nuclear-news

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

As UK govt desperate to promote nuclear industry, it’s even more desperate to solve nuclear waste dilemma

FT 9th Feb 2021,  UK returns to grappling with toxic nuclear waste dilemma. Two communities
in north-west England asked to consider hosting sites to bury radioactive material. In recent weeks the UK government has invited residents from two communities in north-west England to a “virtual exhibition” to gauge their views on whether they would be prepared to solve one of the biggest environmental challenges facing the country: what to do with more than half a century’s worth of toxic nuclear waste.
The boroughs of Allerdale and Copeland in Cumbria are considering whether to become host to an underground storage facility for the most radioactive by-products of the country’s nuclear industry. The process, which is designed to give local residents the final say, is run by the state-owned Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.
Like other countries with nuclear industries, the UK government has been grappling with the issue of long-term storage for several decades. This marks the fourth attempt to find a site to bury radioactive waste at depths of up to 1km underground.
But local opponents are outraged. The plans are “like a dog going back to its sick”, said Marianne Birkby, who lives 25 miles from Sellafield and runs Radiation Free Lakeland, which
campaigned against the facility last time.
Reluctance to host such a facility is not unique to the UK. “The reality is nowhere in the world is
there [yet] a functioning deep geological repository for spent nuclear fuel,” said Dr Paul Dorfman of University College London’s Energy Institute.
The search for a site is key to the government’s plans for nuclear power — one of its 10 flagship green policies [nuclear  is NOT green]— according tonuclear experts. “My personal position is I don’t think we should have any new nuclear power stations until we have a [long-term] disposal
strategy in place,” said Corkhill.

https://www.ft.com/content/2321bfae-839a-468f-b933-d699b6ff6864

February 11, 2021 Posted by | UK, wastes | 1 Comment

American media and politicians, including Biden, in the grip of the war profiteers

Who Are the Ultimate War Profiteers? A U.S. Air Force Veteran Removes the Veil, Covert Action Magazine By Christian Sorensen,  February 10, 2021  “………….The most well-known industry pressure comes in the form of lobbying both political parties and funding their congressional campaigns (with extra focus on members of pertinent committees, such as Armed Services, Intelligence, Appropriations, and Foreign Relations)

This produces tangible results. As Steven Semler of the non-corporate Security Policy Reform Institute calculated, Democratic votes on the National Defense Authorization Act

correlate strongly with the campaign cash members accepted from the war industry. On average, House Democrats who voted for the NDAA accepted four times the amount of war industry cash as those who voted against it. In the Senate, Democrats who cast supporting votes took in six times as much industry cash.

Warmonger-In-Chief

The Executive Branch is not exempt. Rapacious financiers—including hedge fund chiefs and venture capitalists—top the list of donors to the Biden Administration, though dark money groups prevent a full understanding of the overall campaign finance picture. Between July and September at least 67 billionaires and their spouses made contributions of more than $100,000 to committees supporting Joe Biden and the Democratic Party, according to records filed with the Federal Election Commission.

Biden’s campaign received over $9 million from Donald Sussman, CEO of Palmora Partners, a multi-billion dollar hedge fund, which has more than 260,000 shares in Raytheon, a preeminent weapons manufacturer and supplier of weapons to Saudi Arabia, which recently won a $100 million contract for Afghan Air Force training

Another of Biden’s top donors, Jim Simons, who gave over $7 million, founded Renaissance Capital, which owns 1.2 million shares in Raytheon worth over $75 million, and 130,000 shares in Lockheed Martin worth $50 million.

Big Tech is positioned prominently among donors to the Biden inauguration celebration. Biden has been clear on the campaign trail that he does not intend to cut the military budget, even going so far as stating, “I’ve met with a number of my advisors and some have suggested in certain areas the budget is going to have to be increased.” Biden’s advisors are part and parcel of the military-industrial-congressional complex. Cozying up to wealthy donors, Biden infamously assured them that “nothing would fundamentally change” in a Biden presidency. https://covertactionmagazine.com/2021/02/10/who-are-the-ultimate-war-profiteers-a-u-s-air-force-veteran-removes-the-veil/

Corporate Media Kool-aid

Corporate media prevent the public from understanding the nature of the problem. A handful of business interests owns media outlets in the United States. Profit drives corporate media. U.S. corporate media (e.g. CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews) share the same business model: air what attracts the highest ratings in order to get more advertising revenue.

Corporate media air info-tainment, designed not to inform or foster critical thinking. Informing the public is not a priority. Maintaining the existing economic order is.

To the extent that corporate media air any information at all, the information reflects the opinions of the ruling class and the dogma of Corporate America.

Politically conditioning the U.S. public, corporate media never blame the military-industrial-congressional complex or capitalism for any of the problems in the world. Aiming for high ratings and lucrative advertising revenue, corporate media self-censor and taper the spectrum of acceptable foreign policy debate. War corporations purchase advertisements on corporate “news” shows to further confine the debate. Corporate pundits and newscasters do not speak out against advertisers.

Corporate media hire career militants (e.g. former CIA Director John Brennan, MSNBC; former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morrell, CBS News; retired General Jack Keane, FoxNews) who further confine the debate. Retired generals and admirals regularly contribute to all forms of corporate media, often without disclosing existing ties to war corporations or financial investments in war.

The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 allowed government to increase its propaganda in corporate media. Drawing funding from the wealthy donor class and large corporate interests, National Public Radio is similarly confined. NPR’s new CEO as of September 2019 is John Lansing, who recently led U.S. propaganda at the U.S. Agency for Global Media.
Other industry pressure comes in the form of funding and running pressure groups [e.g. National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA), Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), Association of the United States Army (AUSA)] to dominate the Pentagon, administer arms fairs, and push favorable policies; funding think tanks to keep the narrative neoliberal and pro-war; recruiting retired generals and admirals (e.g. Dunford at Lockheed Martin, Mattis at General Dynamics, Winnefeld at Raytheon) to leverage their knowledge for financial gain; and flooding the Pentagon’s civilian offices with corporate executives (e.g., Esper and then Austin, Secretary of Defense; Lord, Undersecretary for Acquisition and Sustainment; McCarthy, Secretary of the Army).  …………

Christian Sorensen is an Air Force veteran and author of the new book entitled Understanding the War Industry. See CAM’s review of the book: Wars R Us: A Review of Christian Sorensen’s New Book.  https://covertactionmagazine.com/2021/02/10/who-are-the-ultimate-war-profiteers-a-u-s-air-force-veteran-removes-the-veil/

February 11, 2021 Posted by | politics, Reference, USA | 1 Comment

Catastrophic’ Nuclear Power Accidents ‘Highly Likely’ If US Reactors Are Extended For 100 Years.

Catastrophic’ Nuclear Power Accidents ‘Highly Likely’ If US Reactors Are Extended For 100 Years. Sputnik News, 10 Feb 21Nuclear reactors in the United States were originally only certified to be operated for a maximum of 40 years. However, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been extending their operating time beyond that and is now considering doing so, yet again, this time up to 100 years.

Professor Karl Grossman is an award-wining investigative journalist. He authored Cover Up: What You Are Not Supposed to Know About Nuclear Power and Power Crazy and is the writer and presenter of television programmes on nuclear power. Grossman tells Sputnik that “nuclear power plants in the US were never seen as operating beyond 40 years” and that plans to extend their operating licences for more than twice that amount of time is incredibly dangerous. Every day a nuclear power plant operates the intense radiation embrittles (i.e. weakens) the metal in the reactor. “If the reactor is embrittled and cracks”, Grossman says, quoting a nuclear engineer-turned whistleblower, “it’s game over”.

Sputnik: You recently co-authored an article with journalist Harvey Wasserman calling on President Joe Biden to “inspect” the US’ “embrittled reactors”. Explain what exactly an embrittled reactor is.

Professor Karl Grossman: As Arnold “Arnie” Gundersen, a nuclear engineer with more than 44 years of experience in the nuclear industry, who became a whistleblower and is now chief engineer at Fairewinds Associates, described embrittlement in a nuclear power plant to my co-author of the article, Harvey Wasserman:

“When exposed to radiation, metal becomes embrittled and eventually can crack like glass. The longer the radiation exposure, the worse the embrittlement becomes. A nuclear reactor is just like a pressure cooker and is a pot designed to hold the radioactive contents of the atomic chain reaction in the nuclear core”, continued Gundersen, whose experience includes being a licensed Critical Facility Reactor Operator. “And metals in reactors are exposed to radiation every day a plant operates”……….

Sputnik: Why do you think that embrittled reactors are “at the top of the list of nuclear power concerns”?

Professor Karl Grossman: There are numerous major concerns regarding nuclear power plants.

But embrittlement is on the top of the list because nuclear power plants in the US were never seen as operating beyond 40 years—because of embrittlement.

That’s why the operating licenses originally issued by the US government for the plants were limited to 40 years. After 40 years, they were considered to be unsafe to run—because of embrittlement…….

virtually all operating atomic reactors are producing electricity at much higher base costs than solar and wind.

So the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking to try to bail out the nuclear industry—to keep it going—by allowing nuclear power plants to operate for 100 years.

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been staunchly pro-nuclear through the years, captured by the nuclear industry, indeed nicknamed the Nuclear Rubberstamp Commission for doing whatever the US nuclear industry wants it to do…….

, in extending the operating licenses for nuclear power plants for decades, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission is also allowing them to be “uprated”—to run hotter and harder to generate more electricity and to further increase the likelihood of a nuclear power plant disaster.

The bottom line: a nuclear power plant catastrophe is being invited……..

Sputnik: What exactly is it that Joe Biden or his administration can do to address these issues?

Professor Karl Grossman: Biden must step in and order the inspection for embrittlement of US nuclear power plants. The old, decrepit nuclear power plant fleet in the US—with embrittled metal components—must be inspected. And with embrittlement and other likely age-induced problems, they must be shut down.

Biden must act to prevent what would constitute nuclear suicide in the United States.

Last month, Biden announced a climate change agenda transitioning the US towards renewable energy. But taking action against fossil fuel is not enough. Nuclear power plants are also engines of global warming. The claim of the nuclear industry that atomic energy is “carbon free” is a lie. The “nuclear fuel chain” which includes uranium mining, milling and fuel enrichment is carbon intensive, and nuclear power plants themselves emit Carbon-14, a radioactive form of carbon.  

Sputnik: Can these embrittled reactors simply be replaced in order to safely extend the life of the power plant?

Professor Karl Grossman: It makes no sense to replace these deadly machines when here today [we have] safe, clean, green, renewable energy—led by solar and wind.

Nuclear power plants make no sense economically. Consider the only two nuclear power plants now under construction in the US, Vogtle 3 and 4 costing $30 billion for the two and the price still rising, and solar and wind being able to producing electricity at a lower cost—and be put into operation far more rapidly. And there are additional safe, green, cost-effective, clean, renewable energy sources—energy, most importantly, that we can live with.

Sputnik: Is there a realistic alternative to extending the lives of nuclear power plants?

Professor Karl Grossman: The realistic alternative is to shut down all 94 nuclear power plants now in the US and move ahead fully implementing the use of safe, green, cost-effective clean, renewable energy technologies. And this should be emulated in countries all over the world with nuclear power plants.

Three decades ago the Union of Concerned Scientists published a book titled Renewables Are Ready. Now renewables are more than ready to power the world. https://sputniknews.com/analysis/202102101082010676-catastrophic-nuclear-power-accidents-highly-likely-if-us-reactors-are-extended-for-100-years/

February 11, 2021 Posted by | safety, USA | 1 Comment

Wales government irresponsible to consider expensive move towards nuclear power development

PAWB 7th Feb 2021, OPEN LETTER TO MARK DRAKEFORD, FIRST MINISTER OF WALES. Surprise if not disbelief was our response to the story in the Sunday Times today that reported on the Welsh Government being in talks with Hitachi about buying almost 750 acres of land near the Wylfa nuclear power station. It is worrying that your Education Minister, Kirsty Williams did not deny the story in a television interview today.

Far too much time, money and political energy has been wasted over the past twenty years in Wales as politicians from all parties in the Senedd in Cardiff have followed the political whims of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Theresa May and Boris Johnson in favour of having a new generation of large nuclear reactors.

The history of the site near Wylfa bought by RWE from EdF in 2007 is a perfect illustration of this complete waste of time and money. The RWE/Eon consortium from Germany who set up Horizon stepped aside in March 2012 and were very lucky to sell the Wylfa and Oldbury sites for quite a profit to Hitachi.

Of course, over two years have now passed since Hitachi made the majority of the Horizon workforce redundant and suspended work on the Wylfa site. The writing was on the wall and it was only a matter of time before the announcement in September 2020 that Hitachi were giving up completely on building two of its ABWR reactors on the site. To rub salt into the wound, Hitachi has announced Horizon will cease to exist at the end of March, and even more significantly, the Planning Inspectorate’s report on Horizon’s full planning application was published a few days ago noting that the application would not have been approved.

The main reasons given for refusal were the substantial effect on the biodiversity of this expansive area that such a huge plan would have, whether the tern colony at Cemlyn or grassland across the site.

Significantly also, the inspectors believed that the huge scale of the development would cause
great damage to the linguistic balance of the county with the second highest percentage of Welsh speakers in Wales. Stepping in by the Welsh Government immediately after the publication of the Planning Inspectorate’s report to try to buy the site would show extreme lack of judgement and sensitivity.

Now, of all times, with the COVID-19 pandemic having turned our world upside down, it would be a totally irresponsible action by your Government to spend millions of pounds on a site which is not considered suitable by the Planning Inspectorate for large nuclear reactors.

https://www.stop-wylfa.org/

February 11, 2021 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Wall Street: the Ultimate War Profiteers

Wall Street: the Ultimate War Profiteers

Wall Street plays the foundational role in the war industry by outright owning war corporations……

Big Finance sits at the top of the war industry by purchasing most shares of war corporations and by owning war corporations. Insatiable demand for profit places immense structural pressure on the Pentagon and Capitol Hill for sky-high U.S. military and intelligence budgets, broad deployment of troops overseas, and the opening up of governmental jobs to corporations. …………

Wars must be created and expanded, and military bases, through which to route goods and services, must be established and entrenched to satisfy investors. Notwithstanding, ending the wars first requires addressing the embedded profit motive, otherwise it is business as usual.

Who Are the Ultimate War Profiteers? A U.S. Air Force Veteran Removes the Veil, Covert Action Magazine By  Christian Sorensen February 10, 2021  

While war corporations, or so-called “defense contractors,” make billions in profits, Wall Street is the ultimate beneficiary of today’s nonstop wars. The prosaic nature of war profiteering—far from the work of a shadowy cabal—is precisely why the collusion is so destructive and should be outlawed.

The U.S. ruling class deploys the military for three main reasons: (1) to forcibly open up countries to foreign investment, (2) to ensure the free flow of natural resources from the global south into the hands of multinational corporations, and (3) because war is profitable. The third of these reasons, the profitability of war, is often lacking detail in analyses of U.S. imperialism: The financial industry, including investment banks and private equity firms, is an insatiable force seeking profit via military activity.

The war industry is composed of corporations that sell goods and services to the U.S. government and allied capitalist regimes around the world. Investment banks and asset management firms hold most shares of every major public war corporation.

The best-known financial firms holding the stock of war corporations include: Vanguard Group, BlackRock, State Street, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and Wellington Management Continue reading

February 11, 2021 Posted by | business and costs, Reference, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Nuclear Rubberstamping Commission to weaken rules on radioactive trash

“It’s not cotton candy”

Meanwhile, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission may soon consider new regulations that would allow WCS and other commercial sites to accept a higher level of nuclear waste than Texas currently allows.

The WCS facility is permitted to accept Class A, B, and C nuclear waste — categories that fall below high-level material like spent nuclear fuel. But certain material, much of it generated by the decommissioning of nuclear power plants, falls into what experts call a gray area between the lower-level categories and spent nuclear fuel. It has an equally ambiguous name: “Greater than Class C.”

“These are some of the most dangerous materials in the world,”   “It’s not cotton candy.”

”an effort over many years to make it look less threatening, and to sneak it in as less hazardous,”

West Texas is on track to get even more nuclear waste — thanks to the federal government.  A hazardous waste disposal company in Andrews County wants to handle more dangerous levels of nuclear waste. Federal agencies are pondering new rules that could allow more of it to come to Texas. Texas Tribune, BY ERIN DOUGLAS FEB. 10, 2021  To get rid of eight gallons of water, the U.S. Department of Energy spent $100,000.

It’s little more than half a tank of gasoline in a midsize car, but the radioactive shipment from South Carolina to a West Texas company last fall marked one change that could lead to more nuclear waste traveling to Texas — waste that, until recently, was considered too dangerous to be disposed of.

Much of the public debate surrounding Waste Control Specialists’ hazardous waste facility in Andrews County, on the New Mexico border, has focused on the company’s plans, with a partner, to store the riskiest type of nuclear waste: the spent fuel rods from nuclear power plants, which can remain dangerously radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years.

Scientists agree that spent nuclear fuel should be stored deep underground, but the U.S. still hasn’t located a suitable site. Interim Storage Partners — a joint venture of Waste Control Specialists and Orano USA, a subsidiary of one of the world’s biggest nuclear power companies — proposed bringing the spent fuel to a 332-acre site next to the WCS facility in Andrews County until a permanent storage site is found.

If the plan succeeds, it would be a big expansion for Waste Control Specialists, which has been disposing of the nation’s low-level nuclear waste — including tools, building materials and protective clothing exposed to radioactivity — for a decade. Interim Storage Partners’ website says it expects to get the federal approval for spent nuclear fuel storage, a major step in the plan, this year.

The idea still faces significant legal hurdles and stiff opposition from environmental groups, local oil companies, some residents and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who wrote to federal regulators last year asking them to deny the license application, stating that the proposal presents a “greater radiological risk than Texas is prepared to allow.”

The federal government and the companies involved say radioactive spills during transportation or storage that expose people or the environment to radiation are very unlikely to occur, but opponents fear human error, mechanical failures or geological changes could result in groundwater contamination.

But while the slow-moving plan is wrapped in political turmoil, lower-profile changes and proposals from federal agencies are giving Waste Control Specialists another avenue to accept more radioactive waste than it does today.

The wastewater that traveled from an old South Carolina nuclear weapons facility more than 1,000 miles in three truckloads in late September was an example: It was the first shipment made after a 2019 U.S. Department of Energy decision to reinterpret how different levels of radioactive waste are classified, allowing it to be disposed of at a commercial facility.

The decision lets the DOE categorize waste based on its properties and hazard level rather than how it was created, and allows radioactive waste from nuclear weapons production and government-sponsored nuclear energy research to be shipped to commercial sites such as the one in Texas, rather than indefinitely stored at a government site.

“They did this eight gallons as a sort of test,” said Tom Clements, the director of Savannah River Site Watch, an advocacy group that monitors the DOE’s site in South Carolina, a nuclear national security complex where materials for nuclear weapons were produced until 1991 at the end of the Cold War. “It is the foot in the door to taking more material to WCS.”

And the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission is also considering new rules that could give Waste Control Specialists a green light to pursue bringing more dangerous radioactive waste to its commercial facility than currently allowed by state law.

The company is already permitted to accept low-level nuclear waste in Andrews County. The plan to build a facility to store spent nuclear fuel, the most dangerous kind, would bring what’s considered high-level nuclear waste. In addition, NRC staff recommended in October that the agency consider allowing commercial facilities like WCS to accept materials that fall into a third danger level between those two categories.

“The floodgates may be opening [in Texas],” Clements said.

That’s exactly what many environmentalists and local opponents feared after the hazardous waste facility was built in 1995. At the time, a company official told the community that it had no plans to expand to radioactive waste disposal.

“This is one of the difficulties of a community or state agreeing to one type of waste facility, because it can be changed on you,” said Rodney Ewing, a scientist and professor in nuclear security at Stanford University. “If it’s judged to be safe, that becomes the rationale for accepting more waste.”……………

Radioactivity in West Texas Continue reading

February 11, 2021 Posted by | USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Nuclear waste facilities at risk of flooding and sea surges

US Nuclear Waste Sites Face Sea-Level Rise Threat   https://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/67741-us-nuclear-waste-sites-face-sea-level-rise-threatBy Yale Climate Connections, 10 February 21Nuclear power is a source of low-carbon electricity,  [ No, not really!]  but producing it creates dangerous radioactive waste that needs to be stored safely and permanently.

Recent research suggests that as seas rise, some nuclear waste storage facilities are at risk of flooding or storm damage.

“We really focused in to say, ‘OK, well, how many plants might actually be subject to these risks?'” says Sarah Jordaan of the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University.

Her team looked at 13 facilities along the U.S. coast.

They found that if seas rise about six feet – which is possible by the end of the century – more than half of the waste storage sites would be directly along the water’s edge or even surrounded by water.

So she says it’s critical to anticipate these long-term vulnerabilities and take action.

“There are certainly ways that those risks can be managed now,” Jordaan says.

For example, after five years, spent fuel can be moved to dry casks. This is a safer long-term storage method than the cooling pools where a lot of spent fuel is currently stored.

So Jordaan says it’s critical for policymakers to understand the risks at nuclear facilities and create regulations and policies to ensure greater safety.

February 11, 2021 Posted by | 2 WORLD, climate change | Leave a comment

French nuclear attack submarine patrolling South China Sea 

February 11, 2021 Posted by | China, France, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Despite punishment by the government, Russia’s ”Eco-Defense’ has helped to stop construction of a nuclear power plant

Massimo Greco, RNA International 10 Feb 21, The Leningrad District Court of Kaliningrad refused to recognize the criminal cases against Alexandra Koroleva as illegal. The court once again found that there were sufficient elements to initiate criminal proceedings against the head of the public organization “EcoDefense”, recognized as a “foreign agent”. This decision will be appealed by the defense on appeal.
Recall that the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation entered the organization into the register of “foreign agents” in mid-2014. “Eco-Defense!” became the first environmental organization in Russia to be punished like this.
In the resolution of the Ministry of Justice, there was argued that the reason for this decision was a campaign organized by Eco-Defense! against the construction of a nuclear power plant in the Kaliningrad region.
********
In 2014, the construction of the nuclear power plant was frozen and remains so to this day, and “Eco-Defense!” convinced a number of European investors not to invest in Rosatom’s dangerous project. https://www.facebook.com/RNA.international/

February 11, 2021 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, Russia | Leave a comment

Expensive, experimental, Sizewell nuclear project would be operational far too late to affect global heating

Independent 8th Feb 2021, A new nuclear power plant at Sizewell is the wrong choice for a zero carbon Britain. The climate column: The proposed Sizewell C will not produce electricity until about 2040, which means it cannot reduce the UK’s carbon emissions with the speed necessary to avoid catastrophic tipping points.
Just weeks ago, the Climate Assembly set up by parliament rejected nuclear power as an answer to creating a zero-carbon economy. This was due to cost, safety and difficulties with waste storage and decommissioning.
Yet Boris Johnson is reported to be about to commit Britain to buying another hugely expensive nuclear power station. As this new plant would not be producing electricity until about 2040, it means it cannot reduce the UK’s carbon emissions with the speed necessary to avoid catastrophic tipping points, whereas cheaper renewables can be up and running within a
couple of years of being commissioned.
Consider the following analogy. Four years ago, you needed to replace your gas boiler and a company came along and offered to sell you the world’s most expensive experimental boiler
ever. It’s been trying to build the first four of them for over 20 years but had not yet got any actually working.

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/opinion/nuclear-power-plant-sizewell-boris-johnson-b1622086.html

February 11, 2021 Posted by | climate change, UK | Leave a comment

U.S. Dept of Justice gets the resignation of attorney who launched Ohio nuclear corruption probe

February 11, 2021 Posted by | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

Call for an independent Scotland to demand removal of nuclear weapons from Faslane

Daily Record 10th Feb 2021. An independent Scotland should delay NATO membership until nuclear weapons are removed from Faslane, a campaign group has demanded. The call is a
challenge to current SNP policy which is to seek continuing membership of
the defence alliance if a majority of Scots vote Yes at a future
referendum.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/independent-scotland-should-delay-nato-23461400

February 11, 2021 Posted by | politics, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Opposition to more nuclear waste in Texas – unlikely alliance of environmental groups and oil companies

West Texas is on track to get even more nuclear waste — thanks to the federal government,Texas Tribune, BY ERIN DOUGLAS FEB. 10, 2021 “………..Nuclear debate in Texas The nuclear power industry prides itself on operating no-emissions plants without burning fossil fuels like coal and natural gas, which create the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. By locating in the Permian Basin, one of the most productive oil fields in the world, Waste Control Specialists has found itself in a political fight against fossil fuel interests that its customers often compete with.

Elaine Magruder is co-owner of an Andrews County ranch where her family has raised cattle and pumped oil since 1893. She’s also a member of a coalition of Permian Basin landowners and oil and gas operators that oppose radioactive waste storage and disposal in Andrews County. The coalition is led by Fasken Oil and Ranch, which owns thousands of acres in Andrews County.

Magruder says she’s worried that a transportation accident could expose local residents to radioactive material and disrupt oil and gas operations. She also worries that a leak at the facility could allow radioactive material to seep into the ground, contaminating area drinking water. The facility is near the Ogallala Aquifer of the Great Plains, which provides drinking water for millions in the West………….

Ewing, the Stanford University nuclear security professor, said the larger risk is environmental contamination due to the facility’s proximity to the aquifer — a concern shared by some other nuclear scientists and geologists.

This unlikely alliance of environmental groups and oil companies has Abbott on its side. In November, the governor sent a letter urging the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to deny the application for storing spent nuclear fuel in Andrews County, arguing in part that the proposed facility “imperils America’s energy security” by making the region an even greater possible terrorism target than it is today due to its oil and gas reserves………… https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/10/nuclear-waste-government-rules/

February 11, 2021 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Court orders Tokyo Electric Power Company pay ¥600 million to 271 plaintiffs

Japan Times 10th Feb 2021, A court has ordered Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc. to pay a total of some ¥600 million to 271 plaintiffs over an evacuation caused by
the 2011 nuclear disaster. The Iwaki branch of Fukushima District Court
reached its conclusion Tuesday in a lawsuit filed by 297 plaintiffs —
which included residents of the heavily affected Yamakiya district in the
town of Kawamata who were ordered to evacuate — seeking ¥14.7 billion in
damages from Tepco.

The plaintiff side expressed its intention to appeal to
a higher court. The suit is the second in a series filed by evacuees who
left their homes due to the triple meltdown at Tepco’s Fukushima No. 1
nuclear power plant triggered by the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami. The
plaintiffs excluded the state from the suit as it hoped to achieve an early
resolution.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/02/10/national/crime-legal/tepco-ordered-pay-%c2%a5600-million-2011-nuclear-disaster/

February 11, 2021 Posted by | Japan, Legal | Leave a comment

As Wylfa nuclear project is rejected, Sizewell C nuclear project should be dead in the water

East Anglian Daily Times 9th Feb 2021, Campaigners fighting plans for a new nuclear power station on the Suffolkcoast say the project should be “dead in the water” after a similar scheme
was rejected on environmental grounds. They say the proposed Sizewell C
site has far more important wildlife and environment than Wylfa, which has
been described as “the best site available globally” for a new power plant.
But despite experts expecting it to get the go-ahead, the Planning
Inspectorate has recommended that the Wylfa Newydd project site regarded as
“the best” be rejected by the Government.
Alison Downes of Stop Sizewell C said: “If the Planning Inspectorate recommended refusing the Wylfa project on the grounds of impacts on terrestrial ecology, what hope for Sizewell C?
“Wholly within the Suffolk Coast & Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty and impacting Sizewell Marshes SSSI and internationally famous RSPB
Minsmere, this project should be dead in the water. “Our grave concern is
that the Secretary of State could approve a project they would otherwise
refuse because it is seen as their only remaining option.”https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/sizewell-c-dead-in-the-water-7314394

February 11, 2021 Posted by | environment, politics | Leave a comment