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

Exactly who is trumpeting nuclear power as a cure for climate change? – theme for June 21

Well, understandably, it starts with the nuclear industry itself, faced with the reality that now, the only real reason for its continued existence is nuclear weapons. It’s the nuclear power and the nuclear weapons companies.

It’s the global array of nuclear -associated agencies – the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the rest of them, in each nuclear country.

And don’t forget those billionaire gurus – Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Richard Branson – who use their wealth to promote their own businesses in new nuclear toys

So, don’t be surprised to hear nuclear power executives, nuclear physicists, nuclear engineers and chemists extolling the glory of nuclear power – their careers are in danger!

Their best argument ”Only we, with our superior technical knowledge are capable of having an opinion on this matter”

POLITICIANS. In the USA no President can to be elected without the backing of the nuclear industry. The same surely applies for political leaders in other nuclear nations. Many politicians depend on nuclear industry support, to get elected and stay there.

MEDIA. The nuclear lobby has done a great job of convincing many journalists that they can’t really understand matters nuclear. So, for journalists, the safest course is to just regurgitate the industry handouts. Those who do have confidence often know that their corporate employers have interests in the nuclear-and coal industries.

ACADEMIA. and RESEARCH. Many universities have been, to a degree, bought by the nuclear industry.

BANKS and other financial bodies invest in nuclear power, or, better still, nuclear weapons,

THE ARTS. As with corporations through the past century, nuclear corporations have funded all sorts of arts bodies, – so co-opting their support.

June 5, 2021 Posted by | Christina's themes | 9 Comments

Nuclear lobby spins its frenzied propaganda – with flimsy arguments for new nuclear power.

Nuclear industry’s propaganda war rages on

June 3rd, 2021, by Paul Brown  With renewable energy expanding fast, the nuclear industry’s propaganda war still claims it helps to combat climate change.

To maintain the assertion that it is still a key part of the struggle to limit the climate crisis, the global nuclear industry’s propaganda war is unremitting in its attempt to avoid oblivion in the world’s democracies.

At stake are thousands of well-paid power station jobs, but also a potential rise in electricity prices if funds are diverted away from cheaper options for generating power. Central to the debate is how governments can best cut fossil fuel use in time to save the world from catastrophic climate change.

There is not much middle ground. On one side are trade unions with many members in the nuclear industry, large companies with political clout and a vested interest in building the infrastructure needed, and numerous politicians, many of them in nuclear weapons states.

On the other are most climate scientists, environmental campaigners, economists, and cutting edge industries that see wind, solar and tidal power, batteries and other emerging technologies as the path to far more jobs, a cleaner future, and a possible route out of potential disaster. There are also those who fear the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Lack of balance

Very little of this debate takes place where it should, in national parliaments. In some countries, like the UK and the US, nearly all politicians support the nuclear industry, so there is little discussion of its merits.

Many of the “news” clips and pro-nuclear articles that appear in the media are carefully crafted and come from “think tank” sources close to − and often indirectly funded by − the nuclear industry. They are designed to show nuclear science in a good light.

This lack of balance is not surprising. Journalists find it difficult to penetrate an opaque and highly technical industry that has a wildly optimistic view of its own potential. Its costs, construction timetables, and beliefs in its probable sales have hardly ever actually been met in the industry’s 70-year history. Yet it goes on making its rosy predictions.

There has been a series of announcements in the West in the last five years about SMRs, advanced and IV generation reactors. Lost already? That is the idea: bamboozle politicians and the public with jargon and false hopes of a technical miracle, and you are halfway to getting your hands on taxpayers’ money to fund further research and create a new generation of reactors, to be built some time soon – although that time never seems to arrive.

Just to demonstrate what often seems deliberate obscurity: an SMR can be a small modular reactor, or a small to medium reactor. It could also be an advanced reactor. All this is explained on a helpful World Nuclear Association website which takes you through the potential sizes of reactors and explains the 70 or so designs.

Take one example. Rolls-Royce offers SMRs on its UK website. They turn out not to be small, having grown to 470 megawatts, much larger than the 300 megawatt maximum official definition of a small reactor. The company would now describe them as advanced reactors, although they are based on a generic design as old as the industry.

Modular also has two meanings in this context. It could mean the reactor is made in sections in a factory and assembled on site, thus (it is claimed) dramatically reducing costs. But it can also mean that each reactor becomes a module in a much larger nuclear station.

Rolls-Royce reckons it needs an order book of 16 reactors to justify building a factory that could turn reactors out, like its cars, on a production line. It is both trying to persuade the UK government to place a large number of orders and is combing the world for other governments willing to do so.

Military link

Nuclear detractors point out that creating a factory able to provide production line economies of scale for nuclear reactors is a tall order. Also, neither the UK government nor Rolls-Royce has come up with sites where any reactors could be placed. Perhaps the most telling point is that there is no need for that much expensive electricity when renewables plus energy storage could provide it more cheaply and quickly.

Most nuclear weapons states acknowledge the link between their civil and weapons industries. Canada is one of the few non-nuclear weapons states that has bought into the nuclear industry’s hype and is still actively promoting SMRs.

There is a backlash from academics who fear nuclear proliferation, as well as from those who question the economics and viability of the “new” designs.

In one sense the nuclear enthusiasts are winning the propaganda war because many governments are actively encouraging work on the design of SMRs – and still shelling out billions of dollars in taxpayers’ money to support research and development.

On the other hand everything is still in the prototype stage and has been for years. As yet no foundation stones for nuclear reactor factories have been laid. And while we wait for the long-promised nuclear breakthrough, cheaper wind and solar farms are being built rapidly across the planet. As each comes on stream it helps to erode the already flimsy case for nuclear power.  Climate News Network

June 5, 2021 Posted by | 2 WORLD, spinbuster | 2 Comments

Old nuclear grinding to a halt in Britain

nuClear news, No 1333    5 June 21 In February it was reported that Centrica had suspended the sale of its nuclear business. Centrica owns a 20% interest in the UK’s 8.25 GW of operational nuclear power generation fleet. In 2018 it announced it was looking for a buyer for the stake. The Company continues to look at options, but the divestment process has now been paused mainly because of the graphite cracking issue at Hunterston and Hinkley and pipe corrosion at Dungeness. 

The company’s nuclear output for 2020 was down 10% year on year to 9.134 TWh, while the achieved price was up 4% to £51.30/MWh. Centrica’s nuclear segment made an operating loss of £17 million, down from a £17 million operating profit in 2019. A £525 million impairment charge on power assets included £481 million relating to nuclear, “largely as a result of a reduction in price forecasts and availability issues at the Hunterston B, Dungeness B and Hinkley Point B power stations.” (1)



 EDF Energy is reported to be exploring a range of scenarios for Dungeness B, including bringing forward its decommissioning date of 2028. The Company may decide to start defuelling the reactors seven years early unless a number of “significant and ongoing technical challenges” are overcome. 

On 27 August 2018 Dungeness B shut down Reactor 22 for its planned statutory outage. On 23 September 2018 Reactor 21 was also shut down for the planned double reactor outage. Both reactors have been shut since while a multi-million-pound maintenance programme was carried out. This work was due to be completed last year but that timeline changed to August 2021 following a series of delays.

  Now EDF say the ongoing challenges and risks “make the future both difficult and uncertain”. As a result, the energy company is now exploring a range of options – including shutting the station down later this year, seven years ahead of schedule. A statement from EDF reads:

 “Dungeness B power station last generated electricity in September 2018 and is currently forecast to return to service in August 2021. The station has a number of unique, significant and ongoing technical challenges that continue to make the future both difficult and uncertain. Many of these issues can be explained by the fact that Dungeness was designed in the 1960s as a prototype and suffered from very challenging construction and commissioning delays. We expect to have the technical information required to make a decision in the next few months, as it is important we bring clarity to the more than 800 people that work at the station, and who support it from other locations, as well as to government and all those with a stake in the station’s future.”   

 EDF Energy said it has spent more than £100 million on the plant during its current outage. (2) 
EDF’s latest announcement was that Reactor 21 might restart on June 6, 2022 instead of Aug. 2 this year and Reactor 22 reactor might restart on May 27, 2022 instead of July 23 this year. (3)   Dungeness B was the first AGR to be ordered in 1965. It was expected to begin operation in 1970/1, but didn’t produce commercial electricity until 1989. It is thought to have exceeded its budget by 400%. (4)


In April the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) gave EDF permission for reactors 3 and 4 at the Hunterston to return to service for a limited period of operation after scrutiny of EDF’s safety case. Operation is permitted for up to a total of 16.7 terawatt days for reactor 3 and 16.52 terawatt days for reactor 4 – approximately six month’s of operation for each. This will be the final period of operation before the reactors are shut-down and the spent fuel removed. (5) 

Reactor 3 has already re-started but Reactor 4 is not expected to be back on-line until 9th June. The end date for Hunterston B will be 7 January 2022 at the latest.  

Hinkley Point B 

On 17th March Hinkley Point B’s two reactors were granted permission by ONR to restart. Reactor 4 and Reactor 3 were taken offline on 21 February and 8 June 2020, respectively, for a series of planned inspections of the graphite core. The company plans to run Hinkley’s two reactors for six months, pause for further inspections and, subject to ONR approval, generate power for a second six-month period. Last November EDF announced that Hinkley Point B would operate no later than July 2022 before moving into the defuelling phase. EDF has spent £3 million over the past year upgrading the plant while detailed assessments have been completed on the graphite in the nuclear reactors. (6)  

  Sizewell B

 EDF Energy extended the outage at Sizewell B by three months to carry out ‘additional work’. The reactor went offline for planned refuelling and maintenance work on April 16, initially scheduled to end on May 29. This has been updated to 30th August following additional work required on some components identified during the shutdown. (7) This is because some steel components are wearing out more quickly than expected, forcing EDF to carry out lengthy unscheduled repairs. (8)  

  Plant Life Extensions 

A look at the age structure of existing nuclear power plants shows the importance of analysing risks of life-time extension and long-term operation. Some of the world’s oldest plants are located in Europe. Of the 141 reactors in Europe, only one reactor came into operation in the last decade, and more than 80 percent of the reactors have been running for more than 30 years. Nuclear power plants were originally designed to operate for 30 to 40 years. Thus, the operating life-time of many plants are approaching this limit, or has already exceeded it. The ageing of nuclear power plants leads to a significantly increased risk of severe accidents and radioactive releases. 

A new study has analysed the risks of life-time extensions of ageing nuclear power plants. At present, life-time extensions in Europe do not have to be comprehensively relicensed according   

  to the state of the art in science and technology. Time limited licenses can be extended by decision of the competent authorities. However, such decisions do not meet the requirements of Nuclear Power Plant licensing procedures in regard to public participation. More often than not environmental impact assessments with public participation are not carried out. However, the situation has changed with the ruling of the European Court of Justice of 29th of July 2019 on the life-time extension of the Doel NPP (Belgium) and the new guidance under the ESPOO Convention. Accordingly, environmental impact assessments with transboundary public participation are now required for life-time extensions.

However, there are still no binding assessment standards for life-time extensions. It is still up to each regulatory authority to decide what and how to assess. In particular, the authorities are not obliged to carry out a comprehensive licensing procedure in which all safety issues are comprehensively examined according to the current state of knowledge. (9)

June 5, 2021 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Progressive Democrats slam Joe Biden’s about-face on nuclear weapons spending

Left slams Biden’s nuclear weapons budget 
Politico, By BRYAN BENDER 06/03/2021 

ABOUT-FACE? Biden ran on a platform opposing new nuclear weapons, but his first defense budget goes all in on the Trump-era expansion, including maintaining plans for two new weapons. And leading Democrats and arms control groups are angry at what they see as a betrayal, Lara, Connor and your Morning D correspondent report for Pros.

A number of progressive Democrats, including those who have proposed legislation to curtail several nuclear projects, sounded emboldened. “We must instead spend money on threats that Americans are actually facing like pandemics and climate change, instead of on new destabilizing weapons when we can extend the lifespan of the ones we already have for much cheaper,” progressive Rep. Ro Khanna said in a statement.

Rep. John Garamendi, a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, told POLITICO he also “strongly” believes “the United States needs to alter its modernization strategy from one that’s predicated on dominance to one that is based on deterrence.”

The strongest backlash came from disarmament advocates, who said they were expecting Biden to live up to his word. “President Biden ran on a campaign to reverse the budget and outrageous policies put forward by the Trump administration,” the Council for a Livable World said in a statement. “However, this budget expands nearly every nuclear program put forward by that administration. This is not acceptable.”

As “a long-time supporter of arms control and nuclear threat reduction,” the group said, Biden “can — and should — do better.”

Biden told the group during the campaign that “our current arsenal of weapons … is sufficient to meet our deterrence and alliance requirements.” The Democratic Party platform in 2020 also bluntly stated that “the Trump Administration’s proposal to build new nuclear weapons is unnecessary, wasteful, and indefensible.”

June 5, 2021 Posted by | politics, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Bill Gates, Warren Buffett’s piddly little ”Natrium” nuclear reactor – greenwashing, while keeping fossil fuels going.

The key to understanding this story is found in Governor Gordon’s use of the words “all of the above.” That’s free market speak for “We’rehappy to have a piddly little 350 MW facility of over here, just so long as we can continue supporting coal- and gas-powered generating plants that churn out hundreds of gigawatts over there.”

In other words, it’s asmokescreen designed to allow fossil fuel interests to kick the can down the road a little further and add some greenwashing to their corporate portfolios at the same time. Being rich does not necessarily make a person all that smart. America needs more nuclear power like a fish needs a bicycle.

People in Wyoming may be fooled by this blather, but CleanTechnica readers aren’t taking the bait. Natrium was probably selected as the name of thus new nuclear technology because it sounds a little like “nature” or “natural.” That’s a great marketing ploy, but we’re not buying it. Frankly, the Bill and Warren show is more than a little disappointing.

 Clean Technica 3rd June 2021

June 5, 2021 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, spinbuster, USA | Leave a comment

Critique No 3 [a boys-with-toys view] -BBC documentary Building Britain’s Biggest Nuclear Power Station

Building Britain’s Biggest Nuclear Power Station, BBC2, review: A boys-and-their-toys view of a divisive build. Much of the programme is devoted to emphasising just how big the plant will be: we are shown a tunnelling machine so enormous it requires a police cavalcade; we are treated to front-row seats for the “largest continuous cement pour in the UK”; we learn that Hinkley’s canteens consume 316 tons of baked beans a year.

iNews 2nd June 2021

June 5, 2021 Posted by | media, UK | Leave a comment

Critique No 2 of BBC documentary Building Britain’s Biggest Nuclear Power Station

Building Britain’s Biggest Nuclear Power Station, review: why didn’t this film ask the real questions? It seemed a little odd for one local’s (admittedly very valid) complaints about traffic to be given more airtime than, say, worries over industrial espionage in a project part-funded by the Chinese state, or of ballooning budgets (from £18 billion to
£22 billion).

Two of its three intended predecessors in Finland and France remain on ice owing to “concerns over cost and quality”, a phrase both vague and serious enough to warrant further enquiry, yet any doubts were confined to the voiceover and not put to the people involved.

Telegraph 2nd June 2021

June 5, 2021 Posted by | media, UK | Leave a comment

Critique No 1 of BBC documentary Building Britain’s Biggest Nuclear Power Station

One cynical but reliable rule of thumb when reporting official statements is that the more often a fact is emphasised, the less likely it is to be true. The first time we were told on Building Britain’s Biggest Nuclear
Power Station (BBC2) that the new Hinkley Point C reactor will be able to withstand the impact of a plane crash, I was mildly reassured.

After the third or fourth repetition, I was quite uneasy. And when the last 15 minutes of the opening episode in this two-parter were devoted to explaining exactly how marvellously plane-proof the design is, panic was setting in. For all the talk of double-skinned, nuclear-grade concrete and X-rayed metal seals, it was pretty obvious that one misplaced Airbus is all it takes, and Goodbye Somerset.

Daily Mail 3rd June 2021

June 5, 2021 Posted by | media, UK | Leave a comment

Debunking myths about the Chalk River Mound (aka “NSDF”) — Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area

The Chalk River Mound or “near surface disposal facility” is a proposed giant above ground landfill for one million tons of radioactive waste on the property of Canadian Nuclear Labs, less than one kilometre from the Ottawa River upstream of Ottawa-Gatineau and Montreal. We debunk below two of the most misleading myths about the proposed […]

Debunking myths about the Chalk River Mound (aka “NSDF”) — Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area

June 5, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Japanese government is weakening its support for nuclear power.

Japan has softened its commitment to nuclear power in a draft economic
growth strategy to be finalized later this month after facing opposition
from several Cabinet ministers, government sources said Thursday.

The government has dropped the key phrase that it “will continue to seek to
make the most out of nuclear power” after protests from Environment
Minister Shinjiro Koizumi and administrative reform minister Taro Kono, who
are proponents of renewable energy in order to achieve a carbon neutral
society, according to the sources.

The draft is being compiled at a time when Tokyo is seeking to take a leading role in combating global warming
under Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga. The continued commitment to nuclear
energy was sought by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. The draft
now says, “While reducing reliance (on nuclear power) as much as
possible, (the government will seek to) steadily proceed with the
restarting of reactors in the country while placing utmost priority on

Japan Times 3rd June 2021

June 5, 2021 Posted by | Japan, politics | Leave a comment

Billionaires’ advanced ”Natrium” nuclear reactors planned for Wyoming.

Power companies run by billionaire friends Bill Gates and Warren Buffett
have chosen Wyoming to launch the first Natrium nuclear reactor project on
the site of a retiring coal plant. TerraPower, founded by Gates about 15
years ago, and power company PacifiCorp, owned by Warren Buffett’s
Berkshire Hathaway, said on Wednesday that the exact site of the Natrium
reactor demonstration plant was expected to be announced by the end of the

Nuclear power experts have warned that advanced reactors could have higher risks than
conventional ones. Fuel for many advanced reactors would have to be
enriched at a much higher rate than conventional fuel, meaning the fuel
supply chain could be an attractive target for militants looking to create
a crude nuclear weapon, a recent report said

Guardian 3rd June 2021

June 5, 2021 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | Leave a comment

Nuclear energy gets record increase in USA’s Dept of Energy’s budget request,

World Nuclear News , 2 June 21 – The DOE’s budget request totals USD46.2 billion and includes a “record” USD1.85 billion for the Office of Nuclear Energy, which is an increase of over 23% from the enacted budget for FY21. This includes over USD370 million – up 48% from the USD250 million enacted in FY21 – for the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Programme, a cost-shared programme which aims to build two demonstration advanced reactors within the next six years. It also includes USD145 million for the Versatile Test Reactor Project, which aims to provide fast neutron testing capability to aid US development of advanced nuclear reactor technology. This is more than triple the USD45 million enacted for the project in FY21.   

June 5, 2021 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Small nuclear reactors pushed for military use,despite their obvious dangers

There are concerns, of course, associated with deploying mobile nuclear reactors to bases or the battlefield. Meltdowns, waste products, and other malfunctions are always a concern with nuclear energy technologies, and if a reactor in a contested area is destroyed by adversary forces, for example, the risk of environmental contamination is high. That, in turn, could create a political disaster for the DOD and United States. Deploying any nuclear systems abroad also incurs the risk of proliferation if those technologies should fall into the wrong hands due to a forward-operating base or convoy being overrun by hostile forces.

Those concerns will no doubt be a major policy consideration when, or if, these mobile reactors ever reach a state of technological readiness to where they can be deployed. New nuclear technologies aren’t the only new energy production and storage systems the DOD is eyeing, however. Revolutionary concepts such as space-based solar power beaming, new forms of hydrogen fuel cells, or even more advanced applications of existing technologies like modular solar generators are all being developed which could revolutionize how the DOD powers its expeditionary forces without the risks associated with nuclear power

The Military’s Mobile Nuclear Reactor Prototype Is Set To Begin Taking Shape, The Drive  BY BRETT TINGLEY JUNE 3, 2021

Project Pele is one potentially revolutionary, albeit controversial, answer to the military’s growing battlefield energy requirements.

The Office of The Secretary of Defense (OSD) has requested $60 million dollars for Project Pele, which is aimed at developing a new, transportable nuclear microreactor to provide high-output, resilient power for a wide variety of Department of Defense (DOD) missions. The DOD hopes to begin working on a prototype reactor design, which will hopefully be able to eventually produce one to five megawatts of electricity and operate at peak power for at least three years, in the next fiscal year.

The request for funding for Project Pele is found in the Pentagon’s proposed budget for the 2022 Fiscal Year, which was released on May 28, 2021.   This is the first year that the Office of the Secretary of Defense has asked for money for this program through the larger Advanced Innovative Technologies line item. Previous funding for Pele, also known as the Micro Nuclear Reactor Program, had come through a separate Operational Energy Capability Improvement account in OSD’s budget. 

The budget documents say that the goals for Project Pele in the 2022 Fiscal Year are to “complete the design phase and prepare for construction of a 1-5 Megawatt electric transportable nuclear microreactor.” In addition, it notes that “due to the nature of this project, specific applications and detailed plans are available at a higher classification level.”

“The Pele project continues activities initiated under Congressional direction in FY 2020 and FY 2021,” according to the documents. “Congressional Adds [totaling $16 million in the 2021 Fiscal Year] directed for nuclear fuel core development to support the Pele reactor maturation and also funding to support power and thermal management maturation for directed energy weapons.”

………………the Fiscal Year 2022 budget requests says the desired design is as a 1-5 megawatt (MW) nuclear microreactor. 

For comparison, the output of the smallest nuclear power plant in the United States, New York’s R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, is 581 MW. The desired power output is even smaller than most research reactors. 

…… The funding for Pele also builds on several other developments, which show that the DOD, DOE, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) are investing heavily in new nuclear technologies to power a new American space age. “Production of a full-scale fourth-generation nuclear reactor will have significant geopolitical implications for the United States,” said Jay Dryer, director of the Strategic Capabilities Office. 

………  Building on that document’s goals, a January 2021 Executive Order expanded on the National Space Council document by ordering NASA to deliver a report that defines requirements and foreseeable issues for developing a nuclear energy system to enable human and robotic space missions for the next two decades. The order also included plans for a “Common Technology Roadmap” made among NASA and the Departments of Energy, Defense, Commerce, and State for developing and deploying these new reactor technologies. 

Energy security and dominance have become cornerstones of DOD strategy, given the unbelievable amounts of fuel and energy consumed by the power-hungry systems the modern military depends on. U.S. Army leadership has previously stated that it wants its brigades to be self-sufficient for a week without the need for resupply, and there have been previous calls for microreactors that could fit inside existing platforms such as the C-17 Globemaster. Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin and other laboratories continue work on the lofty goal of developing miniaturized fusion reactors…….

There are concerns, of course, associated with deploying mobile nuclear reactors to bases or the battlefield. Meltdowns, waste products, and other malfunctions are always a concern with nuclear energy technologies, and if a reactor in a contested area is destroyed by adversary forces, for example, the risk of environmental contamination is high. That, in turn, could create a political disaster for the DOD and United States. Deploying any nuclear systems abroad also incurs the risk of proliferation if those technologies should fall into the wrong hands due to a forward-operating base or convoy being overrun by hostile forces.

Those concerns will no doubt be a major policy consideration when, or if, these mobile reactors ever reach a state of technological readiness to where they can be deployed. New nuclear technologies aren’t the only new energy production and storage systems the DOD is eyeing, however. Revolutionary concepts such as space-based solar power beaming, new forms of hydrogen fuel cells, or even more advanced applications of existing technologies like modular solar generators are all being developed which could revolutionize how the DOD powers its expeditionary forces without the risks associated with nuclear power.

June 5, 2021 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Pacific Islands forum wants answers on the effects of Japan’s Fukushima waste water to be dumped into the Pacific Ocean

Forum head calls for answers on Japan’s plans to dump nuclear waste,  5 June 21  The head of the Pacific Islands Forum wants more answers from Japan on its plan to dump wastewater from the Fukushima nuclear plant in the Pacific.

Secretary General Henry Puna called for a frank discussion ahead of a meeting with the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, after that organisation said Japan’s dumping plan was technically feasible.

The Japanese government has said it plans to release more than a million tonnes of contaminated wastewater from the wrecked plant into the sea.

Puna has demanded clarity over what impact those plans will have on the Pacific Ocean, with Pacific countries united in their outrage at the plan.

The legacy of nuclear testing hangs over the region, with the associated health and environmental issues caused by United StatesBritish and French testing largely unresolved today.

“The threat of nuclear contamination continues to be of significant concern to the health and security of our Blue Pacific continent,” Puna said.

He said the Pacific was entitled to clear answers, including evidence-based scientific assessments, to underpin Japan’s plan.

“Our 50-year history as the Forum has been overshadowed by our nuclear legacy issues, which continue to impact affected communities today, and we should not accept anything less,” Puna said.

Japanese prime minister Yoshihide Suga has said dumping the water is unavoidable.

June 5, 2021 Posted by | OCEANIA, oceans, politics international | 1 Comment

China again urges Japan to revoke decision to dump nuclear wastewater

China again urges Japan to revoke decision to dump nuclear wastewater
China once again urges Japan to revoke its decision to discharge contaminated water from the Fukushima nuclear plant into the ocean, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said on Thursday.

He made the remarks at a daily press briefing when asked to comment on recent reports about wastewater leakage at the Fukushima nuclear plant and fresh protests by an environmental group in South Korea against the discharge plan.

Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), the owner of the plant, found nuclear waste leakage from a storage tank at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, and the concentration of radioactive substances in the waste is 76 times higher than the standard amount, Japanese media reported on Tuesday.

In response, Wang said he had noticed multiple reports about wastewater leakage at the Fukushima plant, and seafood there was repeatedly detected with radiation levels exceeding standards.

“On the one hand, such reports expose that the nuclear waste disposal measures taken by TEPCO and the Japanese government are inadequate and have many loopholes. On the other hand, they fully demonstrate that contaminated water treatment is very complicated and has far-reaching impacts, which require a proactive, cautious and responsible attitude,” Wang said.

Japan has unilaterally decided to release the Fukushima nuclear wastewater into the sea before exhausting all safe ways of disposal, without fully disclosing relevant information and consulting with neighboring countries and the international community, which is an “extremely irresponsible, selfish and rash act,” Wang pointed out.

Despite being widely questioned and opposed at home and abroad, Japan insists on the plan, which is “even more wrong,” he added.

“We once again urge the Japanese side to revoke the wrong decision, shoulder its due responsibilities, and return to the track of consulting and reaching agreement with all stakeholders and relevant international institutions, instead of continuing acting as a troublemaker,” Wang said. 

June 5, 2021 Posted by | China | Leave a comment