation.html?fbclid=IwAR21x4PeHIIn2pjMDgqjBSqfqA2pK5YPTZ9Q4q4SOG066tGN_aKkZj91ROE |
|
Accelerating rate of ice sheet loss from Greenland
 Greenland ice sheet loss already ‘unprecedented’ and set to accelerate
Given our lag in getting emissions down since then, Professor Steffen said he doesn’t think 1.5C is still realistically achievable, but keeping warming below 2C is. ABC Science By environment reporter Nick Kilvert, 30 Sept, 20
Melting of the Greenland ice sheet has hit a rate unmatched in the last 12,000 years and is accelerating, scientists have confirmed. Key points:
Research published in Nature today predicts that the Greenland ice sheet will be melting by as much as six times its current rate by the end of the century if we don’t get emissions down. On the flipside, if we can achieve the best-case emissions reduction scenario forecast by the IPCC we can limit its increasing melt rate to around 40 per cent greater than its present rate. While he is cautiously optimistic, Professor Steffen said what is equally important is how they get there. Currently China are responsible for about a quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas production, and if they begin rapidly cutting emissions from today right through until 2060, then that is significant, he said. But if they continue burning fossil fuels and make rapid cuts at the last minute, the damage will already be done. “We use what’s called the carbon budget approach to estimate how much temperature is going to rise — that is the cumulative emissions between now and net-zero [emissions],” Professor Steffen said. “If [China] get their emissions down really quickly, say by 2040, that’s a big difference between whether they coast to 2050 and then cut them over a decade.” On the flipside, if we can achieve the best-case emissions reduction scenario forecast by the IPCC we can limit its increasing melt rate to around 40 per cent greater than its present rate…. As the earth emerged from the last Ice Age around 11,000 years ago, the Arctic experienced a warm period or thermal maximum between about 10,000 and 7,000 years before present. Researchers presumed that the rate of melting of the Greenland ice sheet in that period was higher than it is today. Instead, they found that over the last 20 years, the southwestern Greenland ice sheet where this research was focussed, has been losing ice at an rate of about 6,100 billion tonnes per century on average — around 100 billion tonnes more than at its previous historical peak, according to author Jason Briner from the University of Buffalo. “Our results suggest that yes, this century we will experience ice-loss rates not just similar to those in the past but exceeding those of the past, even under strict carbon emissions scenarios,” Professor Briner said. Worst-case scenario would see 600% increase in melting this centuryAs well as comparing present-day melting with the past, they looked at how different global greenhouse gas emissions trajectories would impact melting over the coming century. They modelled the IPCC’s best-case emissions scenario, called Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 2.6, and the worst-case emissions scenario called RCP 8.5. Under RCP 2.6, emissions are drastically reduced starting now and we achieve net-negative emissions this century. That is, we get our emissions to zero and also draw greenhouse gases from the atmosphere through technology or by boosting natural sinks like forests and blue carbon. Under RCP 2.6 we limit global average warming to within 2 degrees Celsius by 2100. On the other hand, under RCP 8.5 we continue burning fossil fuels as per usual, making no substantial efforts to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions through to 2100. Under the RCP 2.6 scenario, their models forecast that melting of the southwestern Greenland ice sheet would increase to around 8,800 billion tonnes per century on average by 2100 — about a forty per cent increase on today’s rate. But under the worst-case RCP 8.5 scenario, they forecast the southwestern Greenland ice sheet could be losing up to 35,900 billion tonnes per century — an increase of nearly 600 per cent on today’s melting rate. Although their study area didn’t encompass the entire ice sheet, Professor Briner said Greenland tends to melt fairly uniformly. “Based on reconstructions of ice sheet changes over the past several decades, it has been shown that when the ice sheet loses mass in our study area, it loses mass across its entire surface,” he said.
The study is an important demonstration of the difference that we can make by cutting emissions, according to David Etheridge from the CSIRO’s Climate Science Centre. “The range of predictions shows a high sensitivity to emissions scenarios with the possibility to limit ice loss with low emissions,” Dr Etheridge said. ‘We still have time’ to slow down sea level riseModelling sea level rise was outside the bounds of this study, but the researchers tentatively suggest that the worst-case scenario melting from the southwestern Greenland ice sheet would add around 10 centimetres to sea levels this century. If that was scaled to the entire ice sheet, that would likely be “doubled or tripled”, Professor Briner said. And that’s without accounting for any melting from the Antarctic ice sheet. Research published earlier this month in Nature found that the Antarctic ice sheet will add 1.3 metres to sea level for every degree of warming up to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. That research found that we have locked in at least two-and-a-half metres of sea level rise from Antarctica, regardless of what happens with our emissions from now on. But it’s the rate at which the melting happens that we have some control over and is the crucial issue, according to Will Steffen from the ANU’s Climate Change Institute. “We can still influence the rate at which Greenland melts and thus the rate that sea level rises. That’s the important message,” Professor Steffen said.
Rather than needing to adapt and shift coastal communities over decades, we can buy ourselves a century or more if we act to get emissions down immediately, Professor Steffen said. When countries signed up to the Paris Agreement in 2015, the aim was to keep warming to 1.5C. Given our lag in getting emissions down since then, Professor Steffen said he doesn’t think 1.5C is still realistically achievable, but keeping warming below 2C is. |
|
False claims of hacked voter information likely intended to cast doubt on legitimacy of U.S. elections
 FALSE CLAIMS OF HACKED VOTER INFORMATION LIKELY INTENDED TO CAST DOUBT ON LEGITIMACY OF U.S. ELECTIONS https://www.ic3.gov/media/2020/200928.aspx, September 28, 2020 Questions regarding this PSA should be directed to your local FBI Field Office.Local Field Office Locations: www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices The FBI and CISA are issuing this PSA as a part of a series on threats to the 2020 election to enable the American public to be prepared, patient, and participating voters. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) are issuing this announcement to raise awareness of the potential threat posed by attempts to spread disinformation regarding cyberattacks on U.S. voter registration databases or voting systems.During the 2020 election season, foreign actors and cyber criminals are spreading false and inconsistent information through various online platforms in an attempt to manipulate public opinion, discredit the electoral process, and undermine confidence in U.S. democratic institutions. These malicious actors could use these forums to also spread disinformation suggesting successful cyber operations have compromised election infrastructure and facilitated the “hacking” and “leaking” of U.S. voter registration data.
In reality, much U.S. voter information can be purchased or acquired through publicly available sources. While cyber actors have in recent years obtained voter registration information, the acquisition of this data did not impact the voting process or the integrity of election results. In addition, the FBI and CISA have no information suggesting any cyberattack on U.S. election infrastructure has prevented an election from occurring, compromised the accuracy of voter registration information, prevented a registered voter from casting a ballot, or compromised the integrity of any ballots cast. RECOMMENDATIONS
The FBI and CISA coordinate closely with federal, state, and local election partners and provide services and information to safeguard U.S. voting processes and maintain the integrity of U.S. elections. Both organizations urge the American public to critically evaluate the sources of the information they consume and to seek out reliable and verified information. The FBI is responsible for investigating malign foreign influence operations and malicious cyber activity targeting election infrastructure and other U.S. democratic institutions. CISA is responsible for protecting the nation’s critical infrastructure from physical and cyber threats and has provided voluntary guidance, training, exercises, and other resources to help state and local election officials secure their voter registration systems and data. VICTIM REPORTING AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONThe FBI encourages the public to report information concerning suspicious or criminal activity to their local field office (www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices) or to the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (www.ic3.gov). For additional assistance, best practices, and common terms, please visit the following websites:
|
|
The Proud Boys – far right group that backs Donald Trump
Organisation founded ahead of 2016 US election is classified by the FBI as an ‘extremist group’, Guardian, Martin Belam in London and Adam Gabbatt in New York, Thu 1 Oct 2020 Freshly brought to the world’s attention by Donald Trump’s refusal to condemn their associations with white supremacist ideology during Tuesday night’s US presidential debate, the US neo-fascist group the Proud Boys was created by the Canadian-British far-right activist and Vice magazine co-founder Gavin McInnes in 2016 in the lead-up to Trump’s election as president.
The group, which admits men only, was classified in 2018 by the FBI as an “extremist group”, while the US research and advocacy organization Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) lists it as a hate group. The Anti-Defamation League describes the group as misogynistic, Islamophobic, transphobic and anti-immigration.
It is based in America, mostly the western US, but has a presence in some other countries, notably Canada, the UK and Australia.
And while it has an outsize reputation based on the high-profile agitation events and street brawls its members are most infamous for, and now a reference in a presidential debate, the Proud Boys is believed to be a very small group comprising maybe just a few hundred members in the US.
It is one of a sheaf of far-right groups with ready access to legal firearms in the US and with overtly pro-Trump or libertarian stances and an affinity for presenting as vigilantes or paramilitaries, especially during far-right gatherings or when showing up to disrupt liberal-leaning protests.
To join the Proud Boys, members must make an oath: “I am a proud western chauvinist, I refuse to apologise for creating the modern world”, as well as endure a violent “hazing” process. While the group maintains it is not racist, and simply wants to hark back to traditional ““western” values, its worldview incorporates elements of the “white genocide” conspiracy theory. Members are pro-gun rights, against feminism and gender equality, and take a libertarian stance on issues such as welfare.
During the debate, Trump was asked repeatedly by the moderator, Chris Wallace, to condemn violence by white supremacists and rightwing groups, such as armed militias.
When Trump asked specifically who he should be addressing, Biden prompted him by saying the Proud Boys.
Trump then addressed the Proud Boys, saying: “Proud Boys, stand back and stand by! But I’ll tell you what, somebody’s got to do something about antifa and the left.”
Members of the group immediately celebrated the president’s comment in posts on social media and rightwing discussion-board platforms such as Telegram and Parler. One Proud Boys group added the phrase “Stand Back, Stand By” to their logo. Another post was a message to Trump: “Standing down and standing by sir.”……….
The group are identifiable by their adopted uniform of red “Make America Great Again” caps, associated with Donald Trump’s 2016 and 2020 election campaigns, and black Fred Perry polo shirts with some narrow yellow stripes and the company’s yellow laurel wreath logo, which the company earlier this week stopped selling as a result. The sports clothing manufacturer recently withdrew the design, citing its unwillingness to be associated with the group……..https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/30/proud-boys-who-are-far-right-group-that-backs-donald-trump
Heavy military clashes between Armenian and Azeri forces
|
Fierce clashes rage in Azerbaijan’s ethnic Armenian enclave, SMH, by Nvard Hovhannisyan and Nailia Bagirova
September 29, 2020 Yerevan: Armenian and Azeri forces have deployed heavy artillery during the latest fighting over the breakaway region of Nagorno-Karabakh, they both said.
The Azeri Defence Ministry said the opposing forces attempted to recover lost ground by launching counter-attacks in the directions of Fizuli, Jabrayil, Agdere and Terter. The ministry said in a statement there was fighting around Fizuli city and the Armenian army shelled the Dashkesan region on the border between the two countries, miles away from Nagorno-Karabakh on Tuesday morning. Armenia denied those reports but reported fighting throughout the night and said that Nagorno-Karabakh’s army repelled attacks in several directions along the line of contact. At least 29 people were killed on Monday when the two sides pounded each other with rockets and artillery in the fiercest round of the decades-old conflict in more than a quarter of a century. “This is a life-and-death war,” Arayik Harutyunyan, the Nagorno-Karabakh leader, told a briefing. Any move to all-out war could drag in major regional powers Russia and Turkey. Moscow has a defence alliance with Armenia, which provides vital support to the enclave and is its lifeline to the outside world, while Ankara backs its own ethnic Turkic kin in Azerbaijan. “We haven’t seen anything like this since the ceasefire to the war in the 1990s. The fighting is taking place along all sections of the front line,” said Olesya Vartanyan, senior analyst for the South Caucasus region at Crisis Group…….. Vartanyan said the use of rockets and artillery brought a higher risk of civilian casualties that could make the escalation hard to stop by diplomatic means: “If there are mass casualties, it will be extremely difficult to contain this fighting and we will definitely see a full-fledged war that will have a potential intervention of Turkey or Russia, or both of them.” Russia called for an immediate ceasefire, and Turkey said it would support Azerbaijan……….. https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/fierce-clashes-rage-in-azerbaijan-s-ethnic-armenian-enclave-20200929-p56051.html |
|
Armenian Ambassador on Azerbaijani threats of missile strike against Metsamor Nuclear Power Plan
Armenian Ambassador on Azerbaijani threats of missile strike against Metsamor Nuclear Power Plant Public Radio of Armenia, Siranush Ghazanchyan August 3, 2020, Armenia has undertaken a number of measures to raise awareness about Azerbaijan’s threat to strike the Metsamor Nuclear Power Plant, Armen Papikyan, Armenia’s ambassador to the IAEA, said in an interview with Energy Intelligence.
“Given that the Azerbaijani leadership has no qualms about targeting civilian installations, we took the threat extremely seriously,” he said.
On Jul. 16, amid renewed fighting on the Armenia-Azerbaijan border, the spokesperson for the Azerbaijan defense ministry threatened a missile strike against Armenia’s Metsamor nuclear power plant (NIW Jul.17’20). This threat reverberated in Vienna, where Armenia’s mission to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) submitted a “Note Verbale” to the agency’s director general (DG) on Jul. 17, noting taht such threats “are an explicit demonstration of state terrorism and genocidal intent of Azerbaijan.” Baku soon responded……….. https://en.armradio.am/2020/08/03/armenian-ambassador-on-azerbaijani-threats-of-missile-strike-against-metsamor-nuclear-power-plant/
1.This Month
-
Archives
- June 2021 (120)
- May 2021 (278)
- April 2021 (257)
- March 2021 (283)
- February 2021 (271)
- January 2021 (278)
- December 2020 (230)
- November 2020 (297)
- October 2020 (392)
- September 2020 (348)
- August 2020 (351)
- July 2020 (280)
-
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
- 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
