This week in nuclear news
A bit of nearly good news. On International Women’s Day we can reflect that, in some parts of the world, justice and equality for women continue to improve. Also, the role of women in addressing climate change is becoming apparent – WOMEN LEADING THE FIGHT AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE. In the nuclear-free movement, too, women continue to show their leadership – going on from Dr Rosalie Bertell, Alice Stewart, to Setsuko Thurlow , (pictured above), Dr Helen Caldicott , Beatrice Fihn, Linda Pentz Gunter and so many more. Their work has slowed, if not yet stopped, the development of the nuclear horror.
Ralph Nader: Everyone Loses in the Conflict Over Ukraine
Now Is the Time for a Global Movement Demanding Nuclear De-escalation. Freedom & Democracy Via Censorship. NATO Intervention In Ukraine Could Spark Nuclear War. Here’s How It Could Happen. The US and NATO’s Sacrifice Of Ukraine.
As Russia’s Ukraine war intensifies, some warn nuclear escalation is possible. Russia’s nuclear alert means Nato must tread carefully. Countries Flood Ukraine With Military Support After Zelensky’s Appeal.
Noam Chomsky: US Military Escalation Against Russia Would Have No Victors. How the U.S. Started a Cold War with Russia and Left Ukraine to Fight It. Calling Russia’s Attack ‘Unprovoked’ Lets USA Off the Hook. Mapping the unthinkable: inside the new nuclear war games. A fatal disconnect? the different narratives of Russia and the West on the Ukraine crisis. Ukraine war – a great opportunity – each new NATO country was a new customer for the weapons industry.
Kevin Rudd on the ‘decisive decade’ between USA and China. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeZBMvyJ9bU
The US and NATO have never been sanctioned for starting wars. Why? — RT World News.
UKRAINE. The situation at Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station. ‘Grave concern’ as Ukraine Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant under Russian orders. The Risks of Russian Attacks near Ukraine Nuclear Power Plants. Fire Is Out at Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Plant Seized by Russian Forces, Officials Watch for Leaks. Ukraine: Fire breaks out at Europe’s largest nuclear power plant. The very perilous situation of Ukraine’s nuclear power stations. Greenpeace analysis of nuclear power plant vulnerability during military conflict – Key Findings https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEqpc1b03rs . New analysis on severe nuclear hazards at Zaporizhzhia plant in Ukraine– only solution is immediate end to war. Russian military claims Chernobyl nuclear plant under joint protection with Ukrainian forces. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noFe_iNnAbk. Setting the record straight on the background to events in Ukraine. Western govt, media, and public, ignorant about the complex history of Ukraine.
JAPAN.
Japan’s Supreme Court rules on damages for people whose lives were disrupted by Fukushima nuclear catastrophe. The Fukushima disaster ruined their lives. The Fukushima taboo
Chain cutting device breaks off this time, and no progress in removing contaminated piping at TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant . TEPCO begins removal of pipes contaminated at the time of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident.
Radioactive waste stuck at 830 sites with nowhere to go. Greenpeace says Fukushima dismantling, dumping not credible. Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning: “It is Impossible to Foresee the End Date” says the Nuclear Regulation Commission. Statement by Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Japan Atomic Energy Agency: 11 Years of Oblivion: An Alarming Abandonment of a Culture of Safety,
FINLAND. Experts: Finnish nuclear project “directly supports Russian nuclear weapon production”.
IRAN. Russia still part of Iran nuclear talks, US hopes for progress, White House says.
UK. British government searching for investors, needs to raise billions of pounds for Sizewell nuclear project. Coal and Nuclear Interests Linked — RADIATION FREE LAKELAND LAKELAND
AUSTRALIA. Australian Security Policy Institute – funded by weapons corporations, and federal govt – drumming up the frenzy for war with China. Australia’s Defence Department silent about its slippery dealings using tax-payers’ money, involving Russian contractors . While Scott Morrison froths against Putin, Australia rushes to become a top weapons seller to the world.
NATO Intervention In Ukraine Could Spark Nuclear War. Here’s How It Could Happen
NATO Intervention In Ukraine Could Spark Nuclear War. Here’s How It Could Happen,The Federsalist, BY: HARRY KAZIANIS, MARCH 04, 2022
In the simulation we mapped out, not only does NATO get sucked in unintentionally, but Russia releases nuclear weapons in its desperation.
How did we just kill a billion people?”
Over just three days, as I have done countless times over the last several years, a group of past and present senior U.S. government officials from both sides of the aisle gathered to wage a NATO-Russia war in a simulation at the end of 2019. In the course of what we called the NATO-Russia War of 2019, we estimated one billion people died. And if we aren’t careful, what happened in a simulation could happen if a NATO-Russia war erupts over Ukraine.
In fact, in the simulation I mentioned above from 2019, in which Russia invades Ukraine in a similar way as it did over the last week or so, not only does NATO get sucked in unintentionally, but Russia eventually releases nuclear weapons in its desperation. The result is an eventual escalation of bigger and more dangerous nuclear weapons whereby over one billion lives are lost.
But before we start staring into the abyss, allow me to explain the goal of such simulations. NATO clearly would have a massive conventional advantage in any war with Moscow, ensuring that in a straight-up fight Putin would lose. However, Russia has stated time and time again it will use nuclear weapons to defend its territory and its regime if it feels mortally threatened. Our simulation always seems to ask: Can we ever defeat Russian President Vladamir Putin in an armed conflict over Ukraine or the Baltics and not start a nuclear war in the process?
So far, over at least several years, and with at least 100 different participants that all held different ideas about war and political allegiances, the answer is a flat out no.
Setting the Scene for War
The scenario the group decided to test back in late 2019 was similar to today: The scenario the group decided to test back in late 2019 was similar to today: Russia decided to invade Ukraine under the excuse that it is must defend Russian-speaking peoples that are being “oppressed” by Ukraine’s fascist government. In our scenario, we assumed Russia performs far more admirably than it does today but has more limited objectives, in that Moscow wants to connect Crimea to separatist regions in Eastern Ukraine that are under its effective control. We assumed that Russia does that quickly, achieving most of its military objectives in roughly four days.
But Ukraine does not give up so easily, just like in real life today. Ukrainian forces, after taking heavy losses, mount an impressive counterattack, whereby Russia loses over 100 tanks and over 2,500 soldiers. Images on social media show Russian armor ablaze, elite Su-35 fighter jets are shut down from the skies, and arms are now flowing in from the West in massive numbers.
Putin is outraged. He thought Ukraine would simply roll over, but he does not factor into his calculus the nearly decades-long training Kyiv received from the U.S. and NATO nor Ukraine’s military build-up for the last several years that was focused on this scenario.
Russia then decides that its limited military objectives were a mistake, and that all of Ukraine must be “demilitarized.” Moscow then launches a massive ballistic and cruise missile strike followed up by Russia’s air force launching its own shock and awe campaign, destroying a vast majority of Ukraine’s command and control structure, air force, air defense, and armored units in the process. At the same time, Russia starts surging troops to the borders of Ukraine in what looks like an imminent general invasion and occupation of the entire country.
The Spark
Here is where things take a turn for the worst. A Russian ballistic missile’s guidance system fails and crash-lands into NATO member Poland, killing 34 civilians as it tragically lands into a populated village along the Polish-Ukraine border. While the missile was not directed at Poland intentionally, pictures on social media show children crying for their mothers and bodies left unrecognizable, and demands for justice and revenge mount.
To its credit, Poland, which has its own tortured history with the Soviet Union and Russia, does its best to show restraint. While not responding with its own military, it leads an effort to see that Moscow pays a steep price for its aggression in Ukraine and actions, even unintentional, in Poland. Warsaw leads a diplomatic and economic boycott of Moscow resulting in Russia being kicked out of SWIFT as well as direct sanctions on Russian banks, similar to what we are seeing today.
In our scenario, Russia’s reaction is also swift. Moscow decides to launch a massive cyber attack on Poland, having based cyber warriors all throughout NATO territory, using their geography and proxy servers to mask the origin of the attack. Russia, in just two hours, takes off-line Poland’s entire electrical grid, banking sector, energy plants, and more — essentially taking Poland back to the stone age.
And this is where the nightmare begins. Even though attribution is hard to achieve, Poland appeals to NATO and starts to privately share its desire to invoke Article 5 of the NATO Charter, declaring that an attack on one is an attack on the entire alliance. NATO is worried, as there is debate on how far to punish Russia while also feeling as if they do not have a clear military objective amongst the member states as some want to respond to what happened to Poland while others feel they must intervene militarily in Ukraine.
The Response
Here is where NATO surprises everyone. The alliance decides to set up a limited no-fly zone around the Ukrainian city of Lviv to protect innocent civilians and refugees that are trapped and have nowhere to go. Russia is warned: NATO is not intervening in the conflict, but will ensure that its planes and the airspace around Lviv are protected. NATO does make clear its jets will be in the skies above Ukraine, but will not operate from Ukrainian territory.
In Moscow, Putin now gets a sense that NATO is destined to intervene on Ukraine’s side. Russia fears NATO will use this protected corridor as a base of operations to send ever more sophisticated weapons. And with its economy now in a tailspin due to sanctions, Putin feels the walls closing in him. Before NATO can impose its no-fly zone, Putin orders strikes on any remaining airfields and military assets around Lviv.
But here is where Putin miscalculates and sets the stage for a NATO-Russia war. Putin orders another massive cyber attack on the Baltic states’ military infrastructure, thinking that NATO will use the Baltics to stage an invasion of Russia.
This ends up being the last straw for NATO, which then decides direct intervention in Ukraine is necessary to push back against Russian aggression. Before even an announcement is made, Russian intelligence sees missile and troop movements that indicate an impending NATO attack and decide to strike first — with tactical nuclear weapons. NATO decides to respond in kind.
Russia then targets European cities with nuclear weapons, with NATO and America also responding in kind. What is left is nothing short of an apocalypse, with what we estimate is billion people dead.
No War Goes As Planned
In every scenario I have been a part of there is one common theme to all of them: When Vladimir Putin feels boxed in and feels Russia is directly threatened, usually from a mistake he makes on the battlefield, he decides to use whatever escalatory step he desires to try and make up for it.
While we may well soon see Ukraine and Russia find a diplomatic path out of this brutal war, both sides seem dug in. That means the chances for escalation like the above are high. And if Russia and NATO do become involved in direct conflict, Putin knows that in a conventional fight his regime would be defeated. That means Russia will choose nuclear war.
The only question in a NATO-Russia war seems obvious: how many millions or billions of people would die?
Harry J. Kazianis is director of defense studies at the Center for the National Interest in Washington DC and executive editor of their publishing arm, The National Interest. The views expressed in this article are his own. He’s on Twitter @grecianformula. https://thefederalist.com/2022/03/04/nato-involvement-in-ukraine-could-spark-nuclear-genocide-heres-how-it-could-happen/
The US and NATO’s Sacrifice Of Ukraine
The US and NATO’s Sacrifice Of Ukraine https://www.pressenza.com/2022/03/the-us-and-natos-sacrifice-of-ukraine/ 04.03.22 Mark Lesseraux
THE INCEPTION POINT OF A NEW ERA
We are fast approaching the 33rd anniversary of Mikhail Gorbachev’s decision to untie the Soviet knot that held back the countries of Eastern Europe from moving in an independent, democratic direction. A decision that led to the collapse of the Berlin Wall in November 1989, and, subsequently, to the overturning of the Communist regime in Eastern Europe.
It was a turning point, a hopeful moment, that marked both the beginning of the end of the Cold War conflict and the inception point of a new era of cooperative possibilities between East and West.
THE U.S. AND EUROPE PROMISE TO END NATO EXPANSION
With the breakup of the Soviet Union it became clear to pretty much everyone involved in the diplomatic and political instigation of these major changes, that NATO had become obsolete. Washington and Europe met with Mikhail Gorbachev to create a new security pact that aimed to bring Russia into the cooperative fold. The Reagan administration, along with their West German allies, promised Gorbachev that once German unification was underway NATO would, for certain, cease expanding itself in an eastward direction.
This promise to end the expansion of NATO, which France and Great Britain also agreed to, seemed to signal the onset of a new era of global cooperation. It was agreed then and there by all parties present that a de-escalation of military spending and weapons production was in order now that the Cold War was winding down.
THE PROMISE IS BROKEN
In the years that followed, the war industry completely went back on the aforementioned promises. In fact, a massive eastward expansion of NATO was set in motion along with an unprecedented increase in military spending, weapons production and global weapons sales. NATO added Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro, and North Macedonia to its fold.
These countries were all forced to restructure and reconfigure their militaries to become compatible with NATO’s military alignment policies. Most of the aforementioned countries achieved this realignment via large loans, creating debt and dependence on corporate lenders.
NO NEW ERA OF COOPERATION
Over the course of the last two-plus decades NATO has become a multi-billion-dollar cash cow for huge corporations that depend on the Cold War for profit. There has been no new era of cooperation with Russia, as promised by all who were involved in setting the new age of supposed partnership in motion. On the contrary, NATO has ignored Russia’s constant warnings and requests to stop its campaign of expansion. Instead NATO, led by the US, has pushed itself right up to Russia’s border, all the while generating a steady stream of new Cold War propaganda, demonizing Russia while proceeding to encircle its territory.
THE SACRIFICE OF UKRAINE
Seven years ago the Obama administration prudently refused to sell arms to Kiev. This act of cautiousness was subsequently cast aside by the Trump and Biden administrations. Over the past several years weapons from the U.S. and Great Britain have been pouring into Ukraine.
By flooding Ukraine with weapons (which is what the US did in the 2008 conflict between Russia and Georgia) over the past few years and refusing Russia’s constant requests that NATO drop its plan to annex Ukraine, an extremely volatile and deeply dangerous situation was created for Ukraine. A situation that has basically amounted to the sacrifice of the people of Ukraine.
NO JUSTIFICATION
There is no justification for the savage actions that Vladimir Putin has undertaken in Ukraine over the past week and a half. Putin is responsible for the bloodshed that he has generated. What this article is pointing to has nothing to do with absolving Putin for the violence in Ukraine. What this article is pointing to is the fact that the US and NATO have been myopic and reckless. What this article is illustrating is that what is going on now in Ukraine is, in part, the result of a thirty-three year history of broken promises and careless, greed propelled decisions made by the US and NATO.
MANY SAW THIS COMING
Over the past three decades, dozens of diplomats and historians have warned that a situation like the one we are seeing now in Ukraine was inevitable if NATO expansion continued. I’m going to end this article here with a quote from George Kennan who was considered by many to be the most respected voice on the matter of US-Soviet relations:
I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the founding fathers of this country turn over in their graves. We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way. [NATO expansion] was simply a lighthearted action by a Senate that has no real interest in foreign affairs. What bothers me is how superficial and ill-informed the whole Senate debate was. I was particularly bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe.
Don’t people understand? Our differences in the Cold War were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime. And Russia’s democracy is as far advanced, if not farther, as any of these countries we’ve just signed up to defend from Russia. Of course, there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are — but this is just wrong.”
– George Kennen 1998 Mark Lesseraux
Mark Lesseraux is a singer/songwriter/socio-political columnist from Brooklyn, New York, USA. He is a Humanist, a proponent and practitioner of Active Nonviolence and a student of Nonduality.
The Risks of Russian Attacks near Ukraine Nuclear Power Plants
The Risks of Russian Attacks near Ukraine Nuclear Power Plants, Commercial plants have built-in safety systems, but aren’t designed with warfare in mind. Scientific American By Andrea Thompson on March 4, 2022 People around the world watched via livestreamed security camera as Russian forces attacked and took over Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant—the largest in Europe—on Friday morning local time. Amid the shelling and gunfire, a fire broke out at a training facility in the complex and was later extinguished, according to news reports. The incident raised alarm among world leaders and nuclear experts about the potential for purposeful or accidental reactor damage that could cause radiation leaks or, in a worst-case scenario, reactor core meltdowns.
Rafael Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told the United Nations Security Council that the plant’s operations were normal after the attack and has said that no radioactive material was released. But he and other nuclear experts have warned that there is a danger of accidents there and at other nuclear plants in Ukraine as the conflict continues.
Scientific American spoke with Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, to explain the concerns about such facilities during wartime and to talk about some of the safety measures that are in place.
The six reactors at Zaporizhzhia are called VVER-1000s, and they are cooled and moderated by light [ordinary] water. So in that respect, they’re similar to U.S. pressurized water reactors. They are somewhat more advanced models than the earlier versions of [this type of reactor], so they do have some features that are more in line with modern safety philosophy—but not entirely. …………
These [Zaporizhzhia reactors] were designed in the Soviet Union, and they date as far back as the early 1980s. So they are past their expiration date, but the Ukrainians extended their licenses………..
The big danger in any nuclear reactor is that somehow cooling of the fuel is disrupted, because without enough cooling, the fuel will heat up to the point where it can destroy itself…… In addition, these plants store their spent nuclear fuel on-site—and some of that fuel is stored in cooling water, which also has to be replenished with pumps………
In addition to a pipe break, you can have a loss of power, which is what affected Fukushima. These plants normally draw electricity from the grid to operate their systems, and if that’s interrupted, they have to rely on backup power with emergency diesel generators. …….
……f you want to potentially seriously damage the plant, you don’t have to go after the containment building, which is the hardest part. There are other systems that are not as well protected. But even those containment buildings are not necessarily able to withstand certain types of military attack. Even if they are not breached, they can spall, and you can have concrete falling down onto the reactor vessel. Or just strong vibrations might also cause damage……….
The cost of hardening commercial nuclear power plants so that they might survive a military onslaught is probably prohibitive……..
In the worst case, if you have an unmitigated loss of cooling capability, the nuclear fuel can overheat and melt and burn through the steel reactor vessel that holds it and drop to the floor of the container. And in that case, the containment is the only remaining barrier between the radioactive material in the reactor and the environment. It’s designed to withstand certain types of events but not others.
……
if multiple reactors are affected at the same time, if the spent fuel is damaged, if the containment is mechanically breached, then all bets are off……
… having well-rested operators is critical because the tasks they have to perform are complex, and they need to be alert. You have to ensure that fatigue is being monitored. If there’s a plant staff, and they’re not getting any relief, and they can’t go home, and they’re working under duress, it’s a dangerous combination. There will have to be measures for that……….. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-risks-of-russian-attacks-near-ukraine-nuclear-power-plants1/
—
Western govt, media, and public, ignorant about the complex history of Ukraine
Lenin were he alive today would no doubt point out that Russia today, as well as the U.S., is a capitalist-imperialist country…….. He [Putin] is despicable, but his demand that NATO ceases expansion is as eminently reasonable and Biden’s desire to expand it seems crazier by the day.
Putin, Lenin, Imperialism and the (Real) History of Ukraine, Portside, March 5, 2022 Gary Leupp
— The people of this country suffer, I’ve always thought, from a general ignorance of history. ………
In 2014 having, having given little thought to Ukraine to that point, people in this county (self-defined Americans and others) were informed by the most authoritative sources they knew, the cable TV news anchors and commentators. They were treated to a history lesson that went something like this: The country of Ukraine has always been oppressed by Russia. It was colonized by Russia for centuries. Russia still, after the end of the Soviet Union, wants to control Ukraine! So it responded to a popular revolution in Kyiv, an expression of the Ukrainians’ longing to fulfill its “European aspirations,” by invading Ukraine!
having made its point clear in the brief invasion of Georgia in 2008 (to end talk of Georgian membership), having watched a U.S.-backed coup topple a president friendly to Russia replacing him with a pro-NATO cabal—was re-annexing Crimea (not just Russian from 1783 to 1954, but still Russia’s main naval port, then on lease from Crimea, and coveted by NATO) and supporting separatists in the primarily Russian speaking population in the Donbass region primarily to prevent further NATO expansion……………
In the real world, the U.S. has acted in the world since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, the collapse of what Washington perceived as the global communist movement, with an effort to encircle Russia with the most horrifically threatening military force in world history. It has expanded NATO in the absence of any real threat to itself from 16 to 28 members, bordering Russia on the Baltic coast and threatening to encircle it entirely. It has used NATO to pursue wars in Serbia, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria, in the last case illegally intervening in a failed effort to gain control over a longstanding Russian ally…………
In the real world, Biden became president determined to both reassert U.S. “global leadership” and to continue NATO expansion. His campaign literature in 2020 reminded us that he believed in the cause. And it was clear he had a particular interest in drawing Ukraine in, which meant convincing Germany and other unenthusiastic NATO members to agree that Ukraine had cleaned up its corruption sufficient to get the nod.
He sent his secretary of state Anthony Blinken, who as Biden’s foreign policy advisor had urged him in 2002 to support Bush’s war on Iraq, to persuade the Germans that their gas pipeline to Russia threatened NATO unity! Meanwhile, U.S. puppet and NATO secretary-general Stoltenberg visited Kyiv to assure Ukraine that it will, indeed, be admitted to NATO. And the arms flowed into Ukraine.
Putin considered all this more threatening than ever………… The Russians were talking about their security, and need to defend their borders; the U.S. president was talking about his right to expand the alliance as he pleased.
For the U.S. media, what we see here is a clearly drawn conflict between Good and Evil, or in Blinken’s schoolmarmish conception “Democracy versus Autocracy.” What I see is two evils, neither of them democratic, locked in a conflict over the more powerful evil’s lust for further expansion. Both evils have their controlled news media and means to shape public consciousness.
Ukraine has been inhabited and crisscrossed by Scythians, Celts, Germanic peoples, Huns, Khazars, Mongols as well as Slavs. Given its history of incorporation into different states ………… at least the closest approximation of an independent state so far—was the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Russia demanded that Ukraine be considered an independent state on the world stage; it held a separate UN seat. With Belarus it was one of the closest SSRs to Moscow, and most hesitant to withdraw from the union when Boris Yeltsin unilaterally dissolved it by pulling Russia itself out. Once established in its current configuration, Ukraine agreed to abandon its nuclear arsenal; it also agreed to a long-lease arrangement with Russia involving the vital Crimean naval base.
When Putin points to this history or at least aspects of it, he is not churning out lies at the level of the dutiful U.S. ……………
In the real world, Ukrainian fascist movements exist and were surely on display in the Maidan coup in 2014. They played a key role in the violent overthrow of an elected government, under Victoria Nuland’s watchful eye. There remains much support in some quarters for the wartime nationalist leader Stepan Bandera, who espoused a fascist ideology and helped round up Jews in Ukraine for the Nazi death camps. Anyone paying attention realizes that there are fascist elements in the military (the entire Azov Battalion) and that fascist parties, while small and with little electoral influence, have been able to stymie the implementation of the now-defunct Minsk Accords. So, yes, there is a fascist movement in Ukraine and it has a long history……
Crucial battles in this 1941-1945 war, also known as the Anti-Fascist War, were fought on Ukrainian soil, where some local communities sided with the fascists and embraced the Nazis’ Russophobia. Putin wants to essentialize Ukrainians as tending towards fascism, now working in tandem again with Russia’s enemies. This effort could well backfire among Russians who realize that Ukrainians are divided politically and ideologically among themselves and in any case undeserving of Putin’s characterization.
……….. Russians and Ukrainians retained amicable relations; the mere fact of new mutual independence was not a great problem for the relationship. Relations only deteriorated when, from around 2005, Ukrainian leaders requested NATO membership. In 2010 an anti-NATO president was democratically elected; the U.S. State Department oversaw a massive regime change effort to depict him as corrupt, anti-EU, impeding “Ukrainian’s European aspirations.” It succeeded in ousting him….
…….. Lenin were he alive today would no doubt point out that Russia today, as well as the U.S., is a capitalist-imperialist country…….. He [Putin] is despicable, but his demand that NATO ceases expansion is as eminently reasonable and Biden’s desire to expand it seems crazier by the day………………….. https://portside.org/2022-03-05/putin-lenin-imperialism-and-real-history-ukraine
The situation at Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station
information about Zaporizhzhia NPP
https://snriu.gov.ua/en/news/updated-information-about-zaporizhzhia-npp-1500 04 March 22
The largest nuclear power plant in Europe, Zaporizhzhia NPP, was captured by the military troops of the Russian Federation after heavy fighting in the streets of Energodar.
As a result of artillery shelling of the ZNPP industrial site:
– the reactor compartment building of the ZNPP unit 1 was damaged;
– 2 artillery shells hit the area of the dry type spent nuclear fuel storage facility.
The degree of damage to the structures and systems of these nuclear installations and their impact on safety requires additional assessments based on the results of the comprehensive inspections by the special services of the Operating Organization.
The fire, which broke out at night due to the enemy shelling of the ZNPP industrial site, severely damaged the training center building located in the immediate vicinity of the ZNPP industrial site.
Operational personnel, who were on shift at the time of the Russian occupation of the ZNPP site, were forced to continue working at their workplaces for more than 24 hours. There are no killed or injured ones among the ZNPP personnel. Some of the personnel received medical care due to stress.
To date, the rotation of operational personnel has been carried out, it is tentatively planned that the new shift will work until 23:00. Operational personnel monitor the state of power units and ensure their operation. At the same time, the personnel are working under pressure exercised by the armed forces of the Russian Federation, which occupied the ZNPP.
State of the power units:
- Unit 1 is in outage.
- Unit 2 is in operation to ensure the in-house needs.
- Unit 3 has been disconnected from the grid, the core cooldown operations are underway to transfer the nuclear installation into a cold shutdown state.
- Unit 4 is in operation, the electric power was increased up to 825 MW, the unit loading continues.
- Units 5, 6 are being cooled down.
Changes in the radiation situation in Zaporizhzhia region have not been registered, gamma radiation background is within the standard limits.
A bonanza for the weapons corporations, as many countries rush to buy weapons to send to Ukraine
Countries Flood Ukraine With Military Support After Zelensky’s Appeal, Zero Hedge, BY TYLER DURDEN, MONDAY, MAR 07, 2022
By Autumn Spredemann ”……… The majority of arms and supplies from ally nations are being sent via Ukraine’s 310-mile border with Poland, which has become an important lifeline both for supplies and equipment, and refugees looking to flee the conflict.
Some border nations have chosen not to allow military equipment bound for Ukraine to pass through their territory out of fear of Russian retaliation.
On Feb 28, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said his country won’t allow “deadly weapons” to be transported through Hungary’s territory while reiterating the government doesn’t want to be involved in the Russia-Ukraine war. Szijjarto cited security concerns for Hungarian citizens as one of the primary factors in the decision.
Despite supply chain and shipping challenges, millions of dollars of ordnance continue to flow into Ukraine from two continents.
On Feb. 26, U.S. President Joe Biden authorized the State Department to send $350 million in weapons to Ukraine. …..
This is the third time Biden has used his presidential drawdown authority to send emergency security assistance, now totaling $1 billion, from U.S. reserves to Ukraine.
Canada
The Canadian government approved an additional $25 million in military aid to Ukraine on Feb. 27…..
Germany Chancellor Olaf Sholz announced on Feb. 26 that Germany would deliver 1,000 anti-tank weapons and 500 Stinger missiles to “our friends in Ukraine.”…
Sweden
In a departure from its decades-long neutrality, the Swedish government approved the shipment of 5,000 anti-tank weapons, 135,000 field rations, 5,000 helmets, and 5,000 pieces of body armor………
France
On Feb. 26, an army spokesperson said France would send “defensive military equipment” to Ukraine to aid in the resistance effort against Russia……..
United Kingdom
Back on Jan. 17, Secretary of Defense for the United Kingdom, Ben Wallace, said the UK would provide “self-defense” weapons and training to Ukraine amid the build-up of Russian troops near the border……. He elaborated that the second military support package included both lethal and non-lethal aid.
Belgium
Responding to a direct request from Kyiv, the nation opted to send 2,000 machine guns to the Ukrainian army and 3,800 tons of fuel on Feb. 26.
Netherlands
As of Feb. 26, the Dutch government said it’s delivering 50 Panzerfaust 3 anti-tank weapons with 400 missiles to Ukraine to help with the resistance effort against Russia. Additionally, 200 Stinger anti-aircraft missiles were promised along with helmets, shard vests, and sniper rifles.
Czech Republic
Formerly occupied by Russian troops during the Soviet era, the Czech government sent 4,000 artillery shells worth $1.7 million to Ukraine in January. The Czech Ministry of Defense released a statement on Feb. 26 saying it will also ship machine guns, submachine guns, assault rifles, and pistols, together with ammunition at an estimated value of $8.6 million.
Italy
Joining the growing list of countries providing military aid to Ukraine, on Feb. 28 the Italian cabinet pledged to dispatch Stinger missiles, mortars, and Milan or Panzerfaust anti-tank weapons. Among the items included in the defense package are Browning heavy machine guns, MG-type light machine guns, and counter-IED systems.
Portugal
Upon request from Ukrainian officials, the Portuguese Ministry of Defense announced on Feb. 26 that it will deliver military equipment including vests, night vision goggles, grenades, ammunition, complete portable radios, analog repeaters, and automatic G3 rifles.
Greece
The Balkan nation sent “defense equipment” and medical supplies on two C-130 aircraft from Athens on Feb. 27 at the request of Ukrainian authorities.
Romania
Another former satellite state of the Soviet Union, Romanian government spokesman Dan Carbunaru said the country would ship “ammunition and military equipment” on Feb 27.
Spain
On March. 2, Spanish Minister of Defense, Margarita Robles, announced the nation will send defensive equipment to Ukraine.
Finland
President Sauli Vainamo Niinisto decided to send an arms support package to Ukraine on Feb. 28. The delivery will include 2,500 assault rifles, 150,000 cartridges, 1,500 single-shot anti-tank weapons, and 70,000 combat ration packages. https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/countries-flood-ukraine-military-support-after-zelenskys-appeal
‘Grave concern’ as Ukraine Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant under Russian orders
Grave concern’ as Ukraine Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant under Russian orders, International Atomic Energy Agency says Russian military orders of staff at nuclear plant violate international safety protocols, Guardian, Julian Borger in WashingtonMon 7 Mar 2022
Staff at Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant are being told what to do by the Russian military commander who seized the site last week, in violation of international safety protocols.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) expressed “grave concern” at the situation at the six-reactor plant, the largest in Europe. The agency was told by the Ukrainian nuclear regulator that “any action of plant management – including measures related to the technical operation of the six reactor units – requires prior approval by the Russian commander”.
The IAEA director general, Rafael Mariano Grossi, said on Sunday that the Russian military command over the nuclear plant “contravenes one of the seven indispensable pillars of nuclear safety and security” which states that the operating staff must be able to carry out their safety and security duties and be able to make decisions “free of undue pressure”.
Russian forces shelled the Zaporizhzhia plant in the early hours of Friday morning, damaging a walkway between two of the six reactors, and starting a fire in a nearby building used for training. As a result some of the reactors were shut down and others were put on low power.
The reactors themselves are well protected by a thick concrete shell, but there is concern that more vulnerable spent fuel rods could be hit, or that the power and cooling systems could be affected, potentially triggering a meltdown.
The IAEA also expressed concern that the Russian occupying force had reportedly shut down mobile phone networks and the internet connection “so that reliable information from the site cannot be obtained through the normal channels of communication”.
It said communications between the plant and the Ukrainian nuclear regulator have been affected, which the IAEA said contravenes another of the nuclear safety pillars listed by Grossi, requiring “reliable communications with the regulator and others”…….
The IAEA said that the operators at the plant were now being able to rotate between three shifts, relieving the operators who had been on duty at the time the plant was seized, but there were still “problems with availability and supply of food” which the Ukrainian regulator said was affecting morale on the plant.
The IAEA also expressed alarm that communication had been lost with institutions and enterprises in the besieged port city of Mariupol where it said there are “category 1-3 radiation sources, a probable reference to medical or industrial isotopes. A category 1 source can be lethal after more than a few minutes exposure.
“Such radioactive material can cause serious harm to people if not secured and managed properly,” the agency said in a statement.https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/06/ukraine-zaporizhzhia-nuclear-plant-staff-under-russian-orders
IPCC’s bleak warning of climate breakdown – half of the world’s people are ‘highly vulnerable’
Working group 3 will set out pathways and policy choices governments could take to reach the goal of limiting global heating to 1.5C, including some of the likely costs and economic benefits of those choices.
After that, a “synthesis report” drawing together all three parts of the IPCC’s sixth assessment will be published in October, for policymakers to discuss at Cop27.
Q&A: Has the IPCC’s bleak warning of climate breakdown been heard? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/05/qa-has-the-ipccs-bleak-warning-of-climate-breakdown-been-heard
Report by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said half of the world’s people are ‘highly vulnerable’
The second of four parts of the IPCC’s sixth assessment report, the latest comprehensive review of our knowledge of the climate crisis, was termed by some scientists “the bleakest warning yet”. Half of the world’s people are “highly vulnerable” to serious impacts from the climate crisis, a billion people in coastal areas face inundation, mass die-offs of species including trees and coral have already begun, and close to a tenth of the world’s farmland is set to become unsuitable for agriculture.
By any standards, these are stark and brutal findings. António Guterres, the UN secretary general, said: “I have seen many scientific reports in my time, but nothing like this. Today’s IPCC report is an atlas of human suffering, and a damning indictment of failed climate leadership.”
But the report has been overshadowed, understandably, by the war in Ukraine, and has received less policymaker and media attention than it deserved.
That does not mean the IPCC report will be ignored. Governments are working on their responses to the scientists’ warnings, and later this year at the next UN climate summit, Cop27, they are obliged to lay out their plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions to limit global heating to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.
Will Cop27 be affected by the war in Ukraine?
Cop27 is to be held this November in Egypt, a country that has forged strong diplomatic and economic ties with Russia in the recent past. Any meetings among the G20 major economies will also take place under the shadow of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. However, insiders point out that the climate negotiations have gone on for 30 years, despite wars and other conflicts among UN nations. Climate diplomats are practised at keeping other geopolitical tensions at least partly at bay.
Perhaps of even greater relevance to the climate crisis will be the decisions governments make on energy policy in response to the Ukraine war. This week, the International Energy Agency urged a suite of actions – from households turning down their thermostats by 1C to windfall taxes on energy companies and the rapid construction of new wind and solar power generation – that could reduce the EU’s reliance on Russian gas by a third or more.
The other options open to policymakers if Vladimir Putin turns off gas supplies to Europe would include a return to coal-fired power generation, the dirtiest form of fossil fuel. The choices that governments make now, ahead of next winter, will have profound consequences for the climate crisis.
What actions could and should governments take as a direct result of the IPCC report?
One of the key messages of the IPCC working group 2 report is that climate change is already occurring, all over the world. Even if we succeed in limiting global temperature rises to 1.5C, the limit countries agreed to target at Cop26 in Glasgow last November, we will still face more extreme weather, droughts, floods, heatwaves and sea level rises.
The IPCC made clear that countries must seek to adapt now to these changes, to stave off the worst damage. Adaptation can mean building seawalls and river barriers, planting trees on hillsides to stop landslips amid floods, conserving or regrowing mangrove swamps to absorb the impact of coastal storm surges, painting roofs white to reflect the sun’s heat, or making buildings and built infrastructure such as telecommunications networks, roads and railways more resilient to extreme weather.
Far too little effort has gone into adaptation up to now, the IPCC found. Rich countries promised last year at Cop26 to double their funding for adaptation in the poor world, but nearly all countries are still badly prepared.
One of the key messages of the IPCC working group 2 report is that climate change is already occurring, all over the world. Even if we succeed in limiting global temperature rises to 1.5C, the limit countries agreed to target at Cop26 in Glasgow last November, we will still face more extreme weather, droughts, floods, heatwaves and sea level rises.
The IPCC made clear that countries must seek to adapt now to these changes, to stave off the worst damage. Adaptation can mean building seawalls and river barriers, planting trees on hillsides to stop landslips amid floods, conserving or regrowing mangrove swamps to absorb the impact of coastal storm surges, painting roofs white to reflect the sun’s heat, or making buildings and built infrastructure such as telecommunications networks, roads and railways more resilient to extreme weather.
Far too little effort has gone into adaptation up to now, the IPCC found. Rich countries promised last year at Cop26 to double their funding for adaptation in the poor world, but nearly all countries are still badly prepared.
One of the key messages of the IPCC working group 2 report is that climate change is already occurring, all over the world. Even if we succeed in limiting global temperature rises to 1.5C, the limit countries agreed to target at Cop26 in Glasgow last November, we will still face more extreme weather, droughts, floods, heatwaves and sea level rises.
The IPCC made clear that countries must seek to adapt now to these changes, to stave off the worst damage. Adaptation can mean building seawalls and river barriers, planting trees on hillsides to stop landslips amid floods, conserving or regrowing mangrove swamps to absorb the impact of coastal storm surges, painting roofs white to reflect the sun’s heat, or making buildings and built infrastructure such as telecommunications networks, roads and railways more resilient to extreme weather.
Far too little effort has gone into adaptation up to now, the IPCC found. Rich countries promised last year at Cop26 to double their funding for adaptation in the poor world, but nearly all countries are still badly prepared.
Will adaptation be enough?
No. There are “hard limits” to adaptation, the IPCC made clear: the impacts of temperatures rising unchecked would overcome all our efforts to adjust. Flood barriers may hold back a river in spate today, but as the icecaps and glaciers melt, as heatwaves take hold, and as droughts threaten agriculture, we will face too many threats and they will grow too severe for any adaptation effort to allow life to proceed as normal.
Cutting greenhouse gas emissions urgently, to stop temperatures rising further, must still be the priority, according to the IPCC.
How should that be done?
Early next month, the IPCC will release the third part of its four-part assessment, by working group 3, covering “mitigation” – the ways in which countries can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This includes renewable energy generation, energy efficiency, alternatives to fossil fuels such as nuclear power, and novel technologies, such as carbon capture and storage and direct air capture of carbon dioxide.
Working group 3 will set out pathways and policy choices governments could take to reach the goal of limiting global heating to 1.5C, including some of the likely costs and economic benefits of those choices.
After that, a “synthesis report” drawing together all three parts of the IPCC’s sixth assessment will be published in October, for policymakers to discuss at Cop27.
Wildfires threaten a nuclear power plant in South Korea
Thousands of South Korean firefighters and troops are battling a large
wildfire that has been tearing through an eastern coastal area and
threatened a nuclear power station and a liquefied natural gas plant.
ABC News 5th March 2022
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-05/south-korea-wildfires-threaten-nuclear-lng-plants/100885914
Sky 6th March 2022
Russian forces approach Ukraine’s second-largest nuclear power plant in Yuzhnoukrainsk
– The US ambassador to the United Nations has warned that the world averted
nuclear catastrophe ‘by the grace of God,’ as troops move closer to the
country’s second-largest nuclear power plant. In a statement given during
an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council following the news that
Russian forces had shelled Europe’s largest nuclear power plant, Linda
Thomas-Greenfield said that troops were ‘now 20 miles, and closing, from
Ukraine’s second-largest nuclear facility,’ the South Ukraine nuclear
power plant in Yuzhnoukrainsk.
Unilad 5th March 2022
The Fukushima disaster ruined their lives.
Posted on by beyondnuclearinternational
They campaigned for justice, but the nuclear accident killed them anyway
By Linda Pentz Gunter
Kenichi Hasegawa was a dairy farmer in Fukushima Prefecture at the time of the March 11, 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, living in a family of eight in Itate village with his parents, wife, children and grandchildren.
Itate is approximately 50 kilometers away from the nuclear site, but quickly became one of the most radioactively contaminated places as a result of the Fukushima disaster. Yet, residents were told little and it took more than a month for an evacuation order to be issued for Itate. Many did not leave until late June.
Mr. Hasegawa himself stayed on in Itate for five months after the disaster, tending to his cows until all of them were put down. Meanwhile, he kept a visual record of conditions there, taking more than ten thousand photos and 180 videos (in Japanese).
On October 22, 2021 Hasegawa died of thyroid cancer at just 68, almost certainly caused by his prolonged exposure to radioactive iodine released by the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear catastrophe.
Before the nuclear disaster, Hasegawa owned 50 dairy cows and farmed vegetables. He was also a political leader, serving as mayor of his local ward. But the Fukushima accident changed everything.
With a high concentration of radioactive substances now found in dairy milk, his business was ruined. Angered by the cover-up by authorities of the true extent of radioactive contamination, he became a co-representative along with Ms. Ruiko Muto, of the Nuclear Accident Victims Group Liaison Committee, established in 2015.
By then, he had already authored the 2012 book, Fukushima’s Stolen Lives: A Dairy Farmer’s Story, in which he delivered an eyewitness account of the aftermath of the nuclear disaster, “as he suffered with the knowledge that his children and grandchildren had been exposed to radiation, as he lost all of his cattle (who were considered part of the family, not simply the source of their livelihood), and as he endured the suicide of a fellow dairy farmer and friend.”
That friend wrote his final words on a wall before he died: “If only there were no nuclear power plants.”
Hasegawa returned to Itate in 2018, once the evacuation order had been lifted, and began growing buckwheat, largely to prevent his pastures from turning into wasteland. Although radiation levels in the buckwheat registered below what is considered dangerous, Hasegawa could not sell the crop.
In a 2020 interview with his Committee colleague, Ms. Muto, a resident of Miharu town, Hasegawa said: “The nuclear plant robbed us of everything. We still can’t go into the forests. Families with children used to go into the forest to gather wild plants and teach many things. That was a common practice, taken for granted. But today we can’t do anything like that. We can no longer eat anything foraged from the forest.
“In Japan, a community like ours affected by radiation is seen as an inconvenience,” Hasegawa told Muto. “They would like us to disappear and be forgotten.”
Family life was shattered by the Fukushima accident, including Hasegawa’s. His children and grandchildren vowed not to return the village and its contaminated land. In the Maeda neighborhood, where Hasegawa served as mayor, the population is now largely comprised of the elderly.
Worse still, Hasegawa said TEPCO’s approach was to blame the victims, rather than take responsibility for the devastation its nuclear power plant had caused.
“TEPCO eventually said that it’s really the village’s fault that people were exposed to radiation, because they did not evacuate,” Hasegawa recalled to Muto. “But we couldn’t evacuate because we had livestock or other things holding us back. They are saying everything was our own responsibility. Of course I protested loudly. How dare they blame us!”
Hasegawa is sadly, and unsurprisingly, not the only person who has succumbed to a premature death owing to radiation exposure caused by the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear catastrophe. By 2021, friends and colleagues involved with the aftermath of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster could count numerous people who had died.
Yet, even immediately after the still on-going nuclear disaster began, Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary said repeatedly: “There is no immediate effect on the human body or health”. The phrase was all too reminiscent of the ironic and prescient warning give to us by radiation researcher, Rosalie Bertell, in her 1985 book, “No Immediate Danger”.
One of those also lost in 2021 was Ms Yayoi Hitomi. She was only 60 years old when she died of ovarian cancer on September 28. Already an anti-nuclear activist well before the Fukushima Daiichi disaster, she was living in Koriyama city, situated just 60km from the stricken plant. Although Koriyama was categorized as outside of the mandatory evacuation zone, it was full of radiation hotspots.
Hitomi was a member of Women of Fukushima Against Nuclear Power. She worked as a journalist and web writer, and was one of the most efficient organizers of the Fukushima Nuclear Criminal Litigation Support Group. After Hitomi’s death, Muto, the head of the plaintiffs’ group, said that it was as if she had lost one of her arms.
Hitomi went to Europe in March 2016, and spoke in several countries on the situation in Fukushima. She was full of energy, and looked no older than 40. However, in the fall of 2016, a cancer was discovered and she passed away five years later. Her death tells us that even if you live outside of the mandatory exclusion zone, you aren’t always protected against potentially lethal radiation health hazards.
These coming losses had been predicted in a March 2020 interview (in Japanese), when Hasegawa and his wife had observed that people in their 50s and 60s were dying like flies.
All of this of course gives the lie to — and makes especially insensitive and abhorrent — claims made by nuclear power boosters, and even lazy journalists, that “no one died because of the Fukushima nuclear accident”.
Kurumi Sugita also contributed to this article.
Headline photo of Kenichi Hasegawa speaking in Australia, by MAPW Australia/Creative Commons
The Fukushima taboo
“Coming out” on thyroid cancer from Fukushima is an act of bravery in today’s Japan
By Linda Pentz Gunter
In the midst of the arcane fight over whether to include nuclear power in the European Union’s green “Taxonomy”, five former prime ministers of Japan made an unprecedented statement. They roundly condemned any inclusion of nuclear power as a green or sustainable energy, even as a so-called bridging fuel.
The current Japanese government glossed over the climate arguments in the former prime ministers’ argument, quickly seizing upon one tiny phrase concerning conditions in Japan post-Fukushima that read: “many children are suffering from thyroid cancer”.
The ruling Liberal Democratic Party even went so far as to approve a resolution condemning the five former prime ministers, one of whom, Junichiro Koizumi, is from that party. The resolution alleges that their statement was not “scientific” and that they were reigniting prejudice and encouraging people to view people from Fukushima as pariahs.
The party’s Policy Research Board said it would submit its resolution to current prime minister, Fumio Kishida.
On the same day — January 27, 2022 — as the former prime minister’s letter was submitted to the EU, six young people who were children at time of the March 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, filed a lawsuit in the Tokyo District Court against TEPCO, the owner and operator of the nuclear plant.
The six, ages 17 to 27, hold the company responsible for the thyroid cancers each of them developed after being exposed to the radiation released by the nuclear disaster.
In filing suit and thus making the issue public, the six were immediately on the receiving end of an unprecedented level of abuse for speaking out. In this video of their testimony, they were obliged to keep their physical appearances concealed for fear of further reprisals.
“Coming out” on thyroid cancer — or indeed about any negative health impacts resulting from the Fukushima nuclear disaster — remains largely taboo in Japan. Studies that conclude the medical impacts are significant or even substantial, are met with equal hostility, stoniness or just plain silence.
When epidemiologist, Toshihide Tsuda and colleagues, published a paper in 2016 — Thyroid Cancer Detection by Ultrasound Among Residents Ages 18 Years and Younger in Fukushima, Japan: 2011 to 2014 — it was reportedly largely ignored rather than challenged.
The study concluded: “An excess of thyroid cancer has been detected by ultrasound among children and adolescents in Fukushima Prefecture within 4 years of the release, and is unlikely to be explained by a screening surge.”
This contradicted the prevailing and enduring view among the establishment that there are now more thyroid cancers found among children after Fukushima simply because there is more testing.
The “more testing” myth served as a convenient pretext to reduce testing for thyroid cancers in schools — on the basis such testing would upset children too much, hardly “scientific”.
The very public lawsuit may transform all this, as the testimonies leave an indelible picture of the toll taken on children and families by the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
In a two-part series, investigative journalist, Natsuko Katayama, reported on the case for the Tokyo Shimbun on January 19 and January 27 this year.
She wrote that among the plaintiffs, “Two of them had a lobe of the thyroid removed, and the other four had to have the whole thyroid removed because of recurrence (in the case of one of them, metastasis had spread to the lungs). All of them had to stop their studies or their professional activity in order to undergo these surgical procedures and medical treatments. They live in fear and anxiety of a recurrence, and their daily lives have been curtailed due to fatigue and weakness caused by the disease.”
One of the plaintiffs said they had all kept silent about their thyroid cancers for 10 years, not daring to go public because of the inevitable backlash of discrimination.
Many of those suffering illnesses related to the Fukushima nuclear disaster find themselves the new “Hibakusha”, the name originally given to those ostracized and rejected by Japanese society because of their exposure to radiation from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings.
Choking with emotion, one of the plaintiffs described in the press conference how she and the others had to give up their work and educational hopes and dreams due to the constrictions of illness and the necessary treatments. “Four of the six plaintiffs have had a recurrence or mestatasis of their disease,” she said.
Thyroid cancers among those exposed to Fukushima radiation as children have increased 20 times the expected rate, with about 80% metastasizing, meaning surgery was medically indicated and screening necessary.
“I am very worried about the future and cannot think about marriage or other plans,” said one of the young women, also a plaintiff in the trial, whose voice could be heard at the press conference, and whose cancer had returned and spread. All of them have faced considerable financial hardships due to the expense of their treatment and the loss of work.
The plaintiffs expressed the hope that the trial would help other children suffering from thyroid cancer, believed to number at least 300. But, with the suppression of testing and reporting, and the taboo surrounding any admission of thyroid cancer, the numbers could well be a lot higher.
The plaintiffs’ lawyers argue that Tepco will need to prove that there is no causal relationship between their clients’ thyroid cancer and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. It seeks compensation for the victims.
“I try to believe that all will be well,” said one of the plaintiffs, a 26-year old woman who was 17 at the time her thyroid cancer was diagnosed, “even as I ask myself, ‘why me’?”
The 3.11 Children’s Thyroid Cancer Network was launched to support this lawsuit.
Headline image shows 2013 IAEA team member overseeing TEPCO moving nuclear fuel assemblies from Reactor Unit 4 to the Common Spent Fuel Pool. (Photo: IAEA)
Chain cutting device breaks off this time, and no progress in removing contaminated piping at TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant
March 3, 2022
TEPCO announced on February 3 that its cutting equipment failed for the second day in a row in cutting pipes contaminated with highly radioactive materials between Units 1 and 2 at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (Okuma and Futaba, Fukushima Pref.) One week after work began on February 24, the cutting of 26 separate sections has not progressed at all, and the procedure will be reviewed.
The radiation level at the site is extremely high due to the contaminated pipes being near the ground, and people continue to be unable to approach the site. TEPCO planned to remove the pipes because they would be an obstacle to the planned work to cover the Unit 1 reactor building with a cover.
The work was carried out by remotely operating a cutting device attached to a large crane, and on the 1st, one of the two chain-like cutting devices came off, and on the 2nd, the same device broke.
According to TEPCO, before the failure on the 1st, an alarm was triggered indicating an increase in the concentration of radioactive materials contained in the chips from the cut section of the pipe, and on the 2nd, the alarm sounded again, so the speed of the cutting device was reduced to prevent the production of many chips, but the device broke after cutting about one third of the pipe. The cause is believed to be premature wear of the device.
The pipes, each about 30 centimeters in diameter and measuring about 65 meters on the Unit 1 side and about 70 meters on the Unit 2 side, were cut into 26 sections and removed. （The plant was used to vent contaminated steam from inside the reactor to prevent the containment vessel from rupturing in March 2011.)
https://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/article/163463?fbclid=IwAR0W4Rv8sxOLCLhbCzOqq6x8OgRxXGMIjDyAYH0BpNXIf9x2p4HZf4Xaac8
How the West failed Ukraine….and how Putin has doomed Russia to collapse — daryanenergyblog
I came across this article in the Guardian that I think sums up how the west got itself into this mess. Why does the west always seem to lose to Putin? Timidity Greed & Sloth. The west has not effectively stood up to Putin any time he’s made some sort of move. Be it in […]
How the West failed Ukraine….and how Putin has doomed Russia to collapse — daryanenergyblog
-
Archives
- June 2023 (71)
- May 2023 (344)
- April 2023 (348)
- March 2023 (308)
- February 2023 (379)
- January 2023 (388)
- December 2022 (277)
- November 2022 (335)
- October 2022 (363)
- September 2022 (259)
- August 2022 (367)
- July 2022 (368)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 