Expert guidance for the next President to head off a nuclear catastrophe
5 Steps for the Next President to Head Off a Nuclear Catastrophe
To the horror of experts, 30 years after the Cold War, the global risk from nuclear weapons is actually getting worse. Here’s how a new administration can turn that around. Politico, By EDMUND G. BROWN JR. , REP. RO KHANNA and WILLIAM J. PERRY, 10/30/2020
Edmund G. Brown Jr. is the former governor of California and executive chair of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) represents Silicon Valley in the House of Representatives.
William J. Perry was the 19th United States Secretary of Defense.
As fires rage across the West and the coronavirus continues its deadly march, President Donald Trump tweets and fulminates but refuses to take charge. He denies climate change; on the pandemic, he leaves to the states his clear responsibility to protect the people of America.
Tragically, his incompetence extends beyond Covid-19 and climate change to another existential danger, rarely debated in Washington or covered by the media: the chance of a nuclear blunder.
The Cold War may have ended in 1989, but the United States and Russia together still possess more than 12,000 nuclear weapons, 90 percent of the world’s arsenal, nearly 2,000 of which are programmed to launch in minutes at the command of either countries’ president. The risk of a real nuclear catastrophe is not a bugbear from a past decade. It is a current threat, and becoming more serious because of Trump’s policies—and because the public has largely stopped paying attention.
How can we change course? That starts with the election of a new president, one who will have the courage to restore nuclear sanity. This is precisely what President Ronald Reagan did when he joined Mikhail Gorbachev in 1985, declaring that “a nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought.”
Third, the next president should immediately extend the New START Treaty with Russia and begin follow-on negotiations to reduce deployed strategic nuclear forces by one-third, something Obama himself had planned to do.
The next president should reflect deeply on our existential predicament and chart a new and wiser path for America. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/10/30/5-steps-for-the-next-president-to-head-off-a-nuclear-catastrophe-433695
Financial red flags warn against Utah’s NuScale small nuclear reactor project
|
Is nuclear power Utah’s future? Red flags suggest holding off https://www-deseret-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.deseret.com/platform/amp/opinion/2020/10/27/21535010/guest-opinion-nuclear-power-plant-idaho-utah-uamps-nuscale-red-flags?fbclid=IwAR13pzEW_7Bl0BQVlj8jN5UUIcoX9Mi_BZbgQq-22TBtjnJLSeSov8rZER, By M.V. Ramana, – on October 27, 2020 UAMPS has promised electricity at $55 per megawatt hour (MWh), down from the $65 it promised two years ago. One might imagine that the lower price is due to declining costs, but according to UAMPS, the project’s estimated costs have gone up, not down. In its 2018 Budget & Plan of Finance, UAMPS approved a construction cost of approximately $4.2 billion. This year, the UAMPS Amended Budget & Plan of Finance mentions a figure of approximately $6.1 billion. If the construction costs are going up, then why did the cost of electricity come down from $65/MWh to $55/MWh? The question arises because UAMPS and NuScale have not been transparent with the methodology used to develop figures like $55/MWh. The lack of transparency means the public does not know what assumptions are being made, let alone whether those assumptions are realistic. We do know that Pacificorp and Idaho Power have concluded that electricity from NuScale reactors would cost $94-$121/MWh. The UAMPS project also bears other red flags, and seems headed for failure. Less than 25% subscriptions. Based on public testimony, the UAMPS project has subscribers for less than 25% of the total power, leaving 75% of the output unclaimed. Communities continue to withdraw, citing the increasing costs, uncertain technology and the lack of subscribers. Several of the communities that withdrew were among the project’s largest subscribers. Project delays continue. NuScale initially claimed it could deliver the first working nuclear reactor in 2015. Now, the first UAMPS reactors aren’t scheduled to come online until 2029-2030, roughly 15 years later than originally expected — provided there are no further delays. NuScale’s experience is consistent with an independent study that showed that 175 of the 180 nuclear power projects examined took on average 64% longer than projected (and had final costs that exceeded the initial budget by an average of 117%). Unpredictable taxpayer subsidies. UAMPS and NuScale expect taxpayers to cover 25% of the project’s costs over the next nine years. Contrary to NuScale/UAMPS’ assurances about the recent U.S. Department of Energy $1.4 billion “funding vehicle,” there is no way to guarantee these funds. As the on-again, off-again Yucca Mountain project illustrates, federal funding for nuclear projects can be fickle and subject to withdrawal at any time. In the long history of failed U.S. nuclear projects, the public is almost never given an honest, transparent assessment of the likelihood of expensive overruns, lengthy scheduling delays and possible project collapse. The problems already apparent in the UAMPS project fit squarely into this history of failure. Some UAMPS members — Logan, Lehi, Kaysville and Murray, among them — seem to have realized that the risk of such failure is high enough and have pulled out of the project, cutting their losses. By the end of this week, roughly 30 Utah cities and towns will have a similar decision to make. They can either decide to continue the gamble and be tied to a contract that could leave them with millions of dollars of public debt. Or they could follow the lead of Logan, Lehi, Kaysville and Murray and vote to withdraw from this financially risky nuclear project. The sad irony is that even in the highly unlikely event of NuScale delivering on its promises, the $55/MWh figure is well above the current cost of procuring electricity for UAMPS itself, which has averaged around $29/MWh in the last two years. The $55/MWh would also far exceed the cost of renewables, which are continuing to decline in prices. Thus, a long term contract for $55/MWh is a recipe for excessive electricity costs for decades. I do think that UAMPS can achieve one of the stated goals of NuScale project promoters, namely invest in low-carbon sources of energy. But the way to do that is to pursue currently available solar, wind, energy storage (batteries) and energy efficiency. That is cheaper, safer, cleaner and more reliable than going deeper into the NuScale dead-end. Professor M.V. Ramana is the Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security and Director of the Liu Institute for Global Issues at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. Dr. Ramana is a member of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, the International Nuclear Risk Assessment Group and the team that produces the annual World Nuclear Industry Status Report. |
|
Another city bites the dust in regard to Utah’s NuScam small nuclear reactors plan
Seven Utah cities have now bailed out of an Idaho nuclear power project, Salt Lake Tribune, By Taylor Stevens-30 Oct 20,
Three more Utah cities voted this week not to move forward with a first-of-its kind nuclear power project that proponents have pitched as the future of clean energy but that opponents have lined up against over concerns about financial risk.
Beaver, Bountiful and Heber are the latest municipalities to exit the small modular nuclear reactor pursuit, following in the footsteps of Murray, Kaysville, Lehi and Logan, which also backed out in recent weeks. ………
The Heber Light and Power Board, which voted 5-1 to get out of the project, and the Bountiful City Council, which unanimously made the decision to back out, both did so this week largely over concerns about the subscription rate of the nuclear energy pursuit.
“There’s enough things wrong with this project that it made it really scary,” said Bart Miller, Heber Light and Power’s chief financial officer. “We’re just a bunch of little utilities in the state of Utah trying to do a $6 billion nuclear power plant.”………
Bountiful City Councilman Richard Higginson said the leaders there had similar concerns, and felt too many of the development and construction costs were falling to a small number of municipalities…….
Costs have been one of the main concerns for several of the cities that have backed out over the last few weeks, as the project’s projected price tag has ballooned significantly, from $4.5 billion a few years ago to around $6 billion now. Opponents have also raised concerns about time and cost overruns, safety considerations and an uncertain regulatory environment.
The Utah Taxpayers Association has been among the critics of the project, arguing that municipal power companies should not act as a “seed investor” for the new technology, a responsibility it’s argued should lie with the private sector.
Environmental groups, such as the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah, have also raised concerns about the radioactive waste that would be generated by the project.
Cities participating in the Carbon Free Power Project through the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems — a consortium of municipally owned power systems in Utah and several other Western states that has partnered with NuScale Power to study and create the nuclear technology — have until Saturday to decide whether to stay in the project or back out. https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2020/10/29/seven-utah-cities-have/
Urgency to protect nature, or up to 850,000 animal viruses could be caught by humans
UN report says up to 850,000 animal viruses could be caught by humans, unless we protect nature, The Conversation Katie Woolaston, Lawyer, Queensland University of Technology, Judith Lorraine Fisher, Adjunct Professor University of Western Australia, Institute of Agriculture
October 30, 2020 Human damage to biodiversity is leading us into a pandemic era. The virus that causes COVID-19, for example, is linked to similar viruses in bats, which may have been passed to humans via pangolins or another species.Environmental destruction such as land clearing, deforestation, climate change, intense agriculture and the wildlife trade is putting humans into closer contact with wildlife. Animals carry microbes that can be transferred to people during these encounters.
A major report released today says up to 850,000 undiscovered viruses which could be transferred to humans are thought to exist in mammal and avian hosts.
The report, by The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), says to avoid future pandemics, humans must urgently transform our relationship with the environment.
Humans costs are mounting
The report is the result of a week-long virtual workshop in July this year, attended by leading experts. It says a review of scientific evidence shows:
The report says, on average, five new diseases are transferred from animals to humans every year – all with pandemic potential. In the past century, these have included:
- the Ebola virus (from fruit bats),
- AIDS (from chimpazees)
- Lyme disease (from ticks)
- the Hendra virus (which first erupted at a Brisbane racing stable in 1994).
Finally, Australia is one of few countries without a national centre for disease control and pandemics.
But there are good reasons for hope. It’s within Australia’s means to build an organisation focused on a OneHealth approach. Australia is one of the most biologically diverse countries on the planet and Australians are willing to protect it. Further, many investors believe proper environmental policy will aid Australia’s economic recovery.
Finally, we have countless passionate experts and traditional owners willing to do the hard work around policy design and implementation.
As this new report demonstrates, we know the origins of pandemics, and this gives us the power to prevent them…… https://theconversation.com/un-report-says-up-to-850-000-animal-viruses-could-be-caught-by-humans-unless-we-protect-nature-148911
Strong feeling in UK public that the Covid recovery must be a green recovery, too
Centre for Science & Policy 12th Oct 2020, According to Professor Rebecca Willis, the findings from the UK Climate Assembly suggest that the general public feels strongly that covid recovery must be aligned with net zero goals, both in terms of a green economic stimulus and in terms of not giving government money to big polluters. She also noted that the pandemic has create an opportunity space, in which people are more open to lifestyle changes – including those that might be more environmentally friendly.
http://www.csap.cam.ac.uk/news/article-understanding-challenges-green-recovery/
A Joe Biden administration would re-examine the U.S. nuclear strategy and arsenal.
 Biden White House Seen Revamping Strategy for Nuclear Weapons
Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), who’s questioned and criticized the need to boost the nuclear arsenal, said Thursday he’s “quite confident,” a new administration would reassess plans. Boosting and overhauling nuclear weapons has been an issue that has split—sometimes acrimoniously—Democrats and Republicans on the Armed Services panel. Current plans call for modernizing the capacity to deliver nuclear weapons via land-based missile systems, nuclear submarines, and strategic bombers—the “nuclear triad.” The Congressional Budget Office estimates such an effort could cost as much as $1.2 trillion through 2046 for development, purchasing and long-term support. If a triad is necessary for that deterrence, I can see that argument; I am skeptical about it,” Smith said at an event hosted by the Center for a New American Security. The intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) fleet “right now, is driven as much about politics as it is by policy and necessity,” Smith added. Few DetailsWhile not offering details, Democratic presidential nominee Biden has indicated that he would place smaller emphasis on the role that nuclear weapons would play in a defense strategy. Biden’s campaign website says he believes the “sole purpose” of the U.S. nuclear arsenal is for deterrence or, if necessary, for retaliation against an atomic attack…….. https://about.bgov.com/news/biden-white-house-seen-revamping-strategy-for-nuclear-weapons/ |
|
Russia’s nuclear doctrine – both Russia an USA benefit from nuclear weapons control agreements
A Closer Look At Russia’s Nuclear Doctrine, https://www.globalzero.org/updates/a-closer-look-at-russias-nuclear-doctrine/ June 4, 2020 Emma Claire Foley On June 1, Russia released a document detailing its nuclear doctrine. Though the 7-page document is much shorter than U.S. Nuclear Posture Reviews, it plays a similar role as a publicly available statement of the situations under which a country would use its nuclear weapons.
In some ways, this release is unprecedented. Though Russia has released information about its nuclear posture before, this is the longest and most comprehensive public statement of that posture to date. A similar document, signed in 2010, was classified.
Until now, much of what is publicly known about Russia’s nuclear doctrine was drawn from its 2014 Military Doctrine. The new document draws heavily from the sections of the 2014 document that dealt with nuclear weapons, but sheds new light on some issues, particularly having to do with Russia’s weapons developed after its withdrawal from New START.
The document confirms Russia’s adherence to a launch-on-warning posture, as discussed by President Putin in 2018. That means Russia would launch a nuclear strike once it received information that another country had launched missiles at Russia, leaving open the possibility that a technical failure or mistaken intelligence could lead to an unintended first strike.
It also leaves open a broad range of situations in which Russia could respond to an attack with nuclear weapons, including “critical state or military facilities of the Russian Federation, the failure of which will lead to the disruption of the retaliatory action of nuclear forces,” an attack with a nuclear weapon or other weapon of mass destruction, or a conventional attack that threatens “the existence of the state.” Though this largely corresponds with what experts had gathered from previous statements, it leaves open to interpretation the definition of “critical state or military facilities.”
The document’s release must be viewed in context. It articulates a launch-on-warning posture as part of a larger defensive role for nuclear weapons, yet history has shown that nuclear “false alarms” that might compel Russia to launch an inadvertent first-strike are not only possible—they’re relatively common. A global No-First-Use agreement, accompanied by changes to nuclear force structure so that nuclear weapons are not kept ready to launch at a moment’s notice, would eliminate this very real risk.
In recent months, Russia has repeatedly, explicitly conveyed its willingness to extend the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), which expires in 2021 and would leave the world without key limits on the two largest nuclear arsenals. These overtures seem to have fallen on deaf ears in the Trump administration, which has expressed its intention to replace the treaty with a trilateral agreement with China despite China’s persistent rejections of the idea. In light of U.S. withdrawals from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and the Open Skies Treaty, the prospects for a New START renewal look dim.
Despite the lack of U.S. participation in international arms control efforts, however, it’s clear that the rest of the world sees the value in maintaining these hard-won agreements. Other signatories have worked hard to maintain the Iran Deal’s frameworks, even after the U.S. withdrew and in the face of its ongoing attempts to start a conflict with Iran. The Trump administration’s knee-jerk rejection to any international agreement reveals a fundamental inability to understand that an international agreement could be in the interest of all of its signatories.
Russia’s step to increase transparency while remaining clear about its faith in its nuclear deterrent, on the other hand, may be another acknowledgment that both countries stand to win from a return to arms control. The only way to make sure that nuclear weapons are never used is to eliminate them. But extending New START maintains progress made by earlier generations and leaves the door open for more ambitious negotiations in the future. It’s a key next step toward making sure nuclear weapons are never used again.
A Joe Biden victory could push Scott Morrison – and the world – on climate change
A Joe Biden victory could push Scott Morrison – and the world – on climate change, Guardian Katharine Murphy 30 Oct 20, International action on emissions reduction will get a huge shot in the arm if the US election goes to the Democratic leader.
I’m a deeply superstitious person, so I can barely bring myself to utter the words “if Joe Biden wins the American presidency next week”, but for the purposes of where we are going this weekend, I need to utter those words, because that’s our starting point for unpacking a few things.
If Biden wins, obviously that’s the end of Trumpism, which would be a boon on so many fronts. So, so many fronts. The compendium of boon would span many volumes, and we haven’t got all weekend, so let’s just hone in on one critical issue that impacts Australia, and that’s climate change.
If we take the former vice-president at his word (and if you want a recent interview that dives right in, have a look here), a Biden victory would be a massive shot in the arm for international action on emissions reduction.
If we take the former vice-president at his word (and if you want a recent interview that dives right in, have a look here), a Biden victory would be a massive shot in the arm for international action on emissions reduction……………
Without wanting to ruin anyone’s weekend, we have to track back to America to find our final cause for pessimism – and that it, of course, the re-election of Donald Trump next Wednesday Australian time.
If Trump returns to the White House, the prognosis is simple. The planet loses. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/oct/31/a-joe-biden-victory-could-push-scott-morrison-and-the-world-on-climate-change
UK government’s economic recovery plan funds fossil fuels £3.8bn, but renewables only £121m
Edie 29th Oct 2020, The UK Government has earmarked £3.8bn of stimulus funding for legacy fossil fuel and nuclear generation, compared to just £121m for renewables, a damning new report has claimed. Published by global technology company Wärtsilä’s energy arm, the analysis concludes that the UK Government’s short-term plans for helping the energy sector recover from the financial impacts of Covid-19 are not aligned with the 2050 net-zero target or the interim carbon budgets.
storage capacity would be scaled up dramatically.
Renewables, not nuclear, are the solution, for a cleaner world.
|
Nuclear power, lauded as a solution for a cleaner world, hits a snag, Market Watch, By Jurica Dujmovic Oct. 30, 2020 There’s a growing push for nuclear-power generation as a choice for countries trying to wean themselves off fossil fuels and reduce their carbon footprint. But new research suggests there are potential downsides.For many scientists — and Bill Gates — nuclear energy is part of the answer to the world’s climate-change problem.
The market for nuclear power could triple by 2050 across the world, according to a recent study by Third Way, a U.S.-based think tank. There are more than 60 advanced reactor designs in development in the U.S., the Atlantic Council, a U.S. think tank, said in a paper. However, a recent study published in Nature Energy provides a different view. Scientists who conducted the study collected data from 123 countries over a 25-year period, examining how the introduction of either nuclear-power or renewable-energy sources affects each country’s levels of carbon emissions. The results show that a larger-scale national investment in nuclear-power plants not only fails to yield a significant reduction in carbon emissions, it actually causes higher emissions in poorer countries that implemented this strategy. For renewables, the opposite is true — in certain large country samples, the relationship between renewable energy and reduction in CO2-emissions is up to seven times stronger than the corresponding relationship for nuclear power. It is interesting how consistent the results are across different time frames and country sets. The study also found that trying to use both nuclear and renewable energy actually reduces the effectiveness of both, and that the “do everything” approach isn’t the most effective way to reduce a country’s carbon footprint. The reason for this is that both energy sources require significant enhancements of electric-grid structures, as well as regulatory adaptations that later make it difficult for a country to switch to a different model. A heavily centralized nuclear option that requires significant initial investment is vastly different from small-scale distribution patterns and investment requirements that characterize renewables. Implementation of one over the other locks the country in a certain pattern that pushes out the alternative or makes it comparatively harder for it to take root. As a comment on the research, Benjamin K. Sovacool, professor of energy policy in the Science Policy Research Unit at the University of Sussex Business School, said: “The evidence clearly points to nuclear being the least effective of the two broad carbon emissions abatement strategies, and coupled with its tendency not to co-exist well with its renewable alternative, this raises serious doubts about the wisdom of prioritizing investment in nuclear over renewable energy. Countries planning large-scale investments in new nuclear power are risking suppression of greater climate benefits from alternative renewable energy investments.” ……. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nuclear-power-may-not-be-a-good-option-for-a-cleaner-world-11604056821 |
|
Two politicians to plead guilty in Ohio nuclear corruption case
The five are accused of shepherding $60 million in energy company money for personal and political use. Manufacturing, Oct 29th, 2020 Andrew Welsh-Huggins COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Two Ohio political operatives plan to plead guilty to charges that they conspired as part of what another defendant called an “unholy alliance” aimed at bailing out two aging Ohio nuclear power plants, court documents show.
Former Republican House Speaker Larry Householder and four others are charged with racketeering for their roles in the alleged scheme, under a law federal prosecutors typically use to charge gang members.
The five are accused of shepherding $60 million in energy company money for personal and political use in exchange for passing a legislative bailout of two aging nuclear plants and then derailing an attempt to place a rejection of the bailout on the ballot.
A federal court docket showed that “plea agreements” were filed Thursday for defendants Jeffrey Longstreth, a longtime Householder political adviser, and Juan Cespedes, a lobbyist described by investigators as a “key middleman.”
In a recorded conversation in September 2019, Borges described the relationship between Householder and the energy company as “this unholy alliance,” according to the July 21 complaint that lays out the details of the alleged scheme.
Lawmakers from both parties have pledged to repeal the bailout and to pass legislation requiring disclosure of money contributed to and spent by dark money groups. However, hearings to repeal the bailout ended this fall without resolution.
As recently as Wednesday, Republican Gov. Mike DeWine called on lawmakers to repeal the bailout during the Legislature’s lame duck session following next month’s election.
On Tuesday, two Ohio cities sued to block the bailout law from taking effect in January. https://www.manufacturing.net/energy/news/21200589/ohio-political-operatives-to-plead-guilty-in-nuclear-plant-bribery-case
Small nuclear reactors pose a financial danger to municipalities – Utah Taxpayers Association
“……….The Utah Taxpayers Association doesn’t have a stance on nuclear energy, but it opposes the possible financial risks to municipalities involved in the project, said Vice President Rusty Cannon.
“We don’t think these municipal power companies should be acting as seed investors essentially,” he said.
Cannon said his organization, which has led opposition to the initiative in Utah, is concerned that the costs of a ballooning nuclear test run will be tossed onto the Utah cities investing in the project, or more broadly, onto taxpayers.
“We understand that these municipal power companies need to plan for baseload power in the long term,” he said. “We just feel like if this project is going to succeed, it should be funded by private money.”
The criticisms from the association’s webpage call on citizens to urge their elected officials to withdraw from the project, and Cannon said quite a few have. The association evokes a string of failed or heavily delayed nuclear power projects across the country…….
“………..As the project seeks more subscribers, Webb said UAMPS is hyperaware that failure of the project could have widespread repercussions.
“This does represent the next generation of nuclear,” Webb said. “Many, many people are watching it very carefully because if this project isn’t successful then it does set back new nuclear.” From NevadaCurrent, 30 Oct 20, Two Nevada towns among those betting on ‘new nuclear’
A bit of good news – Chameleon last seen a century ago rediscovered in Madagascar
|
Chameleon last seen a century ago rediscovered in Madagascar https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/30/voeltzkow-chameleon-rediscovered-madagascar
Scientists find several living specimens of Voeltzkow’s chameleon during expedition Scientists have found an elusive chameleon species that was last spotted in Madagascar 100 years ago.Researchers from Madagascar and Germany said on Friday they had discovered several living specimens of Voeltzkow’s chameleon during an expedition to the north-west of the African island nation. In a report published in the journal Salamandra, the team, led by scientists from the Bavarian State Collection of Zoology (ZSM), said genetic analysis determined that the species was closely related to Labord’s chameleon. Researchers believe that both reptiles only live during the rainy season – hatching from eggs, growing rapidly, sparring with rivals, mating and then dying during a few short months. “These animals are basically the mayflies among vertebrae,” said Frank Glaw, the curator of reptiles and amphibians at the ZSM. Researchers said the female of the species, which had never previously been documented, displayed particularly colourful patterns during pregnancy, when encountering males and when stressed. The scientist say the Voeltzkow’s chameleons’ habitat is under threat from deforestation. |
|
Putin’s Russia keen to exploit the Arctic for fossil fuels: more nuclear-powered icebreakers on the way
|
Putin decrees development of Arctic with more nuclear icebreakers – This will help Russia cash flow from fossil fuels. Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed an executive order, On the Strategy for Developing the Russian Arctic Zone and Ensuring National Security until 2035, which foresees the construction of at least five new nuclear-powered icebreakers of the Project 22220 series, and three of the Project 10510 series. The vessels are needed to ensure year-round navigation along the Northern Sea Route. Project 10510, also known through the Russian type size series designations LK-110Ya and LK-120Ya or the project name Leader, will supersede Project 22220 icebreakers as the largest and most powerful in the world…….. https://www.oilandgas360.com/putin-decrees-development-of-arctic-with-more-nuclear-icebreakers-this-will-help-russia-cash-flow-from-fossil-fuels/ |
|
|
1.This Month
WEBSITE of the week – Sustain – Climate Change, Coronavirus and Sustainability
For more information and to register:
https://sppga.ubc.ca/events/event/nuclear-power-and-climate-change-can-small-modular-reactors-deliver/(See RSVP link and then register with Eventbrite)
Webinar: Nuclear Power and Climate Change: Can Small Modular Reactors Deliver?
The presentations will draw upon the 2021 World Nuclear Industry Status Report
Wednesday October 6, 2021 TIME (be sure to convert time to your zone)12:30 PM – 1:50 PM PDT (Pacific Daylight Time) 3:30 PM – 4:50 PM EST (Eastern Standard Time)
NUCLEARWAKEUPCALL.EARTH
Welcome to Women Transforming Our Nuclear Legacy (WTONL), a global online mentoring program for women and girls! https://www.nuclearwakeupcall.earth/women-s-project
So far, the nuclear lobby has bought the hearts and minds of governments, but has not won the hearts and minds of the people. In a propaganda war, as in all wars, truth is the first victim. But there are many journalists and others out there who will counter the lies of the nuclear industry.
Today, across the world, the nuclear industry is unpopular. It is particularly unpopular with women, and with indigenous peoples. It’s unpopular with those who have suffered from it, such as the veterans who attended nuclear bomb tests, and the ‘downwinders’ who suffered from those same tests. It’s unpopular with families afflicted with cancer from uranium mining. It’s unpopular with Ukrainians and Japanese whose lives have been disrupted by nuclear disasters.
he nuclear industry is also unpopular higher up in the social food chain. Many academics, economists, scientists, and doctors are concerned about the dangers of all kinds that are intrinsic to the nuclear industry.
So who does like the nuclear industry? – careerists in the nuclear industry, careerists in politics, academia, careerists in the Murdoch media, highly paid uranium workers, communities that exist only because of mining, – (the latter can’t really afford not to support it).
The nuclear industry, following in the footsteps of the tobacco and asbestos industries will now blanket its servant mass media, and any other possible avenues – such as education, and politics, – with propaganda.
The main focus of the nuclear lobby’s propaganda? This will now be CLIMATE ACTION .
They’re spending an awful lot of money on this. Despite this huge investment in deception, the nuclear lobby is not winning.
-
Archives
- September 2021 (282)
- August 2021 (291)
- July 2021 (257)
- June 2021 (210)
- May 2021 (278)
- April 2021 (257)
- March 2021 (283)
- February 2021 (271)
- January 2021 (278)
- December 2020 (230)
- November 2020 (296)
- October 2020 (391)
-
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
