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

Nuclear Power is Not Carbon-Free

January 22, 2022 Posted by | Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Why are they all buying into the fantasy of ”new nuclear”, and propping up ”old nuclear” – theme for January 2022?

The Bitter Truth

is that the ”peaceful” ”economically viable” nuclear industry is clearly failing.

All nuclear nations are devoted to their nuclear weapons industry. So the commercial nuclear industry must be kept alive – as it is essential to the weapons industry, including in space.

The other reasons.

The macho men and ”visionary” billionaires must see their dreams fulfilled – at tax-payer expense, of course.

It is too costly to shut down old big nuclear reactors, – by propping them up – extending their licences – those costs are passed on to our grandchildren.

The slick, smart, amoral, lobbying gang are ever on the job, feeding nuclear spin to media, politicians, and us.

They have no conscience, and no wisdom, and they sure don’t care about our grandchildren.


January 22, 2022 Posted by | Christina's themes, marketing of nuclear | 1 Comment

Washington pumping up war fever 

Washington pumping up war fever  It’s nonstop in the western media. The message – war with Russia is coming. 

An American friend of mine, now living in Russia, has two sons in the US Army. One of them said to him today, “your two sons are going to be fighting your beloved Russia.” So the troops are obviously being told to prepare for war. One of those sons, an Army Special Forces soldier has been sent to western Ukraine several times to train the Nazi death squads that have been brought into the Ukrainian  Army since the US orchestrated coup d’état in 2014.

Russia has repeatedly stated that they have no intention of invading Ukraine – unless Ukraine first strikes Crimea or the Donbass (eastern Ukraine that borders Russia where two Russian-ethnic republics are located that have continually been targets of the right-wing Kiev government since 2014).

Russia constantly says they have no desire to take over the failed Ukrainian state – in fact Moscow says that the US-NATO have driven that country into the ground since the 2014 coup and they should help it recover. But the Washington agenda is chaos – just like Iraq, Syria, Libya and other places US-NATO have destroyed with their ‘freedom war machine’.

Let’s take a moment and look at possible reasons for the US-NATO daily agitation for war.

  • The western corporate powers see their reign as ‘global rulers’ rapidly vanishing and know this is the last chance to bring down Russia and China before the ‘multi-polar’ world comes into fruition in the next few years. 
  • The west is led by evil, psychopaths who thirst for war. The neo-cons come to mind.
  • It’s all a big public relations scheme to create a rare ‘win’ for the west. If Russia does not invade Ukraine then the US-NATO can claim it was all because they stood up to the ‘Russian bear’, proving that their out-of-date alliance still has a role in the world today. 
  • Western oligarchs can’t stand to let Russia have all those natural resources in the Arctic that are becoming possible to extract due to melting ice. So Russia must be broken up into smaller nations giving Mr. Big the chance to make the grab. See the RAND Corporation study that lays out the plan to balkanize Russia here. Thus there is no stopping this rush to war.
  • US-NATO are bluffing. It’s all a great distraction to help take the heat off Big Pharma’s global vaccine campaign and growing international economic problems.
  • You pick – give us your take in the comments.

  • Now let’s review some of the reasons why war might be avoided.

  • If the US-NATO really went to full blown war with Russia then it would likely go nuclear. China would probably be pulled in. If this happens forget covid – kiss your family good-bye. Is the US-NATO stupid enough to try this? Yes they are but there are some sensible leaders in Europe who know this would not be such a great idea. Let’s hope they have the stuff it takes to help shut down this insanity.
  • The US-NATO constant aggression is a big money maker for the military industrial complex so this current war talk is a cash cow for them. But they are not stupid and know that nuclear war does not help their profit line.
  • Think back to 2003 and George W. Bush’s ill-fated ‘shock and awe’ attack on Iraq that turned that nation into a chaotic failed state. Prior to the US-UK attack there were massive protests around the world for peace.

This time, as Washington-Brussels do their daily war-prep media barrage, there are few global protests. In fact there are some in the ‘US peace movement’ who buy the hype and believe Russia wants to remake the Soviet Union by invading Europe. Anyone who is actually paying real attention at this moment knows that story line is bullshit. But sadly some who should be protesting US-NATO provocations and aggression are not doing so. This weakens our ability to stop WW III.

I hope and pray that more people will speak out – and soon. Our lives depend on your courage and your action.

January 22, 2022 Posted by | politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Just a reminder. Russia did not INVADE Crimea.

Bruce Gagnon, 21 Jan 22, Russia did not invade Crimea. They had a long-term lease with Ukraine that allowed over 20,000 military personnel at the Russian navy and air bases there.
The Russian-ethnic people of Crimea self-organized a referendum and voted 96% to seek to rejoin Russia. They saw the 2014 Nazi-led take over in Kiev during the US orchestrated coup and wanted nothing to do with the ‘new Ukraine’ regime.
See this excellent film produced by Oliver Stone

January 22, 2022 Posted by | politics international, Reference, Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

On 24 January, UK High Court will decide if Julian Assange can appeal against extradition

The UK High Court will deliver its decision on Monday 24 January on whether to permit Julian Assange to appeal the US extradition decision to the UK’s Supreme Court #FreeAssangeNOW

January 22, 2022 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Nuclear energy too costly for humans — and the planet 

But this [France’s small nuclear reactor] plan has a whole range of shortcomings, not least because reaching the same capacity as a single large nuclear reactor requires a great deal of these small reactors.

This high number will increase the risk of a nuclear accident many time over,” the German Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management (BASE) recently warned

“Without civilian nuclear power, there is no military nuclear power, and without military nuclear power, there is no civilian nuclear power,” Macron said.

Nuclear energy too costly for humans — and the planet 21 Jan 22

Nuclear power will soon be classified as environmentally friendly under the new EU taxonomy. But nothing about it is green or safe, says DW’s Jeannette Cwienk.

I can still clearly recall that spring afternoon in late April 1986. I had been out playing in the woods and building a fort with some friends, when a rain shower forced us back home. It was a fun, carefree day.

We had no idea that just hours earlier, reactor number 4 at the Chernobyl power plant near the Ukrainian city of Pripyat had exploded.

When the news came out days later, the Chernobyl catastrophe and fears of a radiation-filled future quickly came to define my younger years.

Such memories, however, are not the only reason for my concern about the European Commission’s proposal to include nuclear energy and natural gas as environmentally-friendly technology in the EU taxonomy.

Doing so would see nuclear energy classified as sustainable, and recommend it as an option for investors — making a mockery of environmental efforts.

Who will pay for nuclear accidents?

The EU Commission is completely ignoring the costs of nuclear energy. Quite apart from the funds required to build new nuclear power plants, even smaller ones, there is the far more important and apparently overlooked question of who would foot the bill in the event of an accident.


In Germany alone, the federal costs attached to the consequences of the Chernobyl catastrophe have been estimated at around €1 billion ($1.1 billion). Worldwide, the immediate economic ramifications of Chernobyl are estimated to have been more than €200 billion — and that doesn’t include the cost of widespread related illness. 

Health costs were also not included in the €177-billion bill linked to the consequences of the March 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, as estimated by the Japanese government in 2017.

Most of these costs have since been covered by Japanese taxpayers, because the operating company, TEPCO, was de facto nationalized after the disaster to avoid insolvency.

Taxpayers will be forced to foot the bill

And this brings us to the heart of the problem: in Europe, the amounts that nuclear operators are required to set aside in case they’re found liable for a nuclear accident are laughably small. In the Czech Republic, nuclear power plant operators are required to have €74 million on hand in case of an accident; in Hungary, the figure is €127 million.

Even in France, the driving force for the planned “greening” of European nuclear energy and the largest consumer of nuclear energy worldwide — it makes up around 70% of its energy supply — operators are only required to set aside €700 million in case of an accident. A large nuclear accident in Europe could easily cost between €100 and 430 billion. And should that happen, the affected countries — along with their taxpayers — will be forced to foot the bill.

This situation has been met with criticism by Germany’s new finance minister and the leader of the neoliberal Free Democrat Party, Christian Lindner, who recently expressed skepticism about the place of nuclear energy in the new EU taxonomy.

“An energy source that can only be mainstream if the state is prepared to accept liability — that’s a sign from the market that it can’t be a sustainable energy source,” he said.

On Friday, the German government is likely to vote against the EU Commission’s plans — and rightly so. Austria and Luxembourg, on the other hand, have gone a courageous step further and have announced plans to take Brussels to court if the disputed sustainability plans go ahead.

Small modular reactors also a risk

In France, meanwhile, President Emmanuel Macron likes to describe nuclear power as a “stroke of luck” for climate protection. The fact that 10 of the country’s reactors are currently offline — three from the latest generation due to safety concerns — are apparently not an issue for the French government, which has been trying to allay the fears of a nuclear accident with new small modular reactors (SMR). These smaller power stations are only around one 10th of the size of a conventional nuclear site — and therefore are considered less dangerous, in the event of an accident.

But this plan has a whole range of shortcomings, not least because reaching the same capacity as a single large nuclear reactor requires a great deal of these small reactors.

“This high number will increase the risk of a nuclear accident many time over,” the German Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management (BASE) recently warned.

Is it really about climate protection?

BASE has also been critical of a report by the EU’s Joint Research Center, which the EU Commission has used to make its assessment about the environmental friendliness of civil nuclear power.

The EU report only partially considers the risks of nuclear energy use for humans and the environment, as well as for future generations, and some of the principles of scientific work are not correctly taken into account. According to BASE, the report cannot be relied on to comprehensively assess the sustainability of nuclear energy use.

This has raised doubts over the claim that Brussels wants to include nuclear power in the new EU taxonomy primarily for climate protection reasons. Instead, the decision seems to be down to political pressure, especially from Paris.

As a global nuclear power, France wants to hold on to its nuclear plants at all costs, as Macron clearly stated in December.

“Without civilian nuclear power, there is no military nuclear power, and without military nuclear power, there is no civilian nuclear power,” he said.

January 22, 2022 Posted by | climate change, EUROPE | Leave a comment

U.N. Treaty on the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons – in force one year , by January 22

Guest columnist Susan Lantz: A world without nuclear weapons,, By SUSAN LANTZ 1/21/2022 

Jan. 22 is the one-year anniversary of the U.N. Treaty on the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons entering into force as international law. Today, 59 countries have ratified the Treaty on the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons, with several more countries on the verge of doing the same. The importance of this cannot be overstated. With more and more countries outlawing everything to do with nuclear weapons, it becomes increasingly harder for the nine countries possessing these weapons to defend their continued existence.

While it’s long been illegal, under all military laws, to use nuclear weapons, the Treaty on the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons now also outlaws development, testing, production, stockpiling, stationing, transferring, and threatening to use nuclear weapons. These stipulations put teeth into this treaty as the ratifying countries will no longer allow any nuclear weapons to be stored within their boundaries, cross their lands or allow any nuclear parts to be manufactured within their confines. The nine nuclear-armed nations are already feeling the pressure of international will.

For instance, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy are all likely to sign onto the Treaty on the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons eventually, with strong support already in their populations and parliaments. The United States currently has nuclear weapons in Belgium, Germany and Italy. After these countries ratify the treaty, the United States will be required to remove its weapons.

Nuclear Weapons along with Climate Change pose the two greatest existential threats to our civilization, our planet, and life as we know it. Within seconds, a nuclear holocaust could become reality by design or by accident.  Many close calls have been recorded in our history of nuclear weapons over the years. There is absolutely no safe way to have them exist, as one misstep and life as we know it is doomed on our planet. Humans, plants, trees, animals could cease to exist in a radiation-filled landscape and atmosphere. Nuclear weapons are way too powerful for mere mortals to control.

So friends, celebrate this very significant anniversary of the Treaty on the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons. It brings us closer to a world without nuclear weapons and therefore a safer, saner place to inhabit. Join us this Saturday, Jan. 22 in Northampton in front of the courthouse on Main Street or in Greenfield on the Common, from 11 a.m. to noon. Bring your signs, banners, whistles, pots, pans. Bring your support, and celebrate, knowing that the peoples’ will is beginning to be heard.

Susan Lantz lives in Easthampton.

January 22, 2022 Posted by | Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Small nuclear reactors a poor solution for UK’s and the world’s climate action.

it is difficult to see how a technology that will only be operational after the UK power system is supposed to be carbon-free will contribute to climate action in the next ten years or so. And the situation is similar globally.

Other questions around traditional nuclear power stations, such as the thorny issue of waste, would also still apply to SMRs…….

Is nuclear power the best solution to climate change? The UK, like China, the US and Canada, is attracted to nuclear power. But high costs and slow delivery means many energy experts remain unconvinced. New Statesman, By Philippa Nuttall 21 Jan 22,  debate in the House of Commons on 19 January, led by a group of MPs known as the “atomic kittens”, suggested nuclear energy can be a panacea for all ills – including a solution for the climate crisis and the gas crunch. The facts suggest otherwise.

Isn’t nuclear energy a no-no after Chernobyl and Fukushima?

Disasters clearly reduce appetite among the public and policymakers for nuclear power………………

Today, new nuclear construction projects are few and far between, even in countries such as France and the US whose energy systems are heavily reliant on the technology, and the number of operational reactors is in decline globally.

Are any countries investing heavily in nuclear?

In addition to safety concerns, rising costs are a central reason why the number of new plants under construction remains limited. Since 2011, nuclear power construction costs globally have doubled or even tripled. China is, however, notable in its nuclear ambitions. The country is planning at least 150 new reactors in the next 15 years, more than the rest of the world has built in the past 35, though cost could ultimately change this direction of travel.

The price of nuclear generation has moved in the opposite direction to solar and wind

Mean levelised cost of energy in US$/MWh, 2009–20………..

Others countries such as the UK, the US and Canada also see a limited role for new nuclear as part of their response to climate change. The UK government in its 2021 net zero strategy talked about “cutting edge new nuclear power stations”, and plans to launch a £120m Future Nuclear Enabling Fund.

There are some big nuclear power stations on the cards – think Hinkley Point C or Sizewell C in the UK. But the major excitement among many nuclear enthusiasts, including plenty of UK MPs is around so-called small modular reactors (SMRs). If you believe the hype, they are the answer to all climate and energy ills………………

Rolls Royce, and companies working on the technology in other countries, argue that smaller solutions can be constructed more cheaply and come online more quickly as they can be built in a factory, transported in modules and fitted together “like meccano”, said Rolls Royce’s Alastair Evans. Large nuclear plants are built fully onsite. The idea is that the modules could then be mass produced. However, nothing is rolling off any conveyor belts yet. The only SMR up and running in the world is a 35 MW floating nuclear plant in Russia.

Sounds interesting. Are SMRs the solution to the climate crisis?


“To meet the requirements of the sixth carbon budget, we will need all new cars, vans and replacement boilers to be zero carbon in operation by the early 2030s,” Virginia Crosbie, a Conservative MP from Wales and the original self-proclaimed “atomic kitten”, enthused to fellow MPs. “We must quickly move away from generating that electricity from fossil fuels… Nuclear power, which has been a neglected part of our energy mix, can bridge the gap.”

There is, however, no silver bullet to the climate crisis, and renewables, in conjunction with other existing technologies, look like a better, cheaper solution.

……….. traditional, big nuclear projects look likely to provide only a sliver of the world’s electricity in the future. They are hugely expensive to build, their construction runs over time, and they are frequently struck by technological issues. Moreover, they need to be built close to the sea or a large river for cooling reasons, highlighted Paul Dorfman from the University of Sussex. France has already had to curtail nuclear power output in periods of heatwaves and drought, which are only set to get worse as climate change takes hold. Greater storm surges and eroding coastlines also don’t make the prospect of building by the sea any easier.

SMRs solve few of these issues………… “The latest economic estimates available for SMRs are still quite expensive relative to other ‘clean’ energy alternatives, and it would be pure speculation to assume that will change dramatically until the concept has been more proven,” said Mike Hogan from the not-for-profit Regulatory Assistance Project.

……. the designs still need to get licensed, factories need to be built, orders placed, projects financed, etc,” said Hogan.

In short, it is difficult to see how a technology that will only be operational after the UK power system is supposed to be carbon-free will contribute to climate action in the next ten years or so. And the situation is similar globally.

Other questions around traditional nuclear power stations, such as the thorny issue of waste, would also still apply to SMRs…….

So what is the solution? Renewables, renewables and more renewables?

In short, yes. The costs of solar, wind power and storage continue to fall, and by 2026 global renewable electricity capacity is forecast to rise by more than 60 per cent, to a level that would equal the current total global power capacity of fossil fuels and nuclear combined, says the IEA.

Some argue nuclear can be a clean back-up option for when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun isn’t shining. But again, other options already exist, including demand response (for example, plugging in your electric car when there is lots of energy and not switching on your washing machine when the system is under strain), large-scale storage and interconnections between different countries.  

Final word?

Craig Bennett, chief executive of the Wildlife Trusts, summed up the general mood of those less enthused by nuclear than Crosbie and her fans:

“If successive governments had given even half the love and attention they afford to nuclear power to scaling up home insulation, energy efficiency and smart storage technologies, it’s likely we wouldn’t be facing current challenges around energy and household bills, and we would have done a lot more good for the climate and nature.”…..

January 22, 2022 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

France’s nuclear waste problem, and the lack of transparency on military wastes

“The lack of transparency on military nuclear waste poses a serious democratic problem” To guarantee access to the information that is lacking on the subject of the dismantling of the installations, “parliamentary involvement” is essential, believe the director of the Armaments Observatory, Patrice Bouveret, and the spokesperson for ICAN France, Jean -Marie Collin, in a forum in Le Monde.

 Le Monde 20th Jan 2022

January 22, 2022 Posted by | France, wastes | Leave a comment

Largest increase in the UK nuclear liability regime for 50 years 

Largest increase in the UK nuclear liability regime for 50 years take,, 21 Jan 22,  As we flagged last year in this note, the 2004 Protocols updating the Paris Convention and Brussels Convention have finally been ratified. This is likely the biggest increase in the international nuclear liability regime for decades, and has global impact.

In the UK this means that the Nuclear Installations (Liability for Damage) Order 2016 came into effect on 1 January 2022. This immediately increases the liability cap of nuclear operators in the UK from £140m to €700m (approx. £585m), with those caps increasing annually over the next five years to €1.2bn (approx. £1bn). The UK also now has a new operator duty of care not to cause significant impairment to the environment, new categories of compensation for which an operator will be liable (including loss of profit in some instances), and material extensions to the geographical scope covered by the regime (e.g. now including the Republic of Ireland).

The extension of the limitation period for personal injury to 30 years from the date of the incident is likely the one with the largest impact after it became clear last year that insurance would not be available to cover the full period, at least for the time being. The UK Government instead stepping in and indemnifying operators to cover the insurance gap using the powers granted to the Secretary of State under the amended Nuclear Installations Act 1965.

Similar changes to the liability regime in certain other European and Scandinavian signatory countries should also have taken effect.

Please see our detailed note on the topic here for further information.

[View source.]

January 22, 2022 Posted by | Legal, Reference, UK | Leave a comment

Scientists trace the path of radioactive cesium in the ecosystem of Fukushima

Scientists trace the path of radioactive cesium in the ecosystem of Fukushima

by National Institute for Environmental Studies  In 2011, the nuclear accident at Fukushima, Japan, resulted in the deposit of radioactive cesium (radiocesium) into habitats in the vicinity. A decade after the accident, researchers from the National Institute of Environmental Studies, Japan, have collated the complicated dynamics of radiocesium within forest-stream ecosystems. Understanding radiocesium flow in the environment could help mitigate contamination and inform future containment strategies.

In the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear accident, the Japanese government performed intensive decontamination in the human-occupied parts of the affected area by removing soil surface layers. But a major affected region consists of dense, uninhabited forests, where such decontamination strategies are not feasible. So, finding ways to avoid the spread of radioactive contaminants like radiocesium to areas of human activity that lie downstream to these contaminated forests is crucial.

The first step to this is to understand the dynamics of radiocesium flow through forest-stream ecosystems. In the decade since the accident, a vast body of research has been dedicated to doing just that. Scientists from the National Institute of Environmental Studies, Japan, sifted through the data and detangled the threads of individual radiocesium transport processes in forest-stream ecosystems. “We identified that radiocesium accumulates primarily in the organic soil layer in forests and in stagnant water in streams, thereby making them potent sources for contaminating organisms. Contamination management in these habitats is crucial to provisioning services in forest-stream ecosystems,” says Dr. Masaru Sakai, who led the study. The findings of this study was made available online on 6 July 2021 and published in volume 288 of the journal Environmental Pollution on 1st November 2021.

The research team reviewed a broad range of scientific research on radiocesium in forests and streams to identify regions of radiocesium accumulation and storage. After the accident, radiocesium was primarily deposited onto the forest canopy and forest floor. This radiocesium reaches the earth eventually—through rainfall and falling leaves—where it builds up in the upper layers of the soil. Biological activities, such as those of detritivores (insects and fungi that live off leaf debris etc.) ensure that radiocesium is circulated through the upper layers of the soil and subsequently incorporated into plants and fungi. This allows radiocesium to enter the food web, eventually making its way into higher organisms. Radiocesium is chemically similar to potassium, an essential mineral in living organisms, contributing to its uptake in plants and animals. “Fertilizing” contaminated areas with an excess of potassium provides an effective strategy to suppress the biological absorption of radiocesium.

Streams and water bodies in the surrounding area get their share of radiocesium from runoff and fallen leaves. Most radiocesium in streams is likely to be captured by the clay minerals on stream beds, but a small part dissolves in the water. Unfortunately, there is little information on the relationship between dissolved radiocesium and aquatic organisms, like fish, which could be important to the formulation of contamination management strategies. Radiocesium in streams also accumulates in headwater valleys,pools, and other areas of stagnant water. Constructions such as reservoir dams provide a way to effectively trap radiocesium but steady leaching from the reservoir sediments causes re-contamination downstream.

This complicated web of radiocesium transport is hard to trace, making the development of a one-stop solution to radiocesium contamination impossible. Dr. Sakai and team recommend interdisciplinary studies to accelerate a full understanding of radiocesium pathways in forest-stream ecosystems so that measures can be developed to reduce future contamination. “This review can serve as basal knowledge for exploring future contamination management strategies. The tangled radiocesium pathways documented here may also imply the difficulties of creating successful radiation contamination management strategies after unwished-for nuclear accidents,” explains Dr. Sakai.

Nuclear power is often touted as a solution to the energy crisis, but it is important to plan response measures to unpredictable contamination events. To address the essential need for clean energy in view of the climate crisis, contamination management in societies depending on nuclear power is integral. Fully understanding the behavior of radiocesium in ecosystems can not only lead to the successful management of existing contamination but can also ensure the swift containment of potential future accidents.

January 22, 2022 Posted by | environment, Fukushima continuing, Reference | Leave a comment

France’s nuclear company EDF accused of cover-ups over ‘serious and unexpected’ corrosion on Tricastin and other reactors.

“Hugo”, nuclear whistleblower: “I accuse EDF of cover-ups”. “With this
type of attitude, our power plants are not safe”: the shocking testimony of
a member of the management of the Tricastin nuclear power plant, worried
that the culture of nuclear safety is taking a back seat to financial
imperatives within the EDF group.

 Mediapart 19th Jan 2022

 Nuclear reactors shut down due to ‘serious and unexpected’ corrosion
problem. EDF, which operates the French power plants, should say by the end
of January whether other facilities in the fleet could be affected by this
as yet unexplained anomaly.

 Le Monde 19th Jan 2022

January 22, 2022 Posted by | France, secrets,lies and civil liberties | Leave a comment

2021 was one of the hottest years on record – and it could also be the coldest we’ll ever see again

2021 was one of the hottest years on record – and it could also be the coldest we’ll ever see again
Andrew King, 21 Jan 22,

Well, it’s official: 2021 was one of the planet’s seven hottest years since records began, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) declared this week. The year was about 1.11℃ above pre-industrial levels – the seventh year in a row that the average global temperature rise edged over 1℃.

January 22, 2022 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Hinkley Point mud dredging and dumping plan faces a legal challenge

Hinkley Point dredging plan for Portishead faces legal challenge. Plans to
dump hundreds of thousands of tonnes of sediment from Hinkley Point into
the Bristol Channel at Portishead face a legal challenge.

Environmental groups represented by Tarian Hafren say the Marine Management Organisation
unlawfully varied EDF Energy’s licence to deposit dredged material at the
Severn Estuary Marine Protection Area. The disposal site is close to
Portbury Wharf Salt Marsh, a Site of Special Scientific Interest and part
of the Severn Estuary Special Protection Area. Tarian Hafren argues that
the MMO did not have the statutory power to change the licence for dredging
to include dumping, did not give adequate reasons for doing so, failed to
examine the potential impact of the dredging on marine life, and ignored a
less harmful method of waste disposal.

High Court judge Beverley Lang ruled
that the grounds for a judicial review are arguable and the claim will be
heard this spring. Cian Ciaran for Tarian Hafren said: “The Welsh
National Marine Plan accepts no dumping in the Welsh half of the estuary,
but the Welsh authorities failed to press MMO to comply on the English
side. “As Geiger Bay, we established at court in 2018 that the Welsh
authorities were wrong to license dumping near Cardiff. Let’s now compel
the MMO to respect the protected status that’s needed for both fish
stocks and wildlife.”

 Somerset Live 20th Jan 2022

January 22, 2022 Posted by | Legal, UK | Leave a comment

France’s nuclear regulator warns on the ”security fragility” of both the reactors, and the reprocessing system

“The continued operation of EDF’s nuclear reactors should not be the
adjustment variable for French energy policy”. In an interview with “Le
Monde”, Bernard Doroszczuk, the president of the Nuclear Safety Authority,
warns about the lack of margins in terms of security of electricity supply.

First, the president of the Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN), Bernard
Doroszczuk, wishes to underline a reassuring point. Despite the
complications due to the health crisis, “the level of nuclear safety and
radiation protection was completely satisfactory in 2021, he says in the
preamble to his interview with Le Monde. In particular the conduct of the
fourth ten-yearly inspections of the oldest reactors”.

The French nuclear “policeman” however warns against “an unprecedented double
fragility”: both for the reactors, but also for the installations which
manufacture, reprocess or recover the fuel.

 Le Monde 19th Jan 2022

January 22, 2022 Posted by | Germany, politics | Leave a comment