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

Rising seas and melting glaciers: these changes are now irreversible, but we have to act to slow them down — RenewEconomy

The underlying message remains the same. The longer we wait, the more devastating the consequences. The post Rising seas and melting glaciers: these changes are now irreversible, but we have to act to slow them down appeared first on RenewEconomy.

Rising seas and melting glaciers: these changes are now irreversible, but we have to act to slow them down — RenewEconomy

August 9, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Hiroshima/Nagasaki week – nuclear news

I’m thinking of changing my name to ”Cassandra”.(Greek goddess of  gloom and doom) The media in my country, and elsewhere,  has been ecstatic about Olympic Games medals. I guess that’s a relief from the virus/vaccine focus.  But it seems that nobody knows that this week has been the anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and that Fukushima ”recovery” has not really happened. That the Japanese government, despite the pandemic, in fact did not have the power to cancel the Games – under the contract, only the IOC can do that. That vast sums were spent, and will leave the Japanese people with vast debt, right when they have a crippling health crisis. . That the extravagant arenas and  buildings will become white elephants.That 430 athletes and others in the Olympic Village  got Covid-19.

Similarly, in the news we heard some whispers about wildfires around the world, and catastrophic floods, too. You really need alternative media to put all this together. A leader in this is Radio Ecoshock –  ”I’ve Seen Fire and I’ve Seen Rain”.  

I’m thinking of changing my name to ”Cassandra”.(Greek goddess of  gloom and doom) The media in my country, and elsewhere,  has been ecstatic about Olympic Games medals. I guess that’s a relief from the virus/vaccine focus.  But it seems that nobody knows that this week has been the anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and that Fukushima ”recovery” has not really happened. That the Japanese government, despite the pandemic, in fact did not have the power to cancel the Games – under the contract, only the IOC can do that. That vast sums were spent, and will leave the Japanese people with vast debt, right when they have a crippling health crisis. . That the extravagant arenas and  buildings will become white elephants.That 430 athletes and others in the Olympic Village  got Covid-19.

Similarly, in the news we heard some whispers about wildfires around the world, and catastrophic floods, too. You really need alternative media to put all this together. A leader in this is Radio Ecoshock –  ”I’ve Seen Fire and I’ve Seen Rain”.  

BUT – just as I write this  – up comes the UN Climate report 2021 – this will wake up the mainstream media, even in Australia.Coronavirus – there’s still a surge in cases, worldwide, with a clear trend to the pandemic affecting the un-vaccinated.

Some bits of good news. Hard to find – but here’s a place – Empathy in the English Channel and A bird recovery programme, and Africa’s largest forest  reserve in recovery. 

Global average temperature rise 
of 1.5c likely to be reached 10 years early. The world is getting “dangerously close” to running out of time to avert catastrophic climate change.

Towards a clean and sustainable energy system: 26 criteria nuclear power does not meet .

Nuclear weapons cannot be used, but their danger persists. Now, in the times of the UN Nuclear Ban Treaty, nuclear deterrence continues, but becomes increasingly discredited. Renounce the use and further development of nuclear weapons. The hard fought campaign continues – to ban nuclear weapons.

The myth that the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified.

Complicit – The countries, companies and think tanks that support the deadly nuclear arms trade.

Hiroshima City remembers the sudden cruelty of the atomic bombing .  Tokyo Olympics part of propaganda strategy to downplay Fukushima nuclear disaster, as Olympics have been previously used to downplay Hiroshima bombing. Tokyo Olympics were touted as a showcase for Fukushima nuclear recovery. That didn’t work.

RUSSIA. Fire, floods ravage Russia, threaten nuclear research site  .


CANADA. Costs of Ontario’s nuclear program will be the burden of the great-grandchildren of babies born in 2021.


IRANEU optimistic on nuclear deal despite Iran leadership change. Problems continue for Iran nuclear talks as new Iran President takes office.

ISRAELIsrael Says Iran Should ‘Never Become a Nuclear Power.’ But What if It Already Is One? Mainstream media ignores how Israel continues sabotaging the Iran nuclear deal  .

GREECE. Apocalyptic scenes hit Greece, as Athens besieged by fire.

FRANCE. Framatome’s sub-standard nuclear fuel is threatening the survival of France’s nuclear company EDF . The incident that caused the shutdown of the Taishan nuclear power plant occurs regularly in France. France’s secrecy and censorship on the atomic bomb tests in the Pacific.

BELGIUM. Belgium’s mayors show solidarity with nuclear victims, support the UN nuclear weapons ban Treaty.

DENMARK, NORWAYRussian nuclear submarine lost propulsion in Danish waters, sails submerged outside Norway now.

AUSTRALIA. People of the Pacific condemn Talisman Sabre Military Exercises.

August 9, 2021 Posted by | Christina's notes | Leave a comment

The myth that the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified

Over the years, the myth that the “nuking” of two Japanese cities was justified, has lost much of its appeal on both sides of the Pacific

Mythmaking and the Atomic Destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, CounterPunch BY JACQUES R. PAUWELS, 8 Aug 21,  Myth: The war in the Far East only ended in the summer of 1945, when the US president and his advisors felt that, to force the fanatical Japanese to surrender unconditionally, they had no other option than to destroy not one but two cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with atom bombs. This decision saved the lives of countless Americans and Japanese who would have perished if the war had continued and required an invasion of Japan.

Reality: Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed to prevent the Soviets from making a contribution to the victory against Japan, which would have forced Washington to allow Moscow to participate in the postwar occupation and reconstruction of the country. It was also the intention to intimidate the Soviet leadership and thus to wrest concessions from it with respect to the postwar arrangements in Germany and Eastern Europe. Finally, it was not the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but the Soviet entry into the war against Japan, which caused Tokyo to surrender.

With the German capitulation in early May 1945, the war in Europe was over. The victors, the Big Three,[1] now faced the complex and delicate problem of the postwar reorganization of Europe. The United States had entered the war rather late, namely in December 1941. And the Americans only started to make a major contribution to the victory against Germany with the landings in Normandy in June 1944, that is, less than one year before the end of the hostilities in Europe. When the war against Germany came to an end, however, Uncle Sam occupied a seat at the table of the victors, ready and eager to look after his interests, to achieve what one might call the American war aims. (It is a myth that the presumably deeply isolationist Americans just wanted to withdraw from Europe: the country’s political, military, and economic leaders had urgent reasons for maintaining a presence on the old continent.) The other big victorious powers, Britain and the Soviet Union, also looked to pursue their interests. It was clear that it would be impossible for one of the three to “have it all”, that compromises would have to be reached. From the American point of view, the British expectations did not present much of a problem, but Soviet aspirations were a concern. What, then, were the war aims of the Soviet Union?

As the country that had made the biggest contribution by far to the common victory over Nazi Germany and suffered enormous casualties in the process, the Soviet Union had two major objectives. First, hefty reparation payments from Germany as compensation for the huge destruction wrought by Nazi aggression, a demand similar to the French and Belgian demands for reparations payments from the Reich after World War I. Second, security against potential future threats emanating from Germany………………………….

on April 25, 1945, only days before the German capitulation, the president received electrifying news. He was briefed about the top-secret Manhattan Project, or S-1, the code name for the construction of the atom bomb. That new and powerful weapon, on which the Americans had been working for years, was almost ready and, if tested successfully, would soon be available for use. Truman and his advisors thus fell under the spell of what the renowned American historian William Appleman Williams has called a “vision of omnipotence”. They convinced themselves that the new weapon would enable them to force their will on the Soviet Union. The atomic bomb was “a hammer”, as Truman himself put it, that he would wave over the heads of “those boys in the Kremlin”.[3]

Thanks to the bomb, it would now be possible to force Moscow to withdraw the Red Army from Germany and to deny Stalin a say in its postwar affairs. It now also seemed a feasible proposition to install pro-Western and even anticommunist regimes in Poland and elsewhere in Eastern Europe, and to prevent Stalin from exerting any influence there. It even became thinkable that the Soviet Union itself might be opened up to American investment capital as well as American political and economic influence,…………  Indeed, with the nuclear pistol on his hip, the American president did not feel that he had to treat “the boys in the Kremlin”, who did not have such a super-weapon, as his equals……….

Possession of a mighty new weapon also opened up all sorts of possibilities with respect to the ongoing war in the Far East and the postwar arrangements to be made for that part of the world, of great importance to the leaders of the US, as we have seen when dealing with Pearl Harbor. Nevertheless, playing that powerful trump card would only be possible after the bomb had been successfully tested and was available to be used………

Truman concluded that only an actual demonstration of the atomic bomb could persuade the Soviets to give way.

…………………The Americans thus knew only too well that the situation of the Japanese was hopeless. “Fini Japs when that comes about”, Truman wrote in his diary, referring to the expected Soviet intervention in the war in the Far East.[9]

…………….. In order to finish the war against Japan without having to make more sacrifices, Truman thus had a range of attractive options. He could accept the trivial Japanese condition, immunity for their emperor; he could also wait until the Red Army attacked the Japanese in China, thus forcing Tokyo into accepting an unconditional surrender after all; and he could have instituted a naval blockade that would have forced Tokyo to sue for peace sooner or later. But Truman and his advisors chose none of these options. Instead, they decided to knock Japan out with the atomic bomb.

This fateful decision, which was to cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, mostly civilians, offered the Americans considerable advantages.

………………… The atom bomb seemed to offer the American leaders an additional important advantage. Truman’s experience in Potsdam had persuaded him that only an actual demonstration of this new weapon would make Stalin pliable. Using the atom bomb to obliterate a Japanese city seemed to be the perfect stratagem to intimidate the Soviets and coerce them to make major concessions with respect to postwar arrangements in Germany, Poland, and elsewhere in Central and Eastern Europe. Truman’s secretary of state, James F. Byrnes, reportedly declared later that the atom bomb had been used because such a demonstration of power was likely to make the Soviets more accommodating in Europe.

To make the desired terrifying impression on the Soviets – and the rest of the world -, the bomb obviously had to be dropped on a big city. It is probably for this reason that Truman turned down a proposal, made by some of the scientists involved in the Manhattan Project, to demonstrate the power of the bomb by dropping it on some uninhabited Pacific island: there would not have been sufficient death and destruction. It would also have been extremely embarrassing if the weapon had failed to work its deadly magic; but if the unannounced atomic bombing of a Japanese city backfired, no one would have known and no one would have been embarrassed. A big Japanese city had to be selected, but the capital, Tokyo, did not qualify, since it was already flattened by previous conventional bombing raids, so that additional damage was unlikely to loom sufficiently impressive. In fact, very few cities qualified as the required “virgin” target. ……….

The atom bomb was ready just in time to be put to use before the USSR had a chance to become involved in the Far East………………

Already on August 10, 1945, just one day after the Soviet Union’s entry into the war in the Far East, a second bomb was dropped, this time on the city of Nagasaki. About this bombardment, in which many Japanese Catholics perished, a former American army chaplain later stated: “That’s one of the reasons I think they dropped the second bomb. To hurry it up. To make them surrender before Russians came”.[11] (The chaplain may or may not have been aware that among the 75,000 human beings who were “instantaneously incinerated, carbonized and evaporated” in Nagasaki were many Japanese Catholics as well an unknown number of inmates of a camp for allied POWs, whose presence had been reported to the air command, to no avail.)[12]

Japan capitulated not because of the atom bombs but because of the Soviet entry into the conflict. ………………………

 Truman, however, wanted to use the bomb for a number of reasons, and not just to get the Japanese to surrender. He expected that dropping the atom bomb would keep the Soviets out of the Far East and terrorize that country’s leaders, so that Washington could impose its will on the Kremlin with respect to European affairs. And so, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were pulverized.  Many American historians realize this only too well. Sean Dennis Cashman writes:

With the passing of time, many historians have concluded that the bomb was used as much for political reasons . . . Vannevar Bush [the head of the US Office of Scientific Research and Development] stated that the bomb “was also delivered on time, so that there was no necessity for any concessions to Russia at the end of the war”. Secretary of State James F. Byrnes [Truman’s secretary of state] never denied a statement attributed to him that the bomb had been used to demonstrate American power to the Soviet Union in order to make [the Soviets] more manageable in Europe.[16]

Truman himself, however, hypocritically declared at the time that the purpose of the two nuclear bombardments had been “to bring the boys home”, that is, to quickly finish the war without any further major loss of life on the American side. This explanation was uncritically broadcast in the American media and thus was born a myth eagerly propagated by them and by mainstream historians in the US and in the Western World in general, and of course by Hollywood.

The myth that two Japanese cities were nuked to force Tokyo to surrender, thus shortening the war and saving lives, was “made in USA”, but it was to be eagerly espoused in Japan, whose post-war leaders, vassals of the US, found it extremely useful for a number of reasons, as War Wilson has pointed out in his excellent article on the Bomb. First, the emperor and his ministers, who were in many ways responsible for a war that had caused so much misery for the Japanese people, found it extremely convenient to blame their defeat, as Wilson puts it, on “an amazing scientific breakthrough that no one could have predicted”. The blinding light of the atomic blasts made it impossible, so to speak, to see their “mistakes and misjudgments”. The Japanese people had been lied to about how bad the situation really was, and how the misery had dragged on so long just to save the emperor, but the Bomb provided the perfect excuse for having lost the war. No need to apportion blame; no court of enquiry need be held. Japan’s leaders were able to claim they had done their best. So, at the most general level the Bomb served to deflect blame from Japan’s leaders.

Second, the Bomb earned Japan international sympathy. Like Germany, Japan had waged a war of aggression and committed all sorts of war crimes. Both countries looked for ways to improve their image, seeking to exchange the mantle of perpetrator. for that of victim…………

Third, echoing the American notion that the Bomb had ended the war was certain to please Japan’s post-war American overlords. The latter would protect Japan’s upper class against the demands for radical societal change emanating from radical elements, including communists,………………..

Over the years, the myth that the “nuking” of two Japanese cities was justified, has lost much of its appeal on both sides of the Pacific……………

References:   multiple sources are quoted .

August 9, 2021 Posted by | Reference, secrets,lies and civil liberties, spinbuster, weapons and war | 1 Comment

Complicit – The countries, companies and think tanks that support the deadly nuclear arms trade

The world spends $137,000 a minute on nuclear weapons

Complicit — Beyond Nuclear International 8 Aug 21, The countries, companies and think tanks that support the deadly nuclear arms trade
A new report from ICAN — Complicit: 2020 Global Nuclear Weapons spending — names names and produces some horrifying spending numbers, made all the more immoral by the desperate needs around the world due to the COVID-19 pandemic, along with the ever worsening conditions brought on by the climate crisis.
As the report notes, “In 2020, during the worst global pandemic in a century, nine nuclear-armed states spent $72.6 billion on their nuclear weapons, more than $137,000 per minute, an inflation adjusted increase of $1.4 billion from last year.”

It goes on to ask the obvious question: Why? The answer lies in the profits to be made by the world’s nuclear weapons companies, not to mention the funding flowing to a few think tanks, some of which have missions that should make taking this money unacceptable. “Not only does this report reveal the massive spending on nuclear weapons during the worst global pandemic in a century, it also shines a light on the shadowy connection between the private companies building nuclear weapons, lobbyists and think tanks,” wrote ICAN’s Susi Snyder in an email to launch the report.

She also narrates this short video above that explains the findings.

“The exchange of money and influence, from countries to companies to lobbyists and think tanks, sustains and maintains a global arsenal of catastrophically destructive weapons. Each person and organisation in this cycle is complicit in threatening life as we know it and wasting resources desperately needed to address real threats to human health and safety”, says the report’s executive summary. It goes on:

“The $72.6 billion spent on nuclear weapons was split between governmental departments and private companies. Companies in France, the United Kingdom and the United States received $27.7 billion from nuclear-weapon-related contracts in 2020, of which $14.8 billion was new.

“Those companies then funded think tanks that research and write about nuclear weapons policies. At least twelve major think tanks that research and write about nuclear weapons in India, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States received collectively between $5 million and $10 million from companies that produce nuclear weapons. 

“The CEOs of companies that produce nuclear weapons sit on their advisory boards and are listed as ‘partners’ on their websites.

“And to make sure the enormous budgets are approved to pay for these contracts, those same companies hire lobbyists. In 2020, nuclear weapons producers spent $117 million in lobbying on defence. For every $1 spent lobbying, an average of $236 in nuclear weapon contract money came back.

“Nuclear-armed states spent an obscene amount of money on illegal weapons of mass destruction in 2020, while the majority of the world’s countries support a global nuclear weapons ban. But the story doesn’t stop there. Companies, lobbyists and think tanks are complicit and deserve to be held accountable for their role in building and shaping a world with more than 13,000 life- ending weapons. We need to call on them to cut it out.”

The executive summary of the report then calls out the names of the countries, companies and think tanks complicit in effectively planning the world’s destruction.

Country Spending On Nuclear Weapons In 2020

The United States: $37.4 billion; $70,881 / minute

China: $10.1 billion; $19,149 / minute

Russia: $8 billion; $15,222 / minute

The United Kingdom: $6.2 billion; $11,769 / minute

France: $5.7 billion; $10,786 / minute

India: $2.48 billion; $4,567 / minute

Israel: $1.1 billion; $2,059 / minute

Pakistan: $1 billion; $1,968 / minute

North Korea: $667 million; $1,265 / minute

2020 Total: $72.6 billion; $137,666 / minute

2019 Total: $71.2 billion* $135,424 / minute

*Adjusted for inflation…………………..

August 9, 2021 Posted by | 2 WORLD, business and costs, secrets,lies and civil liberties, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Fire, floods ravage Russia, threaten nuclear research site 

Fire, floods ravage Russia, threaten nuclear research site, BY GERMAN PRESS AGENCY – DPA MOSCOW EUROPE AUG 08, 2021  AAfter reports of over 250 fires ravaging through Russia, blazes now threaten a nuclear research center in the city of Sarov, prompting a state of emergency, officials said on Sunday.

The danger level was boosted as fires near Nizhny Novgorod are spreading and the change in status makes it easier to mobilize extra firefighting forces, according to city officials.

But it is only one of 250 fires Russia is currently trying to extinguish throughout the country. The Siberian region of Sakha, in the country’s northeast, has been hit particularly hard. Dozens of houses have burned down and residents have been evacuated to safety.

Meanwhile, state TV showed images of cities in the Irkutsk and Krasnoyarsk regions enveloped in smoke.

Authorities said that, nationwide, about 3.5 million hectares are burning – about the combined area of Serbia and Montenegro. Weather experts and Greenpeace spoke of the worst fires in the history of Russian record keeping.

On the flip side, emergency crews in the Amur region, which borders China, are battling floods after heavy rainfalls. About 80 kilometers (about 50 miles) of streets and six bridges are underwater, with about 24 communities cut off from the outside world due to flooding along the Amur River said the regional transportation minister, Alexander Selenin.

August 9, 2021 Posted by | climate change, Russia | Leave a comment

The hard fought campaign continues – to ban nuclear weapons.

Public statement on the nuclear assassination of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – World without Wars and Violence  It was a warm northern morning on 6 August 1945 in the city of Hiroshima, and despite the war, the atmosphere was somewhat normal, far from the scenes of war, with children going to school and the elderly going to work. Nothing foreshadowed the horror they would later experience when a powerful nuclear bomb would wipe out their lives forever. Neither children nor adults anywhere on earth ever imagined that anyone in this world would be capable of inflicting such an atrocity on their fellow human beings. Women and children burned, mutilated, their skin and eyes hanging out was the first Dantesque image of that horrific morning, then the effects of radiation that caused agony just as painful and prolonged.

World without Wars and Violence remembers with sadness one more year the fateful nuclear explosions of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 76 years ago, and does so in a hopeful attempt to ensure that such a horrific event can never happen again, in the naïve hope that the conscience of the human species has evolved enough not to do something so abhorrent again.

World without Wars and Violence, a member of the International Action Network on Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), a network that received the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize for its contribution to the drafting of a Treaty to Ban Nuclear Weapons. The Treaty was approved at the United Nations on 7 July 2017 with the approval of 122 nations, opened for signature on 20 September 2017, and finally entered into force on 22 January 2021 with 55 states having ratified it to date.

World without War argues that the campaign to ban nuclear weapons has been hard fought and wide-ranging, and will continue to be so until the vast majority of the world’s countries ratify the Treaty, including the nine nuclear weapons states, namely the United States, Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea. Although these countries have not signed the Treaty, there are some that have indicated their willingness to do so if the others, especially the United States, do so. And while most European countries do not have them, they do have nuclear missile sites, being allies of the nuclear-weapon states in NATO.

Many efforts are being made at all levels, says World without Wars, to bring about a break with this Atlantic organisation, not only in terms of ratifying the ban on nuclear weapons, but also as an alliance, because it is considered a belligerent and expansionist organisation.

World without Wars also adds that campaigns are being carried out to get cities around the world to adhere to the idea of approving a treaty banning nuclear weapons, which has been very fruitful as more than a hundred cities around the world have given their support to the ban.

Similarly, a Network of Parliamentarians for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons has been formed and has been signed by hundreds of parliamentarians around the world. Not to mention the numerous professional organisations such as the Physicians for a Nuclear Ban, who are campaigning for support and holding events. It is worth noting that there are 607 ICAN member organisations in 106 countries, which shows the massiveness of the campaign for the abolition and elimination of these diabolical devices.

In this regard, Beatrice Fihn, ICAN’s executive director, upon receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, said forcefully: “Nuclear weapons as well as chemical weapons, biological weapons, cluster bombs and landmines are now illegal. Their existence is immoral. Their abolition is in our hands. The end is inevitable. But will that end be the end of nuclear weapons or the end of us? We must choose one. We are a movement for rationality, for democracy, for freedom from fear”.

Pope Francis, the leader of the Catholic world, also said: “We must never stop working in support of the major international legal instruments on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, including the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons”.

Despite this enormous support from civil society around the world for the prohibition of nuclear weapons, there is a lack of political will on the part of first world leaders to eliminate nuclear weapons from their nuclear arsenals and to sustain the World without Wars, as they are clearly not respecting the will of the vast majority of the world’s population who want to get rid of them for good as a threat to their very survival. And even though recently at their meeting in Geneva the top representatives of nuclear power, Biden and Putin, declared that a nuclear war should never be started because no one would gain from it, it is not understood why they do not commit themselves to dismantling their arsenals. And the reasons may be, according to this organisation:

Mutual distrust that there is real disarmament between the adversaries.
The stubborn insistence that their existence has prevented a third conventional world war.
The high economic interests involved in the nuclear industry
Trillions of dollars continue to be invested in the maintenance and development of nuclear weapons, with no real commitment to their elimination. Thus, despite the fact that nuclear weapons are now illegal under the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (CTBT), the governments that possess them continue to go against the will of their people, their own citizens who elected them, argues World without Wars.

t is incomprehensible how the only country that has been the victim of a nuclear detonation, Japan, can have as a military ally the country that nuclear bombed it, just because it has a nuclear umbrella that is supposed to prevent a nuclear attack by China or North Korea, going against the will of the vast majority of the Japanese population who detest nuclear weapons with good reason.

One of the survivors (hibakusha) of the holocaust, Setzuko Thurlow said on receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo: “To all presidents and prime ministers of all nations I plead: join this Treaty, eradicate forever the threat of nuclear annihilation. As a thirteen-year-old girl, trapped in smoking rubble, I kept pushing and moving towards the light. I survived. Our light is now the Ban Treaty. To everyone in this room and to everyone listening in the world, I repeat those words I heard calling to me in the ruins of Hiroshima. Don’t give up. Keep pushing. Do you see the light? Crawl towards it.

World without Wars and Violence has taken up his call and is organising marches all over the world where the abolition and total elimination of nuclear weapons is among its cardinal objectives. Precisely on July 18 it launched its Latin American March which begins on September 15 and concludes in Costa Rica on October 2, the International Day of Nonviolence.

Undoubtedly, we must begin to do what has not been done for centuries, what has never been done in the history of humanity, which is to build and strengthen trust between all the countries of the world, to change the paradigm of competition for power and natural resources, of egoistic nationalism, for collaboration and mutual cooperation between all nations, for overcoming racial, religious and political antagonisms and building a Great Universal Human Nation in which the union and tolerance of all cultures prevails over all differences and a multilateralism of true United Nations working for a better common destiny for all the peoples of the earth is achieved.

We are at the final crossroads of our human civilisation, and we have a historic opportunity to move towards a wonderful future for the human species. It all depends on each one of us.

August 9, 2021 Posted by | 2 WORLD, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Costs of Ontario’s nuclear program will be the burden of the great-grandchildren of babies born in 2021.

“Someday this will all be yours!”

Ontario’s Unfunded Nuclear Decommissioning Liability Is In The $18–$27 Billion CAD Range   Clean Technica, By Michael Barnard 8 Aug 21, Ontario’s nuclear program will be a fiscal burden on Ontarian’s to the tune of around $40 billion CAD which will be spent through roughly 2135, finally being paid off by the great-grandchildren of babies born in 2021.

Late last year I worked up the likely amount of public money that would have to be thrown at the nuclear industry in order to successfully and safely decommission the 100 operational reactors and the now shut down ones. Unsurprisingly, the nuclear industry had been very optimistic in its estimates of decommissioning costs and timeframes, when the global empirical averages were trending to a billion USD and 100 years per reactor.

Recently I was asked by an Ontario journalist what I thought the likely situation in Ontario would be, and whether the decommissioning trusts were equally underfunded. I was unsurprised to find that Canada is in the same boat as the US, with highly optimistic schedule and cost projections which belie Canadian empirical experience with the CANDU reactor, and that the fund had nowhere near the money necessary for the job. Let’s run the numbers.

Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is the chunk of the provincial utility that was carved apart in the late 1990s by the Mike Harris Conservatives to handle generation alone. It operates 18 aging CANDU reactors across three sites: Bruce, Pickering, and Darlington.

OPG has a nuclear decommissioning fund of about $5 billion CAD or US$4 billion right now. If the experience of other countries on the actual cost of a billion USD per reactor and an actual timeline of decommissioning of a century holds true, and I see no reason why it doesn’t, that means that there is currently a $17.5 billion CAD gap in Ontario, in addition to the existing $19.3 billion CAD in debt still being serviced from their construction. When the government of the era split up the utility, it moved all of the debt off of the components and into general debt. One of the many appropriate and sensible things that the McGuinty Administration did in the 2000s, in addition to shutting down coal generation entirely, was to move the debt back into the utility and set about servicing it from utility bills.

Most of the reactors at Bruce Nuclear are aging out, with several over 40 years old and the remainder approaching 40. Darlington’s are around 30, so they have a bit of runway. Pickering’s reactors are going to be shut down in 2024 and 2025 and start decommissioning in 2028. While refurbishment could bridge Ontario’s for another 20 years in many cases, that’s expensive and typically won’t pass any economic viability assessment compared to alternatives.

The likelihood is that all reactors in Ontario will reach end of life by 2035, and be replaced by some combination of renewable energy and HVDC transmission from neighboring jurisdictions, with both Manitoba and Quebec having excellent, low-carbon hydroelectric to spare…………

So yes, Ontario’s nuclear program will be a fiscal burden on Ontarians to the tune of around $40 billion CAD which will be spent through roughly 2135, finally being paid off by the great-grandchildren of babies born in 2021.

Nuclear, the gift that keeps on giving.

August 9, 2021 Posted by | business and costs, Canada, wastes | 1 Comment

Now, in the times of the UN Nuclear Ban Treaty, nuclear deterrence continues, but becomes increasingly discredited

Nuclear deterrence is an idea that became a potentially lethal ideology, one that remains influential despite having been increasingly discredited…………….

Spectres Of Nuclear ‘MAD’ness: Between Deterrence And Survival – Eurasia Review August 8, 2021K.M. Seethi With the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) in place, is there an optimistic scenario of a nuclear-weapon free world? This might certainly be a difficult but persistently challenging question the world has been grappling with ever since the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were devastated by atomic bombs, way back in 1945. 

Spectres of nuclear holocaust have been haunting political communities across the world even after the end of Cold War. While the world’s most powerful nuclear-weapon states (NWS) have been locked in a military logjam—often characterised as ‘Mutually Assured Destruction’ (MAD)—a few states in Asia (including threshold states like Iran) still get absorbed in the logic of ‘limited nuclear deterrence.’………………

Nukes Accumulation 

Paradoxical it may seem, the Asian continent has again become a hotbed of global nuclear threats with several nuclear-weapon states now spanning fault lines running through East Asia, in the Korean Peninsula, China’s eastern and southern coastline and across the Himalayas in South Asia and West Asia–and all of them presently recalibrating their nuclear profiles. And the share of Asia in the ‘horizontal proliferation’ is quite significant. As per the data brought out by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the NWS—the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Kore—together have in their arsenal an estimated 13,080 nuclear weapons at the beginning of 2021. While Russia (6255) and the U.S. (5550) possess more than 90 per cent of the world’s nuclear weapons, China has 350 weapons in its inventory, followed by France (290), UK (225), Pakistan (165), India (156), Israel (90), and North.

Nuclear Ban Regime 

The efforts seeking a legally mandatory instrument to ban nuclear weapons have long been underway. However, they have found a new relevance in the past decade with the increasing awareness about the humanitarian and environmental costs of use of nuclear arms. ……………… culminated in the passing of a resolution (71/258) by the UN General Assembly in 2017 to negotiate a legally binding instrument to ban nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination. And the Conference was held from 27 to 31 March and from 15 June to 7 July in New York which led to the TPNW.  (Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons)

The Treaty envisages a broad set of regulations for prohibition on partaking in any nuclear weapon programmes and activities. These regulatory clauses stipulate that the signatories shall “not develop, test, produce, acquire, possess, stockpile, use or threaten to use nuclear weapons.” It also forbids “the deployment of nuclear weapons on national territory and the provision of assistance to any State in the conduct of prohibited activities.” The Treaty also makes it mandatory for the signatories “to provide adequate assistance to individuals affected by the use or testing of nuclear weapons, as well as to take necessary and appropriate measure of environmental remediation in areas under its jurisdiction or control contaminated as a result of activities related to the testing or use of nuclear weapons.” 

TPNW was adopted (by a vote of 122 States in favour, with one vote against and one abstention) at the United Nations on 7 July 2017, and opened for signature by the Secretary-General on 20 September 2017. Following the deposit with the Secretary-General of the 50th instrument of ratification or accession of the Treaty on 24 October 2020, it entered into force on 22 January 2021 in accordance with its Article 15 (1). 

‘Consensus’ For Opposition! 

TPNW, which currently has 86 signatory states, has been totally ignored by the NWS and NATO member states. ‘Consensus’ among the NWS in regard to their opposition to the Treaty could also be a grim reminder. For example, in a joint statement made at the First Committee of the 73rd session of the UN General Assembly in October 2018, Russia, China, UK, U.S. and France had informed that they would not sign the TPNW. The statement says: “We will not support, sign or ratify this Treaty. The TPNW will not be binding on our countries, and we do not accept any claim that it contributes to the development of customary international law; nor does it set any new standards or norms. We call on all countries that are considering supporting the TPNW to reflect seriously on its implications for international peace and security.”  ………………………..  

Between Deterrence and Survival 

In his The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy (1989), Lawrence Freedman says, “The Emperor Deterrence may have no clothes, but he is still Emperor.” David Barash adds: “Despite his nakedness, this emperor continues to strut about, receiving deference he doesn’t deserve, while endangering the entire world. Nuclear deterrence is an idea that became a potentially lethal ideology, one that remains influential despite having been increasingly discredited…………….

Way back in 1955, the well-known Russell-Einstein Manifesto had warned of the perils of nuclear weapons. This declaration put across what Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein called “the stark and dreadful and inescapable” problem of the nuclear age: “Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?” Given the continuing proliferation tempo, both vertically and horizontally, peace loving people across the world can never abandon the dream of achieving the elimination of nuclear weapons from the face of the earth. The risk of catastrophic misuse of nuclear weapons, deliberately or―more likely―by accident or miscalculation, is as grave and immediate as it has ever been. And the existential threat nuclear weapons pose to life on this planet is as significant as those of climate change and global pandemic, and in many ways more immediate.   

*The author is Director, Inter University Centre for Social Science Research and Extension (IUCSSRE), Mahatma Gandhi University, Kerala who also served as Dean and Professor of International Relations, MGU.  He can be contacted at

August 9, 2021 Posted by | 2 WORLD, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The ”Think Tanks” that get funding from nuclear weapons makers

The countries, companies and think tanks that support the deadly nuclear arms trade, From ICAN 8 Aug 21, ”’……………Think tank reported income from nuclear weapon producers

Atlantic Council: $835,000 – $1,724,998

Brookings Institution: $275,000 – $549,998

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: $50,000 – 199,998

Center for New American Security: $1,085,000 – $1,874,991

Center for Strategic and International Studies: $1,530,000 – $2,794,997

Fondation pour la recherche stratégique (FRS): amount not specified

French Institute of International Relations: amount not specified

Hudson Institute: $170,000 – $350,000

International Institute of Strategic Studies: $800,640 – $1,146,744

Observer Research Foundation: $71,539

Royal United Services Institute: $610,210 – $1,445,581

Stimson Center: $50,500

Total $5 – 10 million

Download the full report.

Headline photo: “Nuclear Nightmare – Open Your Eyes And Awake !” by Daniel Arrhakis is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0


August 9, 2021 Posted by | 2 WORLD, business and costs, Reference, spinbuster | Leave a comment

Stockton Professor: Nuclear Power is “Terrible Neighbor

Stockton Professor: Nuclear Power is “Terrible Neighbor” By MediaWize – August 8, 2021 By DR. JOHN AITKEN Ph.D., Adjunct Professor of Physics, Stockton University

Opponents of the Ocean Wind turbine project spoke in favor of using nuclear power as an alternative to the wind power at the July 27 Michael Shellenberger presentation sponsored by Save Our Shores in  Ocean City.

The speaker stated that that while climate change is indeed real, the only solution to reducing carbon emissions is nuclear power, contrary to the position of many environmental organizations.

His proposals to pursue solely nuclear power did not mention its disadvantages and costs. Nuclear power operates carbon free as do solar and wind power, but unlike them, nuclear generates large quantities of dangerous waste that are difficult to dispose of and costly to manage.

Nuclear power can supply an unlimited amount of power but creates an unlimited amount of hazardous nuclear waste requiring storage for at least 300 years. Nuclear power may be a useful servant but it is a terrible neighbor.

Take the example of the Oyster Creek nuclear plant 35 miles north of Atlantic City. After approximately 50 years of service it is being decommissioned due to its inability to compete with cheaper natural gas.

In the 1960s, Lacey Township signed up to host the plant. What they did not realize at the time was that they had signed a deal with devil. The town had traded its own long-term safety for the benefits of good paying jobs and reduced property taxes.

Due to environmental and transportation concerns, nuclear waste storage sites in Nevada or Washington state promised by the federal government never materialized, leaving local plants on their own to store their nuclear waste on site for decades if not centuries.

The costs associated with decommissioning the nuclear site, estimated between $800 million and $1.4 billion, are another legacy left by the plant. The original owner/operator of the plant, Exelon, sold the plant to another company who will execute the decommissioning plan. For the rest of this article I will refer to this decommissioning company as DC.

While the project is supported by a decommissioning fund, likely cost overruns will be paid by future generations through their utility bills. The costs cover the removal and deactivation of spent nuclear fuel, control rods, the reactor and associated buildings, which themselves have become radioactive from exposure to radiation.

But now, with decommissioning approaching, the township is paying the piper dearly for the good years. Oyster Creek Nuclear Plant has been shut down. The spent nuclear fuel and radioactive debris from the reactor and the associated buildings will be stored in 68 cylindrical casks, each 22 feet high and 11 feet in diameter, emitting low levels of radiation on the now-defunct site. The casks must remain intact for at least 300 years to allow the radioactivity of the waste inside to decay to handleable levels.

DC is now in charge of the decommissioning project. DC makes no commitment as to how long, decades or even centuries, these casks will have to remain on the Lacey Township site in close proximity to homes and schools.

Nor is there a guarantee that the casks, manufactured by DC, will remain intact during the 300-year storage period. Lacey Township at first sued DC to prevent the storage of these casks on the site. After a long legal battle, Lacey settled the lawsuit with them, acquiescing to the onsite storage on the condition that DC would build and assign another cask for emergency use by the township.

The Lacey Township decision shows it is a virtual prisoner of DC, which now owns the nuclear waste but is also the town’s only hope of restoring the site to radiation-free conditions.

Operating nuclear plants are also a continual hazard to the communities where they are sited. Nuclear plants do not pose a threat of nuclear explosion. Their Achilles heel is the plumbing, which brings water in and out of the reactor vessels.

The water pipes, degraded by the nuclear reactions, develop cracks and eventually leak water with radioactive contaminants. This water can leak into the local water supply and cause cancer or DNA damage to people who drink it.

As shown by the Oyster Creek experience, nuclear power is costly, dangerous and unmanageable. Those in favor of nuclear power should be ready to accept nuclear power stations in their own backyards and relive the Lacey Township experience. Nuclear power makes a terrible neighbor.

August 9, 2021 Posted by | decommission reactor, USA | Leave a comment

Bribing politicians pays off for weapons companies

The countries, companies and think tanks that support the deadly nuclear arms trade, From ICAN 8 Aug 21,

” ………….Company defence contract awards and defence lobby spending in 2020

Aerojet Rocketdyne: Awarded: $132 million Spent lobbying: $2.3 million

Airbus: Awarded: $170 million Spent lobbying: $6.1 million

BAE Systems: Awarded: $10.8 billion ($72.5 million for nuclear weapons) Spent lobbying: $5.6 million

Bechtel: Awarded: $2.9 billion Spent lobbying: $990,000

Boeing: Awarded: $50 billion ($105 million for nuclear weapons) Spent lobbying: $15.6 million

Constructions Industrielles de la Méditerranée (CNIM): Awarded: $39.1 million Spent lobbying: $17,226

Charles Stark Draper Laboratory: Awarded: $443.5 million ($342.3 million for nuclear weapons) Spent lobbying: $120,000

Fluor: Awarded: $3.9 billion Spent lobbying: $5.1 million

General Dynamics: Awarded: $39.4 billion ($10.8 billion for nuclear weapons) Spent lobbying: $13.9 million

Honeywell International: Awarded: $14 billion ($41.6 million for nuclear weapons) Spent lobbying: $7.4 million

Huntington Ingalls Industries: Awarded: $7.4 billion ($53 million for nuclear weapons); Spent lobbying: $5.2 million

Jacobs Engineering: Awarded: $2.6 billion Spent lobbying: $900,000

L3 Harris Technologies: Awarded: $5.6 billion ($60 million for nuclear weapons) Spent lobbying: $200,000

Leidos: Awarded: $10.8 billion Spent lobbying: $2.4 million

Leonardo: Awarded: $728.8 million Spent lobbying: $86,644

Lockheed Martin: Awarded: $124.5 billion ($2.1 billion for nuclear weapons) Spent lobbying: $15 million

Northrop Grumman: Awarded: 29.1 billion ($13.7 billion for nuclear weapons) Spent lobbying: $13.3 million

Raytheon Technologies Corporation: Awarded: $27.5 billion ($450 million for nuclear weapons) Spent lobbying: $15.2 million

Safran: Awarded: $12.3 million Spent lobbying: $382,211

Serco: Awarded: $896 million Spent lobbying: $420,000

Textron: Awarded: $1.8 billion ($3.2 million for nuclear weapons) Spent lobbying: $5.1 million

Total: Awarded: $332 billion ($27.7 billion for nuclear weapons) Spent lobbying: $117 million………


August 9, 2021 Posted by | 2 WORLD, business and costs, weapons and war | Leave a comment

EU optimistic on nuclear deal despite Iran leadership change

EU optimistic on nuclear deal despite Iran leadership change

Agreement is “most likely scenario” says senior official   Politico BY JACOPO BARIGAZZI, August 7, 2021   European Union negotiators are optimistic on the chances of reviving the nuclear deal with Iran, despite the election of hardliner Ebrahim Raisi as the country’s new president, a senior EU official said Saturday.

“We still think that the most likely scenario is an agreement. What I cannot tell you is when and [under] what conditions” said the senior official. 

International negotiators have held six rounds of talks in Vienna to restore full compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal which has been on life support since the Trump administration’s decision to pull out in 2018. The deal curbed Tehran’s nuclear ambitions in exchange for sanctions relief.

Negotiations were paused following the election of Raisi in June. He was sworn in this week to replace the more moderate Hassan Rouhani.  

Contacts this week with Iranian officials on the sidelines of Raisi’s inauguration have not clarified when talks on the nuclear deal will resume or who will be in Tehran’s negotiating team, said the EU official, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the talks………………..

August 9, 2021 Posted by | Iran, politics international | Leave a comment

Towards a clean and sustainable energy system: 26 criteria nuclear power does not meet 

Towards a clean and sustainable energy system: 26 criteria nuclear power does not meet
By Jan HaverkampRead our dossier “Nuclear Power in Europe: 35 Years After the Chernobyl Disaster“.  Nuclear energy has been brought back into the European energy debate due to populist power. Currently, a complex debate is taking place within the EU about whether nuclear power should be part of the Taxonomy for Sustainable Activities. Nuclear energy does not meet a number of basic criteria that should be a requirement of technologies in a sustainable energy policy. It only became clear slowly after the introduction of the first nuclear power plants that nuclear energy does not meet these criteria. In the 1970s, however, this crystallised in a thorough nuclear energy critique on a technical, economic, social and political level. Over the last 50 years, the nuclear industry has not been able to overcome these problems. Certain ways of approaching them have changed, however: some risks have been counteracted by dint of expensive safety and security measures, so that the problem has shifted partly, but still not sufficiently, from risk to costs.

It is currently argued that we should keep existing nuclear power plants open longer to prevent a further exacerbation of the climate problem. It is also argued that we need to build new nuclear power plants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Work is currently underway on a few dozen new nuclear power plant designs that, according to protagonists of nuclear energy, should meet the criteria for a sustainable energy supply. However, these designs have not yet proven their worth in practice.

To determine whether nuclear energy can, or even should, play a role in future energy policy, it must fulfil basic criteria of sustainability.

Product detailsDate of Publication April 2021Publisher Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung European UnionNumber of Pages 34Licence CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0Language of publication EnglishTable of contents


Sustainability criteria that nuclear energy does not meet

A. Technical criteria

B. Economic criteria

C. Social and political criteria

August 9, 2021 Posted by | 2 WORLD, climate change | Leave a comment

Delay in demolition of Three Mile Island Nuclear Station

Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant Demolition Delayed
WKOK Staff | August 8, 2021  MIDDLETOWN – Stateimpact Pennsylvania is reporting…The company responsible for decommissioning the Unit 2 reactor at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant is delaying demolition of the reactor’s two cooling towers, the project director said Wednesday.  Frank Helin told the TMI-2 Community Advisory Panel that the towers will come down in 2022 instead of this fall.The decommissioner, TMI-2 Solutions, is a subsidiary of EnergySolutions, a Utah-based company that tries to turn a profit by dismantling inactive nuclear sites under budget. TMI-2 Solutions acquired the reactor’s license from FirstEnergy in December.  The company plans to start removing what remains of TMI-2’s damaged core by mid-2022. It expects to complete the entire clean-up process by 2037.  EnergySolutions spokesman Mark Walker said the delay in taking down the cooling towers does not affect the rest of the process…………

 Eric Epstein, chair of the watchdog group Three Mile Island Alert, said that while he is not concerned about the cooling towers, he believes the reactor building may have more radioactive material than the company is prepared to deal with.

“Our concern is making sure that the plant is finally cleaned up 42 years later,” he said. “We don’t believe the company that owns TMI-2 has the technology, the expertise, or the resources to clean the plant up.”  On its website, TMI-2 Solutions says it anticipates the project will cost $1.06 billion. It says the trust fund dedicated to the reactor’s decommissioning contains about $877 million, but that fund growth over time will provide enough money to cover the costs.

August 9, 2021 Posted by | decommission reactor, USA | Leave a comment

Apocalyptic scenes hit Greece, as Athens besieged by fire

Little had prepared any of us on the Athens-bound flight for the sight of
the great fire-induced clouds that swept either side of the plane as it
made its descent on Friday. News of the extreme heat engulfing Greece had
spread beyond its borders all week, packaged in increasingly desperate

Temperatures were breaking records few had ever imagined. If
Monday was bad, then Tuesday was worse. In some parts of the country, the
mercury had hit 47C (117F), with thermal cameras on drones recording the
ground temperature in downtown Athens at 55C.

By Wednesday, we were hearing
that entire tracts of suburban forest on the Greek capital’s northern
fringes had gone up in flames. Infernos seemingly redolent of Dante’s
hell had incinerated everything in their path; friends had lost homes;
thousands had been evacuated with residents and tourists fleeing blighted
zones by any means possible. Terraces, an Athenian’s respite against the
blazing heat, had been transformed into ash-laden no-go zones.

 Guardian 7th Aug 2021

August 9, 2021 Posted by | climate change, Greece | Leave a comment