nuclear-news

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

TODAY Bewdy! It’s gonna happen sooner than we thought. Just like Ukraine does against Russia, Australia will fight America’s war against China.

Isn’t it exciting?

We thought that it would take a while, for little ole Australia (population under 26 million), to become important on the world stage. I mean, most Americans are amazed that we speak English: that’s because they’ve heard of Austria, but not of Australia. Until now.

I mean, Ukraine (pop.44 million) was pretty much ignored, but now it’s big-time. They are “weakening” Russia, and isolating Russia culturally from Europe. Having their own country utterly trashed, environmentally, financially, health-wise, and morally – a small price to pay for being famous.

Australia can achieve the same. Right now, America is plying Australia with propaganda, weaponry and marines, and war games, and best of all, nuclear weapons. Despite international law, these can be based in Australia ‘temporarily”. Australians can’t know when or where the U.S. nukes will be. Fortunately, it is nearly Footee Season, so Australians won’t care anyway.

Australia’s war against China needs to happen soon, (though, preferably, some sort of delicate balance should happen in Ukraine first).

It needs to happen soon, before China becomes even more alarmed, and develops long-range nuclear missiles that could strike too many American bases and cities. Better to have China just focus on hitting Australia. Australia’s current Prime Minister is a bit of a wimp. We need our own charismatic Zelensky – but Peter Dutton might do?

Advertisement

February 15, 2023 Posted by | Christina's notes | 2 Comments

Why the US seeks War with China by 2025

A clash between the United States and China over Taiwan would be the result of the United States willfully going to war with China over a matter the United States officially recognizes as China’s internal political affairs.

The current US State Department’s website regarding “U.S. Relations With Taiwan” admits that officially, “we do not support Taiwan independence.”

The US has also poured billions of dollars’ worth of weapons into Taiwan, just as the US did in Ukraine from 2014 onward. The weapons are clearly intended for a Ukraine-style proxy war with China

.

New Eastern Outlook, : Brian Berletic 8 Feb 23

In recent weeks there has been a build-up of talk regarding a US war with China. Not because of any actual provocation from Beijing, but instead because of a collective resignation to its supposed inevitability.

This is best illustrated by comments made by US Air Force General Michael Minihan. In TIME Magazine’s article, “U.S. General’s Prediction of War With China ‘in 2025’ Risks Turning Worst Fears Into Reality,” General Minihan is quoted as saying:

Worst of all is the small but growing presence of US military activity on Taiwan itself.

Even as the US State Department claims it does not support Taiwan independence, in 2021 Voice of America in its article, “US Nearly Doubled Military Personnel Stationed in Taiwan This Year,” admits that not only are there US troops on Taiwan, the number is increasing.

The article explains:……………………………

“My gut tells me we will fight in 2025.”

The article goes on to claim:

“I hope I am wrong,” Minihan, who heads the Air Force’s Air Mobility Command, wrote in an internal memo, which circulated on social media, to the leadership of its 110,000 members. Chinese President Xi Jinping, he explains, “secured his third term and set his war council in October 2022. Taiwan’s presidential elections are in 2024 and will offer Xi a reason. United States’ presidential elections are in 2024 and will offer Xi a distracted America. Xi’s team, reason, and opportunity are all aligned for 2025.”

Yet nothing General Minihan says explains why the United States itself would conceivably find itself at war with the United States. Instead, General Minihan is more or less admitting that the US will go to war with China over Chinese actions regarding Taiwan. In fact, the article goes on to admit:

Minihan’s comments are merely the most immediate of a worrying, emerging consensus that the U.S. and China are destined to clash over Taiwan, the self-ruling island of 23 million that Beijing claims as its sovereign territory.

A clash between the United States and China over Taiwan would be the result of the United States willfully going to war with China over a matter the United States officially recognizes as China’s internal political affairs.

The current US State Department’s website regarding “U.S. Relations With Taiwan” admits that officially, “we do not support Taiwan independence.”

If the US does not support Taiwan independence then by extension the US acknowledges Taiwan is not independent and therefore Washington, officially, recognizes Beijing’s sovereignty over Taiwan. This is what defines the “One China” policy Washington and virtually every other nation on Earth has agreed to in order to establish diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China in Beijing.

At a time when Washington regularly lectures Moscow about “violating sovereignty,” Washington’s stance toward Beijing and Taiwan should be a simple matter of respecting Chinese sovereignty. Yet it is not because of the double-game the United States plays both internationally and with China specifically.

Washington’s Deliberate Provocations 

TIME Magazine and other Western media publications attempt to depict Beijing as the aggressor, omitting any discussion of either the “One China” policy or the US State Department’s own official declaration of supposedly upholding it.

Instead, Western audiences are led to believe that Taiwan somehow is independent and that Beijing is “bullying” it. The inevitable clash between the US and China is supposedly driven by America’s desire to “stand up” for Taiwan and its inferred sovereignty. In reality, a potential clash between the US and China would be the result of Washington once again violating the sovereignty of another nation thousands of miles from its own shores.

Washington’s double game of officially recognizing Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan while openly and deliberately trampling that sovereignty is best illustrated by former US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan utilizing an official US Air Force aircraft against the protests of Beijing. Pelosi’s trip to Taiwan is only one of many made by US representatives who openly use visits like this in an attempt to goad Beijing……….

Looking at any map of US military deployments in the “Indo-Pacific” region reveals China as virtually surrounded by the US military by way of South Korea, mainland Japan, Okinawa, and with new basing agreements in the works with Manila, potentially the Philippines as well.

This puts US troops, naval assets, and hundreds of warplanes within striking distance of China, including Taiwan from north, east, and potentially the south.

The US has also poured billions of dollars’ worth of weapons into Taiwan, just as the US did in Ukraine from 2014 onward. The weapons are clearly intended for a Ukraine-style proxy war with China.

Worst of all is the small but growing presence of US military activity on Taiwan itself.

Even as the US State Department claims it does not support Taiwan independence, in 2021 Voice of America in its article, “US Nearly Doubled Military Personnel Stationed in Taiwan This Year,” admits that not only are there US troops on Taiwan, the number is increasing.

The article explains:………………………………….

One could only imagine the reaction in Washington if Beijing and a government in, say San Juan, revealed the presence of Chinese forces in Puerto Rico. Yet as is the case in many instances regarding international relations, American “exceptionalism” not only absolves the US from any penalty for blatant violations of another nation’s sovereignty, it transfers the blame to the nation being targeted itself, in this case, China.

Why US War with China by 2025?

Despite serial provocations, Beijing has exercised exemplary patience and restraint. China has invested heavily in its military and is indeed preparing for conflict with the United States, not because it seeks to wage war with the United States but because the United States has placed its military on China’s doorstep, very clearly seeking war with China.

Taiwan’s full reintegration with the rest of China is inevitable. Already its economy is heavily dependent on access to markets across the rest of China. Harvard University’s Atlas of Economic Complexity reveals that nearly 50% of all exports from Taiwan go to the rest of China. The rest of China also accounts for the largest amount of imports to the island. Many of these imports are crucial inputs for Taiwan’s semiconductor and electronic component production which constitutes, by far, Taiwan’s largest industry.

Only through Washington’s persistent and extensive interference in Taiwan’s local political affairs has gradual reintegration been suspended. Before the US-backed Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) came to power in 2016, the incumbent Kuomintang (KMT) party was on track to sign a trade agreement with the mainland that would have increased already extensive economic integration even further.

Ironically, as the US captured Ukraine politically in 2014, it was also backing opposition protests in Taiwan dubbed the “Sunflower Movement,” paving the way for the DPP’s ascent into power 2 years later. Just like the US-installed client regime in Kiev, the DPP immediately set a course for self-destruction, irrationally rolling back ties with the mainland at the expense of the people living on Taiwan.

More recently, local elections in Taiwan saw the DPP fare poorly, serving as an unofficial referendum rejecting the DPP’s separatist platform, the damage it has consistently done to the local economy, and the instability it has created across the strait with the mainland. However, just as was the case in Ukraine where public sentiment sought peace, Washington and its client regime have every intention of overriding that sentiment in Taiwan, and pushing the island closer still to yet another US-engineered proxy war.

It is clear that it is not China rushing for war with the United States, but precisely the other way around. Time, economics, and proximity favor China. In 10 years, China will be economically and militarily stronger while the US will continue its slow decline. At that point the window of opportunity will have closed for the United States to wage any type of military conflict with China and obtain anything close to resembling “victory.”

Some could argue that the window has already closed.


The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) recently published the outcome of “wargames” regarding a theoretical Chinese “invasion” of Taiwan in a paper titled, “The First Battle of the Next War: Wargaming a Chinese Invasion of Taiwan.”

The paper concludes:

In most scenarios, the United States/Taiwan/Japan defeated a conventional amphibious invasion by China and maintained an autonomous Taiwan. However, this defense came at high cost. The United States and its allies lost dozens of ships, hundreds of aircraft, and tens of thousands of servicemembers. Taiwan saw its economy devastated. Further, the high losses damaged the U.S. global position for many years. 

Regarding China, it says:

China also lost heavily, and failure to occupy Taiwan might destabilize Chinese Communist Party rule. Victory is therefore not enough. The United States needs to strengthen deterrence immediately.

In essence, the US will suffer unprecedented military losses and Taiwan itself will be scoured clean of its industry and infrastructure. While CSIS claims that the Chinese amphibious landing was successfully foiled in its wargames thus preserving Taiwan’s political existence, the cost is Taiwan’s physical existence.

Both the CSIS paper together with public comments made by the Pentagon about their own classified wargames indicate disparity between the US and China militarily is narrowing quickly. If there is to be a conflict between the US and China, the sooner it takes place the better chance the US has of achieving a favorable outcome. It is therefore the US racing eagerly toward war, not China. China’s military posture reflects the close proximity of US forces to Chinese territory and their obvious intent to menace China in its own territory, not a China expanding its military capabilities to threaten the United States. In fact, the CSIS paper made a specific note about China’s ability to attack the US “homeland.”

The paper claims:

Because the United States will be striking the Chinese homeland, the base case assumes that the U.S. homeland is not a sanctuary. However, the ability of the Chinese to conduct strikes against the U.S. homeland and thereby affect operations in the Western Pacific is extremely limited. A few special forces might infiltrate and attack a small number of high-value targets but not enough to materially affect military operations in the Western Pacific.

Thus, even in a war between the US and China where the US is conducting strikes on Chinese territory, CSIS admits that China has very limited means to likewise strike at the US. This reveals that US policymakers are not concerned about any real threat China poses to the US, but instead to US “interests” thousands of miles from its own shores and, in fact, within the sovereign territory of China itself.

Potential war between the US and China, if it takes place, will merely be the most recent example of US military aggression in pursuit of global hegemony targeting and attempting to undermine another nation’s sovereignty in violation of international law, not as a means to uphold it. As the US often does, the lead up to this potential war sees the US projecting its own menace toward international law, peace and stability onto the very target of US military aggression, in this case China.

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

February 15, 2023 Posted by | China, USA, weapons and war | 1 Comment

“No regrets” as UK government portrays nuclear power as “clean” and “green”

 Nuclear power to get ‘green’ status as Britain races EU to hit net
zero. Move is part of a bid to unlock billions of pounds of funding for
more power stations. Nuclear power projects such as Sizewell C in Suffolk
will be granted so-called “green” status under plans by Jeremy Hunt to
unlock billions of pounds in funding for the industry. The Chancellor is
expected to announce the change within weeks as part of a broader shake-up
of the UK’s financial rules on green energy.

It would see nuclear power
projects classed as “green” or “sustainable” investments, clearing
the way for more institutional investors and environment-focused funds to
back them. There are also hopes that the Treasury could fund new power
plants with money raised through the Government’s green gilts and green
savings bonds. Generating nuclear power does not produce carbon dioxide, [ if you ignore the total nuclear fuel chain] so the sector is seen as a key plank of Britain’s plans to reach net zero
emissions by 2050.

A recent review by former energy minister and Tory MP
Chris Skidmore said that supporting the construction of more nuclear
reactors was a “no regrets” option. However, the sector has faced
difficulties portraying itself as environmentally friendly in the past
because of concerns about nuclear waste, water usage, and the remote but
catastrophic risk of nuclear accidents. Top fund managers such as Legal &
General and Aviva have previously expressed caution about the green
credentials of nuclear, with Aviva chairman George Culmer last year saying
there was an “ongoing debate”.

 Telegraph 14th Feb 2023

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/02/14/nuclear-power-now-green-britain-races-eu-hit-net-zero/

February 15, 2023 Posted by | climate change, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Some, but not all, First Nations support small nuclear reactors in New Brunswick

Moltex CEO says company has full support of all 15 First Nations in N.B. to develop SMRs

Jennifer Sweet · CBC News  Feb 15, 2023

Companies trying to develop small modular nuclear reactors in New Brunswick are getting some support from an unlikely source.

An energy crisis is looming large, and SMRs have better potential than renewables in the short term, said Chief Terry Richardson of Pabineau First Nation, near Bathurst.

Richardson said he sees nuclear power as consistent with his cultural values.

“As First Nations, we are stewards of the land. Well, when we look at nuclear technology, it’s not a carbon emitter. So it’s not going to cause a problem. It’s going to actually solve the problem of carbon.

“If we don’t do something, we all know what’s happening with climate change.”

Pabineau has signed memoranda of understanding to work with two companies that have SMR projects under way at Point Lepreau — Moltex and ARC, said Richardson.

He describes the MOUs as “non-contractual, binding documents” that state a willingness to work together on development.

Details of exactly how his community and potentially other First Nations in the province may take part in SMR projects have yet to be negotiated, said Richardson.

“There’s going to be an opportunity to be involved on the equity side and that’s where we have to sit down and talk and discuss it and see where we’re going to go.”

After the initial development at Lepreau, ARC is talking about installing more SMRs in Belledune, Richardson noted, which could mean job opportunities in northern New Brunswick.

He also likes that Moltex is looking at reusing spent fuel rods, which it says would reduce the amount of toxic nuclear waste that already exists.

Study looks at SMR waste

A Canadian peer-reviewed study that came out last summer found the volume of waste from SMRs would be between double and 30 fold that from a typical reactor and that its chemical complexity would make it more difficult to manage.

Richardson said he is satisfied that plans are in place to deal with nuclear waste and added that maybe in the future there will be a way to recycle it…..

Moltex CEO Rory O’Sullivan told the legislative committee Wednesday that his company has the support of all 15 First Nations in the province to develop SMRs. 

However, some other Indigenous leaders addressed the committee who have concerns about the SMR plans and the public investment in development.

Chief Hugh Akagi represents the Peskotomuhkati Nation at Skutik, which doesn’t have official recognition as a First Nation in Canada. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/first-nations-small-modular-nuclear-reactors-1.6749808

February 15, 2023 Posted by | Canada, indigenous issues, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Fukushima: Japan insists release of 1.3m tonnes of ‘treated’ water is safe

Neighbouring countries and local fishers express concern as 12th anniversary of nuclear disaster looms


Justin McCurry, Guardian 15 Feb 23,

“……………….. As the country prepares to mark the 11 March anniversary, one of the disaster’s most troubling legacies is about to come into full view with the release of more than 1m tonnes of “treated” water from the destroyed Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

The tsunami knocked out the plant’s backup electricity supply, leading to meltdowns in three of its reactors, in the world’s worst nuclear accident since Chornobyl 25 years earlier.

Much has changed since the Guardian’s first visit to the plant in 2012, when the cleanup had barely begun and visitors were required to wear protective clothing and full-face masks. Atmospheric radiation levels have dropped, damaged reactor buildings have been reinforced and robots have identified melted fuel in the basements.

But as the Guardian learned on a recent visit, progress on decommissioning – a process that could take four decades – is being held up by the accumulation of huge quantities of water that is used to cool the damaged reactor cores.

Now, 1.3m tonnes of water – enough to fill about 500 Olympic-sized swimming pools – is being stored in 1,000 tanks that cover huge swathes of the complex. And space is running out.

Two steel pillars protruding from the sea a kilometre from the shore mark the spot where, later this year, the plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power [Tepco], plans to begin releasing the water into the Pacific Ocean, in the most controversial step in the Fukushima Daiichi cleanup to date.

The decision comes more than two years after Japan’s government approved the release of the water, which is treated using on-site technology to remove most radioactive materials. But the water still contains tritium, a naturally occurring radioactive form of hydrogen that is technically difficult to separate from water.

The discharge, which is due to begin in the spring or summer, will take place in defiance of local fishing communities, who say it will destroy more than a decade of work to rebuild their industry. Neighbouring countries have also voiced opposition.

The government and Tepco claim the environmental and health impacts will be negligible because the treated water will be released gradually after it has been diluted by large amounts of seawater. The International Atomic Energy Agency says nuclear plants around the world use a similar process to dispose of wastewater containing low-level concentrations of tritium and other radionuclides.

Tepco and government officials who guided a small group of journalists around Fukushima Daiichi this month insisted the science supports their plans to pump the “treated” water – they object to media reports describing it as contaminated – into the ocean………………………………………….

Environmental groups have challenged the Japanese government’s claims that the water will not affect marine life or human health, while the US National Association of Marine Laboratories has pointed to a lack of adequate and accurate scientific data to support its reassurances on safety…………………..  https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/15/fukushima-japan-insists-release-of-treated-water-is-safe-nuclear-disaster

February 15, 2023 Posted by | Fukushima continuing | Leave a comment

South Korea’s First Attempt at Going Nuclear

Seoul attempted to attain nuclear weapons back in the 1970s, only to be stopped by heavy pressure from Washington.

By Gabriela Bernal, February 15, 2023

The debate about whether South Korea should pursue independent nuclear armaments is once again making headlines. A recent survey showed that nearly 77 percent of South Koreans believe in the necessity of developing a domestic nuclear weapons program. The issue has gained even more traction with major government figures, including the president himself, floating the possibility of South Korea going nuclear.

But this isn’t the first time that Seoul has considered or even pursued a nuclear weapons program. In fact, back in the 1970s, the United States was more concerned about a nuclear program in the South than the North, a scenario that seems unimaginable today.

In 1972, South Korean President Park Chung-hee launched a clandestine military nuclear program called “Project 890,” the existence of which was only discovered by Washington in late 1974. This was a period of high anxiety for Park……………………………………………………………..

Despite strong opposition from Seoul, Washington stood its ground. With U.S. pressure growing, by December 1975 South Korea sought “concrete information” about possible U.S. nuclear aid if Seoul decided to cancel the reprocessing deal. Washington’s position was that it would be prepared to send U.S. personnel to the South for peaceful nuclear cooperation after South Korea made the decision to cancel the French deal………………………………….

Lessons Learned and What’s at Stake Today

South Korea’s first attempt at going nuclear leaves us with several lessons and warnings. First, if it was impossible for Seoul to secretly pursue a nuclear program in the early 1970s, there would be absolutely no way of doing so now.

Second, although South Korean technology today is far superior to what it had in the 1970s, it would still need support from the international community to develop nuclear weapons. However, with South Korea being a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and nuclear non-proliferation being established as a firm principle in the international community, going the nuclear path would mean violating legal agreements, which would lead to diplomatic isolation and multilateral backlash from the international community.

Choosing the nuclear option would also greatly damage the South Korea-U.S. alliance. Washington did not support Seoul going nuclear in the 1970s and maintains this stance today. In addition, South Korea would be jeopardizing its nuclear energy industry as well, since many of its reactors rely on U.S. and other foreign licenses to operate.

Besides this, and perhaps most importantly, South Korea going nuclear would make any calls for the denuclearization of the North completely void. This would prolong the Korean War, make diplomacy almost impossible, significantly raise military tensions on the Korean Peninsula, and even possibly lead to a regional (nuclear) arms race.

Such a scenario would be highly unfavorable for all players involved, in both the short- and long-term. South Korea must realize that its highly-trained conventional forces, backed by U.S. conventional military support, are enough to respond to North Korean military provocations. While the current level of U.S. reassurances to the South may be insufficient for many, the answer should not be the pursuit of nuclear weapons.

The best way to deter a North Korean attack is through diplomacy and dialogue with Pyongyang. This is the only way to come to a peaceful solution, to have a chance at arms control in the North, and to get to a place where peaceful coexistence is possible.

Gabriela Bernal

Gabriela Bernal is a Ph.D. scholar at the University of North Korean Studies in Seoul and a freelance writer on North Korean affairs. She specializes in inter-Korean relations, North Korea-U.S. relations, and North Korean foreign policy. https://thediplomat.com/2023/02/south-koreas-first-attempt-at-going-nuclear/

February 15, 2023 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Officials will not confirm whether US bombers in Australia carry nuclear weapons

By defence correspondent Andrew Greene, 16 Feb 23

Officials have stopped short of ruling out that US strategic bombers are carrying nuclear weapons to Australia, but the government insists any such move would not breach this country’s international obligations. 

Key points:

  • United States bombers with nuclear capability frequently fly in Australian air
  • The US has a policy of refusing to confirm or deny if those bombers carry nuclear weaponry
  • The federal government says it respects US secrecy on nuclear weapons

During a Senate estimates hearing on Wednesday Greens senators sought details on whether visiting American aircraft such as the B-52s operating out of the Top End are ever nuclear armed.

The committee was told the United States had a longstanding policy of “neither confirming or denying” the presence of nuclear weapons under its practice of maintaining global operational unpredictability. ……..

Defence Department secretary Greg Moriarty said the “stationing of nuclear weapons” in Australia was prohibited under the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, but the treaty did not prevent visits by the US bombers.

Foreign Minister Penny Wong backed the secretary’s statement and accused Greens senators of trying to “make a political point”. 

“This is the Australian position: We understand and respect the longstanding US policy of neither confirming or denying. That is the position,” Senator Wong said.

“But we remain fully committed to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, and we will fully comply with our international obligations, which are understood by the United States.”

Under further questioning from Greens senator David Shoebridge, the foreign minister said it would not be appropriate to elaborate. …………………….

Defence mulls methods to make warships more deadly

Defence has also revealed it is examining ways to make Australia’s next fleet of warships more lethal. ……………more https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-15/defence-wont-confirm-if-us-bombers-carry-nuclear-weapons/101978596

February 15, 2023 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, secrets,lies and civil liberties | Leave a comment

Scotland’s campaign groups call on government to reject plans for nuclear power at new Green Freeports.

 NORTH campaigners have called on the Scottish Government to reject plans
to build nuclear plants at the country’s two new Green Freeports.

 John O’Groat Journal 14th Feb 2023

https://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/news/call-for-scottish-government-to-reject-plans-to-build-nuclea-303332/

 THE convener of Scotland’s nuclear-free local authorities (NFLAs) has
written to Net Zero Minister Michael Matheson asking him to reject nuclear
power at Scotland’s two new green freeports.

 The National 15th Feb 2023

https://www.thenational.scot/news/23322143.nuclear-power-freeports-greenwashing-scottish-minister-told/

February 15, 2023 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, UK | Leave a comment

Watchdogs File FOIA Request for Holtec’s Secretive “Regulatory Path to Reauthorize Power Operations at Palisades Nuclear Plant”

Kevin Kamps, Beyond Nuclear,  kevin@beyondnuclear.org
Michael Keegan, Don’t Waste Michigan,  mkeeganj@comcast.net
Wally Taylor, Environmental Coalition Legal Co-Counsel,wtaylor784@aol.com

 https://wordpress.com/read/feeds/135644516/posts/4555599469 COVERT, MI, and WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 14, 2023–Beyond Nuclear and Don’t Waste Michigan, long-time environmental watchdogs on the Palisades atomic reactor, today filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The FOIA request, filed by the groups’ legal counsel, Terry Lodge of Toledo, Ohio, seeks unredacted versions of Holtec’s Feb. 1, 2023 cover letter, and two enclosures, regarding the “Regulatory Path to Reauthorize Power Operations at the Palisades Nuclear Plant.” NRC has acknowledged receipt of the groups’ FOIA request.

The FOIA request challenges Holtec’s invocation of proprietary trade secrecy, stating

“The documents sought by DWM and BN are expected to reveal Holtec International’s suggested regulatory steps to bring about the unprecedented reopening and recommissioning of a shutdown, defueled nuclear power plant which is presently being decommissioned. Holtec’s suggested regulatory path to reopen Palisades is bogus. It is of interest to the public because Holtec has no competitor. Palisades is the only closed reactor whose owner is trying to reopen it; indeed, there has never been a similar effort made to reopen a closed reactor. No one is watching the Palisades controversy to learn some clever regulatory trick. There are no genuine prospects for a Palisades restart.”

The groups’ FOIA request concludes that “Releasing unredacted versions of the requested documents will significantly add to public understanding of the NRC’s role in this unprecedented attempt to restore Palisades to operability.”

This is the third FOIA request submitted by the groups in recent months. The first two were submitted in November 2022 to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and the State of Michigan Public Service Commission, for complete documentation on why DOE rejected Holtec’s first federal bailout application on November 18, 2022.

Continue reading

February 15, 2023 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Earth Changes Summary – January 2023: Extreme Weather, Planetary Upheaval, Meteor Fireballs.

Sott.net
2023-02-14 

The start of 2023 has been marked by heavy snow, unseasonably cold temperatures, and wetter-than-expected weather for the season.

Extreme weather hit California pretty hard this month: A bomb cyclone, severe flooding, mudslides, power outages, walls of snow in Soda Spring, and a magnitude 4.2 earthquake with an epicenter in offshore Malibu……………………………….

Heavy snow also disrupted normal life in Italy, Austria, Slovenia, Croatia, and Mallorca. Mallorca was covered by its largest snowfall in more than five years.

China’s northernmost city, Mohe, was hit by an all-time record of -53°C, the lowest ever recorded. The local officials worked overtime to ensure heating and water services. This comes days after temperatures plunged to -50°C in Russia’s Yakutsk.

Central Asia also suffered a harsh January. In Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan recorded unusual levels of snow, that collapsed power poles and trees, blocked main roads, and burst water pipes. Thetemperatures in Kazakhstan reached a chilling -30°C.

The Middle East was also caught off guard by colder-than-usual temperatures and snow. Tens of thousands of Iranians were left without gas amid snow and freezing conditions, and Afghanistan temperatures plummeted as low as -33°C,combined with widespread snowfall, freezing gusts, and regular power outages. At least 166 people died due to the cold wave.

Ex-Tropical Cyclone Ellie continued to batter northern Australia this month. Heavy rain turned roads into rivers, thousands of cattle got lost or died, and boats were the only form of transportation in some counties. Western Australia was also hit hard by heavy rain and floods. 38 homes and 37 businesses were destroyed, with an additional 121 homes damaged. In some cases, the damage is so severe that will require long-term rebuilding efforts. The floods have also caused significant damage to infrastructure and transportation routes.

New Zealand’s largest city declared a state of emergency after torrential rains caused widespread flooding and evacuations. Heavy floods washed away houses, blocked roads, and knocked out power. The city received 75% of its usual summer rainfall in just 15 hours.

Latvia experienced its worst flooding since 1981, forcing residents of central areas to evacuate their homes. Meanwhile, large chunks of ice that drifted from Belkarus caused the water level to rise, while also putting pressure on a new dam.

Other noteworthy events this month:

  • Sumatra, Indonesia: Heavy flooding leaves 3 dead and 15,000 homes damaged
  • Johor and Pahang, Malaysia: More than 4,000 were displaced by flooding caused by 17 inches of rain in 24 hours
  • North Sulawesi, Indonesia: Nearly 18 inches of rain in 48 hours left 3-meter floods in some areas.
  • Zambia – Non-stop rains caused catastrophic flooding in southern and central provinces.

And things start to get rocky! A 5.9 Mag earthquake struck northwestern Iran, killing at least seven people and injuring 440.

All this and more in our SOTT Earth Changes Summary for January 2023:… https://www.sott.net/article/477313-SOTT-Earth-Changes-Summary-January-2023-Extreme-Weather-Planetary-Upheaval-Meteor-Fireballs

February 15, 2023 Posted by | 2 WORLD, climate change | Leave a comment

At Sellafield nuclear site workers ready to go on strike

 Hundreds of Sellafield cleaners have voted to strike in anger at a broken
pay promise More than three hundred workers employed by Mitie at the
nuclear power plant have said they are ready to take industrial action.


Bosses had promised to up workers’ pay from November last year to help
with the cost of living crisis. Now they have gone back on their word and
say a pay rise will only be paid from April – six months later. Workers
and GMB representatives will meet in the coming days to discuss strike
dates.

 GMB 14th Feb 2023

https://www.gmb.org.uk/news/sellafield-workers-vote-strike

February 15, 2023 Posted by | employment | Leave a comment

Thousands of solar panels sent to power recovery effort in earthquake devastated Türkiye

Up to 12,000 solar panels sent to Turkey, including to power temporary shelters to provide lighting, heating, telephone chargers and refrigerators. The post Thousands of solar panels sent to power recovery effort in earthquake devastated Türkiye appeared first on RenewEconomy.

Thousands of solar panels sent to power recovery effort in earthquake devastated Türkiye — RenewEconomy

February 15, 2023 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment