Rapid melting of huge Antarctic glacier -catastrophic impact of global heating.
| Christina Macpherson <christinamacpherson@gmail.com> | 11:29 AM (3 hours ago) | ![]() ![]() | |
to me![]() |
Antarctic ‘doomsday glacier’ may be melting faster than was thought

Antarctic ‘doomsday glacier’ may be melting faster than was thought
Study finds more relatively warm water is reaching Thwaites glacier than was previously understood, Guardian, Matthew Taylor Fri 30 Apr 2021, An Antarctic glacier larger than the UK is at risk of breaking up
after scientists discovered more warm water flowing underneath it than previously thought.
The fate of Thwaites – nicknamed the doomsday glacier – and the massive west Antarctic ice sheet it supports are the biggest unknown factors in future global sea level rise.
Over the past few years, teams of scientists have been crisscrossing the remote and inaccessible region on Antarctica’s western edge to try to understand how fast the ice is melting and what the consequences for the rest of the world might be.
“What happens in west Antarctica is of great societal importance,” said Dr Robert Larter, a scientist with the British Antarctic Survey and principal investigator with the International Thwaites Glacier Collaboration, the most ambitious research project ever carried out in Antarctica. “This is the biggest uncertainty in future sea level rise.”……….
Wahlin said the front of the Thwaites glacier was resting on a number of “pinning points” under the sea. But as relatively warm water from the deep ocean increased the melting, she said, these would be lost, breaking up the ice and allowing warm water further under the ice. This would speed up the flow of the glacier into the sea……..
The worst-case scenarios for Thwaites are grim. It is the widest glacier on the planet, more than 1km deep and holds enough ice to raise the sea level by 65cm.
Ice loss has accelerated in the last 30 years and it now contributes about 4% of all global sea level rise. Experts say this could increase dramatically if the ice at the front of Thwaites breaks up, with knock-on effects for other glaciers in the area.
To heighten scientists’ concerns, west Antarctica has been one of the fastest-warming place on Earth in the past 30 years, and since 2000 it has lost more than 1tn tons of ice.
Last year, a team of British scientists discovered cavities half the size of the Grand Canyon under Thwaites that, like decay in a tooth, allow warm ocean water to erode the glacier, internally accelerating melting. And because a lot of the ground on which the glacier sits is below sea level, it is thought to be particularly vulnerable to melting as warmer water encroaches further under the ice inland……
Ella Gilbert, a research scientist at the University of Reading, said what was happening in the polar regions demanded an urgent response from the international community.
“The polar regions are the canary in the coalmine – they are the symbol of climate change,” said Gilbert, who was a joint author of a recent study warning of the catastrophic impact of global heating on Antarctic ice.
“We really do need to minimise our emissions because if we lose the polar regions, not only are we going to amplify climate change … it will contribute to sea level rise which affects everyone around the globe.” https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/30/antarctic-doomsday-glacier-may-be-melting-faster-than-was-thought
Double standards on radioactive waste disposal in Australia
This is very interesting. They say it’s ”low leve” – presumably ”safe”. Yet for the residents of a posh Sydney suburb, its worth a century-long fight to get it removed – and sent to America !! Makes you see why the residents of Lucas Heights , – now called Bardon Ridge – might be keen to have their much higher-level radioactive trash foisted on distant rural Kimba, South Australia
Hunters Hill radioactive waste to be removed sent to United States https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-30/hunters-hill-radioactive-waste-to-be-removed-sent-to-us/1001
By Rani Hayman 1 May 21,
Key points:
- The land was the former site of the Radium Hill refinery, which closed in 1915
- The removal will begin in the coming weeks and take 12 months
- Melinda Pavey said the issue had taken a long time to resolve because it was “complicated”
Several properties on Nelson Parade at Hunters Hill were built on land contaminated by a former uranium processing site, which closed in 1915.
The area was also occupied by a carbolic acid plant until the early 1900s and a tin smelter until the 1960s.
Residents have spent decades fighting for the state government to remove the affected soil.
Finally, their calls have been heard, with the waste due to be excavated and sent to the United States.
Philippa Clark from the Nelson Parade Action Group said she was pleased the issued had finally been resolved.
“This is the way you deal with this kind of contamination and the best way possible for us and the environment and future generations,” she said.
The NSW government said the process would begin in the next few weeks and was expected to take 12 months.
The Minister for Water, Property and Housing Melinda Pavey said the health and safety of the community would be the main priority during site remediation works and the transportation of the material.
“The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) will supervise the excavation and packing of the contaminated material into sealed bags and containers prior to transport to the USA,” she said.
While there is a sense of relief within the community, the decades-long battle has put strain on the affected residents.
When asked why it has taken so long to find a solution, Ms Pavey said: “Because it was complicated.”
A parliamentary committee in 2008 called for a comprehensive remediation plan for the site and in 2014 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a management order to Property NSW to commence the works — although it said the development consent still had not been issued.
A plan to move the contaminated material to Kemps Creek in Sydney’s west was also abandoned in 2014 following community backlash.
The Mayor of Hunters Hill, Ross Williams, said the residents were looking forward to the area being rehabilitated.
“It’s been a health issue and a legacy issue for all that time.
It’s low-level radioactive material and it came from an industry that was essential [really?] back in those days,” he said.
“In modern times the environmental consequences wouldn’t have been tolerated.
“Once it’s totally cleaned up it will be available for any use.”
Ms Clark is pleased with the outcome despite how long it has taken.
“The government has listened to what we all wanted and what the parliamentary inquiry recommendation had been,” she said.
“We overwhelmingly just want to see ordinary houses and [go] back to [living in] an ordinary street, but without the stigma and without the constant anxiety that we’ve had to live with.”
Whistleblower can’t sue U.S.Dept of Labor, because it has ‘sovereign immunity’
Federal Nuclear Engineer Loses Whistleblower Retaliation Appeal, Bloomberg Law, May 1, 2021,
- Safety reports on nuclear plant allegedly cost him promotions
- Energy Reorganization Act doesn’t allow suit against government
A Nuclear Regulatory Commission engineer who blew the whistle on health and safety risks at a nuclear power plant can’t sue the Department of Labor for alleged retaliation because it’s shielded by sovereign immunity, the Fourth Circuit said Friday.
Michael Peck worked as senior resident inspector at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. After he left the plant, Peck took three actions regarding concerns he had with safety conditions there—he filed a formal “differing professional opinion” with the NRC; sent a letter to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, which oversees the NRC; and provided testimony to the…… (subscribers only) https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/federal-nuclear-engineer-loses-whistleblower-retaliation-appeal
High level of radioactivity near France’s uranium processing factory
France Info 29th April 2021, Residents of the largest uranium processing site in France, in Narbonne
(Aude), are worried: samples taken near the plant and analyzed in the laboratory show a high level of uranium. The site manager, however, says there is no danger to residents.
The most important uranium processing site in France is located three kilometers from Narbonne (Aude). Concerned local residents regularly check the level of radioactivity in the vicinity of the plant.
At the barrier that limits access to the site, the meter is racing and exceeds four times the natural level of radioactivity. The Orano Malvési plant is the entry point for nuclear power in France. Uranium arrives from all over the world in the form of yellow powder and must be purified and transformed into nuclear fuel. In 60 years, already more than 300,000 m3 of radioactive waste have been produced and are contained in basins, in the form of sludge.
35 years after Chernobyl disaster, nuclear power industry is struggling and is not part of climate change solution
Monday was the 35th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, the night when technicians let safety tests get out of hand, leading to the world’s worst nuclear disaster. By Richard Dixon, Thursday, 29th April 2021 https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/35-years-after-chernobyl-disaster-nuclear-power-industry-is-struggling-and-is-not-part-of-climate-change-solution-dr-richard-dixon-3217326
Chernobyl had a remarkable impact around the world, with new nuclear plans put on hold and reactors under construction never completed; the disaster even contributed to the Soviet Union’s eventual fall.
If you were an adult at the time you probably remember wondering if you had been out in the rain during the days of worst fallout. It was only in 2011 that restrictions on Scottish sheep movements due to contaminated soil were lifted and radioactive isotopes from Chernobyl still show up in fish and marine sediments around Scotland.
The US TV series of Chernobyl has brought the horror of what happened 35 years ago to a new generation. Add to that the three reactors melting down in the Fukushima disaster ten years ago and you might think the nuclear industry has had its day.
But ever alive to an angle for PR spin, the industry is now telling us it is the answer to climate change. Environmentalist Jonathon Porritt has just produced an excellent report giving the lie to the industry’s arguments on that.
Since Chernobyl, only three reactor projects have begun in Europe, all being built by the French state-owned company EDF.
The Olkiluoto reactor in Finland is now running 13 years late and three times over budget and might generate its first power next year. Plans for another reactor at the site have been cancelled. The Flamanville reactor in France is only running 11 years late and will be more than three times over budget.
The Hinkley Point C reactor was approved in 1990 after the UK’s longest public inquiry, so long ago that my father submitted evidence.
Construction began in earnest in 2014. EDF originally promised the station would be cooking your Christmas turkey in 2017 but the start date is now expected to be 2026 at the earliest.
The nuclear enthusiasts of the 1990s told us that the UK needed eight new nuclear stations and they would cost £2 billion each. As UK and foreign companies have given up or put plans on hold, Hinkley is the only one under construction and costs have risen to at least £23 billion. The economics only work at all because the government has guaranteed to make every electricity consumer in the UK pay higher bills for the next 35 years.
The obvious lesson we seem incapable of learning is that, even with strong state support, the nuclear industry cannot build a new reactor by the date or for the price they promise.
Scotland has four operational reactors. The two at Hunterston have had major problems with cracks in their cores and are unlikely to still be running in 2022. The two reactors at Torness are actually the newest reactors in the UK, having been opened by Margaret Thatcher in 1989. They are due to close in 2030. No one is daft enough to propose new reactors for Scotland.
With ridiculous cost and time overruns, and the cost of renewables beating nuclear in all circumstances, surely it is time to admit that we have reached the end of the nuclear dream. Dr Richard Dixon is director of Friends of the Earth Scotland
Many hurdles to jump before Bradwell nuclear station starts construction. Meanwhile renewables race ahead
| Nuclear Engineering International 29th April 2021. JUST BEFORE THE TURN OF the year, on 18 December, UK energy regulator Ofgem granted an electricity generation licence to Bradwell Power Generation Co Ltd. The company is planning to build a new nuclear station at Bradwell on the UK’s Essex coast, near where one of the country’s first nuclear stations is in a ‘care and maintenance’ decommissioning phase. The licence was welcomed by Bradwell Power Generation chief executive Alan Raymant, who called it, “an important milestone on the journey to completing the Bradwell B project and demonstrates our continued progress”. But what may sound like the culmination of a process is in fact an early step, and Raymant admitted, “The generating licence is one of many licences and permits we will need in order to develop, construct and operate Bradwell B”. Support for the Bradwell project is mixed. The UK government generally acts on the assumption that nuclear will continue to supply around a fifth of electricity supply, as it has over the last two decades. But that is largely because it was thought that replacing this large tranche of zero-carbon power with renewables sources was too ambitious. The scale of the renewables roll-out has put that assumption under pressure in some quarters. The GDA process has been under way since January 2017 and in February 2020 it reached step four, the final step, which ONR describes as “Successful completion of the high-level technical assessment of the design”. ONR estimates that step 4 will be completed by the start of 2022. As part of this process, in January the Environment Agency opened a consultation on its assessment of the design. The EA’s role is to regulate “specific environmental matters at nuclear sites in England by issuing environmental permits to cover site preparation, construction, operation and decommissioning”. EA provides a statement about a design’s acceptability at the end of the GDA. During the GDA, it works by identifying concerns. So-called ‘GDA Issues’ are significant, but resolvable, and must be resolved before construction of the reactor starts and before GDA can be completed. ‘Assessment Findings’ are matters best resolved at the site- specific stage. In a consultation now under way EA has listed six potential GDA Issues and 40 Assessment Findings. The GDA Issues are: While operational experience is used to support safety case documentation, the Environment Agency and ONR have noted that it is not used consistently across the project. The Requesting Party has not addressed a Regulatory Observation about this. The Requesting Party has shown that it has considered the environmental aspects of the station design. However, it still has to demonstrate that it has adequately considered the safety aspects of the design. Where safety aspects are still under review the Requesting Party must ensure that environmental protection is given appropriate consideration. The Requesting Party has proposed using rectangular filters in the heating, ventilation and air conditioning system. It must demonstrate that these are equivalent or better than cylindrical types, which are considered best practice in the UK. ONR/EA have not yet received design requirements for the spent fuel, which define the specifications for an interim store which will be used before the fuel is disposed of in a geological disposal facility. The Requesting Party has yet to confirm its strategy for disposing of the in-core instrument assemblies and that this will not affect disposal of the waste in-core instrument assemblies. The Requesting Party has still to get advice from Radioactive Waste Management Ltd on whether the higher activity waste from the UK HPR1000 will be able to be disposed of in the latter’s planned geological disposal facility. No date for submission of the final application to the Planning Inspectorate have been published by Bradwell Power Generation, but it is likely to be after 2022. https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featurethe-development-clock-is-ticking-on-bradwell-b-8707354/ |
The nuclear menace from under the seas and from high in the sky- theme for May 21
Why would anyone persist in pushing Small Nuclear Reactors (SMRs) and pretending that they can solve climate change, when they clearly cannot?
Well, the answer is – if you’re a toxic macho nuclear zealot or a nuclear weapons corporation – ( Lockheed Martin, Raytheon Technologies, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, and General Dynamics etc)- this myth about SMRs is manna from heaven.
It means that the tax-payer, not private enterprise investors, will take over the SMR push – and the military-industrial-complex will race away with nuclear sites and weapons in space, and with powerful killer nuclear submarines.
Meanwhile those billionaire nuclear gurus – Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, , Richard Branson, Jack Ma and othes , will be laughing all the way to the bank, as they promote ”peaceful, nuclear-powered” space travel.
The global media promotes the joy and delight of space travel, rarely acknowledging its intimate connection with militarism. And there’s a crazy sort of national pride – hubris in being in the space race.
The space race to what? Apart from the obvious – nuclear war and annihilation, there’s the danger of ecosystem plutonium pollution from accidents and leaks, drastic accidents, and the gobbling up of public funds that might otherwise go to the public good – health, education, welfare, climate ation – heck – even good international relations!
The USA and Russia have long been in a toxic competition to militarily control the world especially by nuclear submarines. There’s a strange and unwarranted confidence that nuclerar submarines are ”clean” and somehow ”safe”. That’s because they release their radioactive trash unseen, into the world’s ocean waters. When they have an accident, well they just sink, and their poisonous mess is invisible. Dead nuclear submarines seem to be no trouble, hidden on the sea floor. Now that the world has become (a bit) aware of the radioactive danger of nuclear submarines, the dead ones lie in port, as nobody really knows what to do with them, how to clean up the nuclear mess.
In this time of pandemic, it is urgently necessary to put the brakes on NATO, and Russia – in regard to the increasing danger to the world, of nuclear submarines. Even more than cruise ships, they can be a hot-bed of coronavirus – making them even more unsafe in a number of ways.
-
Archives
- April 2026 (288)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
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
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS







