TODAY. Nuclear war – it’s a manly thing
I was reminded of this fact today, as I read an article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. An excellent article, by three very good academics – all men, understandably, as we all realise that they are the most expert on these matters.
I was struck by this line, a fair way down in the article – “Women are far less likely than men to support UK possession of nuclear weapons (28 percent of women, compared with 53 percent of men). “
It was nice of them to mention women’s opinions. That doesn’t happen often , but whenever it does, there is this striking difference – with women not at all keen on nuclear weapons and nuclear war.
The sad reality is that when you look at the people making the decisions on nuclear weapons, and on international relations – they’re pretty much always men. Some of these men are all dolled up in pretty military uniforms and colours, with ribbons, and medals – all looking so important.
Very important men – making very silly decisions.
The British government doesn’t want to talk about its nuclear weapons. The British public does
Women are far less likely than men to support UK possession (28 percent of women, compared with 53 percent of men)
Bulletin, By Tim Street, Harry Spencer, Shane Ward | April 6, 2023
In January 2023 British Pugwash and the polling company Savanta conducted a survey of UK public opinion on nuclear weapons issues and potential support for policies that advance nuclear arms control, disarmament, and non-proliferation.
The poll involved 2,320 UK adults who were asked about the Russia-Ukraine war, the United Kingdom’s ongoing replacement of its nuclear weapon system, the possibility that US nuclear weapons will again be stationed in the United Kingdom, the significant increase to the UK’s nuclear warhead stockpile cap, and the entry into force of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
Our polling results found some notable differences between the British public’s views and the policies of the UK government concerning nuclear weapons. While 40 percent of poll respondents support the United Kingdom possessing nuclear weapons, there is significant support for policies that would control, limit, or even eliminate the UK’s nuclear weapons—including among supporters of nuclear possession. For example, over a third of those who support the UK’s possession of nuclear weapons also support joining a multilateral disarmament treaty.
Despite the challenges involved, especially at a time of war in Europe, we at British Pugwash see an opportunity for UK political parties to adopt policies more supportive of nuclear arms control and disarmament. Our key findings revealed these differences between government policy and public opinion:
Use of nuclear weapons. The UK government’s policy is to consider using nuclear weapons “only in extreme circumstances of self-defence, including the defence of our NATO allies.” UK and NATO policy does not rule out the first use of nuclear weapons.
Our poll found that 48 percent of UK adults oppose the first use of nuclear weapons by the United Kingdom, and only 40 percent support first use. This finding builds on the results of the survey British Pugwash conducted in 2021, which found that two-thirds of the British public want NATO to renounce the first use of nuclear weapons.
Replacing nuclear weapons. The United Kingdom is replacing all four parts of its nuclear weapons system: submarines, missiles, warheads, and associated infrastructure. The estimated cost of the four new nuclear-armed submarines is £31 billion (about $38 billion), and the estimated total cost of replacing nuclear weapons between 2019 and 2070 is at least £172 billion ($212 billion).
Our poll found that 42 percent of UK adults think the estimated cost of replacing the UK’s nuclear weapons does not represent value for money.
Stationing US nuclear weapons in the United Kingdom. The UK government has previously allowed US nuclear weapons and nuclear-capable aircraft to be stored, maintained, and operated from UK military bases. Although the United Kingdom has not hosted US nuclear weapons since 2008, in April 2022 an analysis of US Defense Department documents reported that a facility at the Royal Air Force’s Lakenheath base in Suffolk—which is used by the US Air Force—was being upgraded, potentially allowing the United States to again deploy nuclear weapons there.
British public opinion is split over allowing the United States to deploy nuclear weapons on UK territory. Our poll found that 34 percent of UK adults oppose, and 32 percent support, stationing US nuclear weapons in the United Kingdom.
Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. In 2017, 122 states voted in support of the Treaty, which prohibits the development, testing, production, acquisition, possession, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons, as well as any threat to use them. The United Kingdom has not signed or ratified the treaty. To join the treaty, the country would have to dismantle its nuclear arsenal or present a legally binding plan to do so.
Our poll found that 39 percent of UK adults support joining the ban treaty. Among 18- to 34-year-olds, 48 percent support joining the treaty, and only 13 percent are opposed.
Nuclear weapons possession. The United Kingdom is one of only nine countries possessing nuclear weapons. Our poll found that 40 percent of UK adults are in favor of possession. Women are far less likely than men to support UK possession (28 percent of women, compared with 53 percent of men). Some 27 percent of UK adults oppose UK nuclear possession, 29 percent neither support nor oppose nuclear possession, and 5 percent said they “don’t know” in response to this question.
Our poll also found that a minority of UK adults (39 percent) fully support the government’s decision to increase the UK’s nuclear warhead stockpile cap.
Even among supporters of nuclear possession, we found significant concerns about the government’s approach to nuclear weapons. For example, 23 percent of those who support nuclear possession don’t think the estimated cost of replacing the UK’s nuclear weapons represents value for money.
Furthermore, 38 percent of those who support UK nuclear possession do not want the military to use nuclear weapons first in a conflict. Notably, 35 percent of those who currently support the possession of nuclear weapons also want the United Kingdom to join the international ban treaty that would eliminate the country’s nuclear arsenal.
War in Ukraine. Our data indicate that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has significantly strengthened support for UK possession of nuclear weapons among those who already favored possession. Two-thirds of those who support nuclear possession said the conflict strengthened their position on this issue.
We also saw increases in support for nuclear weapons possession among those who otherwise oppose nuclear possession. In our poll, 16 percent of those who oppose UK possession of nuclear weapons said the Ukraine conflict had increased their support for possession.
Responses to this particular question likely reflect wider public support for UK involvement in the Ukraine conflict and may thus be temporary. Moreover, 39 percent of UK adults said the Ukraine conflict had “made no difference” to their view on UK nuclear possession. Overall, our data suggest that a key impact of the Ukraine war has been to reinforce support for UK nuclear possession among UK adults who already held this view.
Uncertainty and ambivalence. Nearly a third of respondents gave an “on the fence” answer to several of the questions posed. For example, 29 percent said they did not support or oppose the UK’s possession of nuclear weapons; 30 percent said they neither support nor oppose the rise in the nuclear warhead stockpile cap; 28 percent said they neither support nor oppose US nuclear weapons again being stationed in the United Kingdom; and 29 percent said they “don’t know” or are “unsure” whether the estimated cost of the UK nuclear weapons replacement program represents value for money.
These findings indicate that there is significant uncertainty about, and ambivalence toward, nuclear weapons among UK adults.
Why our survey matters.………………………………………………………………………………..
Greater public and parliamentary participation in decision making would improve the quality and legitimacy of the United Kingdom’s international policy. Yet decisions on nuclear weapons (and national security more generally) are largely made behind closed doors. The lack of democracy, transparency, and accountability surrounding nuclear weapons has a clear impact on the British public’s interest in and understanding of the issues. The findings of our poll may partly be explained by the lack of awareness and the absence of public debate on nuclear matters in the United Kingdom. The large number of “don’t know” and “on the fence” responses indicates that many UK adults do not feel well enough informed to make a judgment on these issues.
…………………………………………………………….. Our polling data clearly show a sizable gap between public attitudes and the government’s nuclear weapons policy. With a UK general election likely to be held in 2024, British political parties should be developing policies that better represent public views on nuclear weapons issues—and increase democracy, transparency, and accountability in defense and foreign policy more generally. https://thebulletin.org/2023/04/the-british-government-doesnt-want-to-talk-about-its-nuclear-weapons-the-british-public-does/
—
The temperature of the world’s ocean surface has hit an all-time high.
The temperature of the world’s ocean surface has hit an all-time high
since satellite records began, leading to marine heatwaves around the
globe, according to US government data. Climate scientists said preliminary
data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) showed
the average temperature at the ocean’s surface has been at 21.1C since
the start of April – beating the previous high of 21C set in 2016.
Three years of La Niña conditions across the vast tropical Pacific have helped
suppress temperatures and dampened the effect of rising greenhouse gas
emissions. But scientists said heat was now rising to the ocean surface,
pointing to a potential El Niño pattern in the tropical Pacific later this
year that can increase the risk of extreme weather conditions and further
challenge global heat records.
Guardian 8th April 2023
Antarctica’s melting ice sheet could retreat much faster than previously thought
Antarctica’s melting ice sheet could retreat much faster than previously
thought, new research suggests. The evidence comes from markings on the
seafloor off Norway that record the pull-back of a melting European ice
sheet thousands of years ago.
Today, the fastest withdrawing glaciers in
Antarctica are seen to retreat by up to 30m a day. But if they sped up, the
extra melt water would have big implications for sea-level rises around the
globe. Ice losses from Antarctica caused by climate change have already
pushed up the surface of the world’s oceans by nearly 1cm since the 1990s.
The researchers found that with the Norwegian sheet, the maximum retreat
was more than 600m a day.
BBC 5th April 2023
Nuclear fusion is a never-ending dream
. “The development of the toroidal [magnetic confinement] nuclear fusion reactor is totally blocked by three challenges:
One, abysmally high cost (trillions of yen more in the future?) and a mind-boggling long time (more than 50 years); two, gigantic and complicated systems (a mega-sized system cannot be handled unless simple); and three, the heat-resistant material and radiation-proof material for the reactor walls are not available on earth.”
BY CITIZENS’ NUCLEAR INFORMATION CENTER · APRIL 5, 2023, By Nishio Baku (CNIC Co-Director)
Green Transformation (GX) Basic Policy proposed by the Japanese government mentions nuclear fusion as one of the next-generation innovative nuclear technologies in its reference information. I doubted my ears when I learned that the Nuclear Energy Subcommittee of the ministerial Advisory Committee for Natural Resources and Energy, which drafted the policy, brought up nuclear fusion as one of the “innovative technologies” to be pursued.
It was a big surprise. That is the very nuclear fusion that, at the Second International Conference for the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy of September 1 through 13, 1958 in Geneva, Dr. H. J. Bhabha from India, who chaired the conference, flamboyantly predicted would take shape in 20 years. It has been 64 years since then. The government refers to this vintage technology as “innovative”.
During the decade of the 1980s, various Japanese universities received more budget than previously from the government for nuclear fusion research. The website of professor Takabe Hideaki, Institute of Laser Fusion, Osaka University, notes on September 10, 2014 that, during the days of the Second Oil Crisis, when Gekko XII [the experimental laser fusion apparatus at Osaka University] was completed, the government’s top-down initiative provided the university with a budget of 30 billion yen (in the value of the yen at the time), to build the laser system and a robust building for it.
I find this maybe a special case (another document I have with me says, of the fiscal 1984 national budget, 35 billion yen was given to the then Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation and a total of 7 billion yen to universities). Uramoto Joshin, a former associate professor at the National Institute for Fusion Science, wrote in his retirement memoir “My Final Words as a NIFS Staff” (NIFS News, May 1998), that he was in a festive mood around the time when he joined the former Plasma Research Institute of Nagoya University, which was one of the founding bodies of the NIFS.
The boom faded, and in 1989, the Plasma Research Institute was reorganized as the National Institute for Fusion Science, an inter-university research institute, into which a part of the Heliotron Plasma Physics Laboratory at Kyoto University and a part of the Institute for Fusion Theory at Hiroshima University were incorporated. The technology that the government refers to is the same nuclear fusion.
In what respect can the nuclear fusion reactor be a “next-generation innovative reactor”? While there is no full-size nuclear fusion reactor, what would a “compact nuclear fusion reactor” look like?
Today, “private-sector nuclear fusion” by venture companies seems to be enjoying a global boom………………………………………………. the project did not seem very practical.
……………………………………………………………. Whatever the case, the ignition lasts only one instant.
How far will the muddy road continue?
This nuclear fusion was mentioned by Prime Minister Kishida in his administrative policy speech on January 17, 2022 with the cryptic reasoning that it would help achieve the 2050 goal of carbon neutrality. Using this as the basis, the government set up the Nuclear Fusion Strategy Expert Panel under the Integrated Innovation Strategy Promotion Council of the Cabinet Office.
The panel had its first meeting on September 30, where Takaichi Sanae, Minister of State for Science and Technology Policy, said: “I have a strong will to accelerate the efforts to commercialize nuclear fusion technology as far as possible.” However, the Innovative Reactor Working Group placed under the Nuclear Energy Subcommittee, states in its “Roadmap for Introduction” (August 9, 2022) that whether the construction of a prototype nuclear fusion reactor should start or not will be determined in the mid-2030s. What would “commercializing nuclear fusion” mean at this point?
I wonder how much longer this fusion boom will continue. “As I am leaving this institute, I breathe a sigh,” Associate Professor Uramoto said in his NIFS retirement memoir. “The development of the toroidal [magnetic confinement] nuclear fusion reactor is totally blocked by three challenges: One, abysmally high cost (trillions of yen more in the future?) and a mind-boggling long time (more than 50 years); two, gigantic and complicated systems (a mega-sized system cannot be handled unless simple); and three, the heat-resistant material and radiation-proof material for the reactor walls are not available on earth.”
For the cost, the Special Committee on the ITER Project of the Japan Atomic Energy Commission bragged about ITER in its report, “International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) Project Forecast” (May 18, 2001): “It is difficult to correctly estimate the cost required to realize a nuclear fusion reactor, …………………………………………………
Of the challenges Uramoto pointed out, the second one, “gigantic and complicated systems (a mega-sized system cannot be handled unless simple)” and the third one, “the heat-resistant material and radiation-proof material for the reactor walls are not available on earth” remain unsolved, despite the passage of so many years.
The pot is calling the kettle black
It is meaningless to compare nuclear fusion with nuclear power generation, but some say: “Nuclear fusion is clean.” In terms of the radioactivity released when a large accident occurs, nuclear fusion technology would emit less radioactivity than a conventional nuclear plant.
However, the daily releases of radioactive materials from nuclear fusion would be greater than those from a conventional nuclear power plant. Nuclear fusion is also more likely to leak tritium and radioactive gas. It will produce four times as much energy as nuclear fission while producing seven times as many neutrons. Workers in the fusion plant would be exposed to radiation, and people in the neighborhood would also be exposed due to sky shine. Plant equipment would be strongly radiated and easily embrittled, requiring frequent replacement, producing a huge amount of highly contaminated wastes……………………………………………. more https://cnic.jp/english/?p=6549
Foundation in Fukushima nuclear plant reactor likely badly damaged
The internal wall of a cylindrical foundation supporting the reactor
pressure vessel of the No. 1 unit of the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear
power plant may be badly damaged across its entire circumference, its
operator said Tuesday. Some of the damage was revealed in videos taken
during a survey of the No. 1 unit’s containment vessel by operator Tokyo
Electric Power Company Holdings Inc., which said it would further analyze
the footage and assess the seismic resistance of the pedestal. The survey,
conducted from March 28 through March 31 using an underwater robot, found
the concrete wall missing in over half of the pedestal measuring 5 meters
in internal diameter, leaving the reinforcing bar exposed.
Mainichi 4th April 2023
https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20230404/p2g/00m/0bu/040000c
Ocean Heat, An El Nino on the Way, Potential New Global Temperature Record by 2024 — robertscribbler.
The world ocean system is much hotter than normal. And El Nino hasn’t even arrived yet. With this major ocean warming event starting to show up, it looks like 2023-2024 will see global surface temperatures fall yet again. Fossil fuel burning is driving global temperatures higher and putting everyone at risk.
Ocean Heat, An El Nino on the Way, Potential New Global Temperature Record by 2024 — robertscribbler
April 8 Energy News — geoharvey
Opinion: ¶ “Beyond Going Green, Here’s Why You Should Buy An EV” • Business Insider’s Tim Levin shared his thoughts on going electric after driving 24 different EVs. The story compiles his’s thoughts on why buyers should go electric, including experiences driving EVs from brands such as Tesla, Volkswagen, Rivian, Hyundai, Kia, Mercedes, and more. […]
April 8 Energy News — geoharvey
Americans now fear cyberattack more than nuclear attack
The Hill, BY DANIEL DE VISÉ – 04/07/23
Americans now see cyberattack as the greatest threat facing the country, two recent polls show, suggesting that cyber fears have outflanked concern over climate change, immigration, terrorism or nuclear weapons.
The national obsession with computer-on-computer attack, documented in a 2023 Gallup poll and a 2022 Pew Research survey, comes at a time when cyberattack seems to be everywhere and nowhere.
………………………………………………. In the Gallup poll, published last month, 84 percent of respondents rated cyberterrorism as a critical threat, ranking it above 10 other fears, including international terrorism, global warming, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine and Iran’s nuclear program. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
And, of course, the world faces many perils beyond cyberattack. One is nuclear war. Nuclear fears surged in the weeks after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
More than a year later, the nuclear threat seems greater than ever. The Doomsday Clock, a symbol of humanity’s proximity to extinction, stands at 90 seconds to midnight, signifying a moment of unprecedented danger.
Peter Kuznick, a history professor and director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University, believes “the danger of nuclear war is probably greater” now than at the invasion’s start.
But the nuclear threat, Kuznick said, is “something that people don’t want to think about.”
US Department of Energy is once again promoting large nuclear reactors, despite lack of supply chain and absurdly unaffordable costs
The US Department of Energy (DOE) is once again promoting large-scale
reactors after spending a decade advancing smaller models. It boldly
declares in a report last month that the domestic nuclear industry has the
potential to “scale from ~100 GW in 2023 to ~300 GW by 2050 — driven by
deployment of advanced nuclear technologies.”
This is beyond absurd — it’s irresponsible.
It’s absurd because the US no longer has the supply
chain needed for large-scale nuclear projects — it can’t even forge a
pressure vessel; it’s irresponsible because the cost of building 200-300
new reactors would be more than $3 trillion.
Resources devoted to rescuing
a dying industry are resources that wouldn’t be available for viable,
less-costly strategies to achieve net-zero emissions in the power sector.
More than that, the report reflects an energy agency still dominated by a
nuclear-centric culture, and badly out of step with the times.
Energy Intelligence 3rd April 2023
https://www.energyintel.com/00000187-2f8a-db48-adf7-ef9af9880000
IPCC report shows the winners in energy transition – wind and solar, and the losers – nuclear power and carbon capture.
Guardian Down to Earth newsletter. Tucked away in the recent (and
devastating) landmark report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) is a chart that provides the road map for an escape from
catastrophe.
It assesses with extraordinary clarity the potential for
emissions cuts of more than 40 options. You can view it here. The
simplicity of the chart is deceptive. It was compiled by a team of the
world’s best scientists, based on 175 studies. Its power is amplified by
the fact that it was signed off by all of the world’s governments, from
the cleanest and greenest to the darkest petrostates.
So what does it show?
First, solar and wind power are by far the best option, with the potential
to cut a staggering 8bn tonnes from annual CO2 emissions by 2030. That is
equivalent to the combined emissions of the US and European Union today.
Even more startling is that most of that potential can be achieved at lower
cost than just continuing with today’s electricity systems.
Just as important as the winners in this analysis are the losers. Nuclear power and
carbon capture and storage (CCS) each have just 10% of the potential of
wind and solar, and at far higher cost. The same applies to bioenergy –
burning wood or crops for electricity. It’s no wonder that the UK’s
energy strategy, published last week, received significant criticism: it
goes heavy on nuclear and CCS, while ignoring onshore wind.
IPCC (accessed) 7th April 2023
Campaigners continue to take a stand against the plan for new nuclear power at Bradwell
CAMPAIGNERS have promised to continue to protect the people and
environment until a village site is ruled out for use as a nuclear power
site. The Government has said it is “committed to a programme of new
nuclear projects beyond Sizewell C”.
The current government nuclear
policy statement identifies Bradwell as a site for nuclear energy until the
end of 2025. Despite the stop to the plans for a Chinese-led nuclear power
station in Bradwell, campaigners are continuing to take a stand against the
site being considered for nuclear use.
Maldon Standard 6th April 2023
Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center news roundup April/May 2023
Nuke Info Tokyo April/May Newsletter includes: Fukushima Now – Part 1:
Railroading the Contaminated Water Release is Unacceptable! by Ban
Hideyuki; Fukushima Now – Part 2: Current State of Post-Accident
Operations at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (Jun. to Dec. 2022)
By Matsukubo Hajime; Childhood thyroid cancer cases confirmed in the
Fukushima Health Management Survey and others; Nuclear fusion is a
never-ending dream By Nishio Baku; News Watch Revisions to Basic Policy on
High-level Radioactive Waste Disposal / Surveillance Camera Monitoring
Interrupted at Rokkasho Recycling Plant / Takahama Unit 4 Automatically
Shut Down / Unjust Verdict in Lawsuit for National Compensation for
Second-Generation Hibakusha.
CNIC 5th April 2023
European nuclear power generation to continue at historically low levels
European nuclear generation in April is projected to remain 2% below 2022
and 18% lower than the 2015-2021 averages, forecasts from the soon to be
launched ICIS Power Foresight model show. Germany is set to complete its
nuclear phase-out this month, while strikes in France continue to threaten
availability and delay maintenance schedules.
ICIS 6th April 2023
Japan’s nuclear regulators find errors in Japan Atomic Power’s safety documents for the Tsuruga plant.
Nuclear regulators said Wednesday they will again halt a safety assessment
of an offline central Japan reactor after its operator repeatedly submitted
documents containing errors, further prolonging a process toward resumption
that has already taken years. Japan Atomic Power has been seeking approval
to reboot the No. 2 unit at the Tsuruga plant in Fukui Prefecture under
stricter regulations imposed following the 2011 Fukushima nuclear power
plant disaster, but its application has been fraught with mistakes and data
tampering.
Japan Times 5th April 2023
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2023/04/05/national/tsuruga-reactor-safety-assessment-halt/
Mainichi 5th April 2023
https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20230405/p2g/00m/0na/027000c
1 This Month
Website of the Week
New book – https://www.amazon.com/dp/1923372157?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- January 2026 (106)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
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
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- 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
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 