Bitterly disappointed in Mastodon
Like many others, I left Twitter- X, because of Elon Musk and the whole weird setup developing there.
Today, on Mastodon, I find “Suspension of account from Jan 27, 2024”.
No warning, no notice, nothing.
My posts are almost always references to: my opposition to the nuclear industry, and to my condemnation of the genocide that Israel is perpetrating in Gaza.
Not personal attacks, not criminal accusations, not sexual content. No reason given for my suspension.
WHAT IS GOING ON WITH MASTODON?
I have done a little research, on Reddit. It turns out that many others have had the same experience. Apparently you can appeal, but your Mastodon account will be permanently deleted. Hard to know how to appeal, as you have no idea what prompted them to cut you off. It seems that all that is need is for one person to make an objection to you – and you’re out! But of course, not knowing what their objection was, it’s hard to answer it. My lame appeal was:
“I don’t understand why my account is suspended. I think that I deserve an explanation.”
Where to, from here?
I have a Facebook account. It doesn’t get anything like the same volume of traffic that Mastodon does. With Facebook, I feel that we enthusiasts for a particular cause (a nuclear-free world) are just talking to each other.
And by the way, the nuclear industry has a huge presence on Mastodon.
Is there any open-source, non-profit, alternative to Twitter?
Can anyone help me?,
More time needed for safety statement on Finland’s planned used fuel repository: no safety case has been made
COMMENT: The story below, from a pro-nuclear source, puts the best possible spin they can muster on the delays in the review of the Finnish nuclear waste burial proponent’s application for a deep geololgical repository for nuclear fuel waste. Here’s the straight story: the review period is being extended for another year (for now) because the regulator is waiting for missing information from the proponent, Posiva. No safety case has been made.
In comparison, the application by the Swedish proponent SKB was submitted in 2011, there have been repeated delays and extensions while the regulator waited for additional information, and while the Swedish government issued a political approval last year the Land and Environment Court has not issued the necessary approval.
23 January 2024, https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsmore-time-needed-for-safety-statement-on-finlands-planned-used-fuel-repository-11456534
Finland’s Radiation & Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK – Säteilyturvakeskus) in its monitoring report from the last third of 2023 indicates that Posiva Oy, which is responsible for the final disposal of used nuclear fuel, is progressing without major problems, but at a slightly slower pace than was previously anticipated. Posiva is constructing the world’s first final used nuclear fuel disposal facility in Olkiluoto in Eurajoki. However, before it can start the operation of the facility it needs a permit from the Government. The permit decision requires a statement from STUK.
The Ministry of Labour & Business (TEM Työ- ja elinkeinoministeriö) had requested STUK’s opinion by the end of 2023 but, as the processing of the licence application data is still ongoing at STUK has requested additional time from TEM for issuing the statement until the end of 2024.
STUK says in its third-year report that the material to be inspected for the safety assessment for the operating licence is very large. Furthermore, STUK has not always been able to make its assessments based on the materials first submitted by Posiva and has required updates. Therefore, the processing of the material has taken longer than expected.
Posiva, owned by Teollisuuden Voima Oyj’s Olkiluoto NPP and Fortum Power & Heat Oy’s Loviisa NPP, applied for a construction licence application to TEM in December 2013. Posiva investigated the rock at Olkiluoto and based its licence application on results from the Onkalo underground laboratory, which will be expanded to form the basis of the repository. The government granted a construction licence in November 2015 and work began in December 2016. The site for the repository was selected in 2000 and parliament approved the decision-in-principle for the project in 2001.
Posiva has been preparing for the disposal of used nuclear fuel for more than 40 years. Its encapsulation plant is located above ground, and the fuel repository of the underground disposal facility is located in the bedrock at a depth of approximately 400-430 metres. Once it receives the operating licence, Posiva can start the final disposal of used fuel generated by the two NPPs, which were hoping to use the facility between 2024 and 2070. The facility will operate for about 100 years.
By the end of 2023, STUK had not only prepared a safety assessment, but also continued to supervise Posiva and its work. The matters to be monitored include the installation of equipment in the encapsulation plant, test runs and test run plans, as well as the ongoing rock construction work in the underground final disposal locations. It is also monitoring and inspecting the security arrangements of Posiva’s final disposal facility, the safety culture of the organisation and Posiva’s readiness to start final disposal operations.
As ‘Oppenheimer’ leads Oscar nominees, Sentor Hawley wants spotlight on nuclear testing victims
Rachel Looker, USA TODAY, 26 Jan 24, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/01/26/josh-hawley-oscars-oppenheimer-nuclear-testing/72368363007/—
WASHINGTON − Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., is pushing for the Oscars to acknowledge victims of nuclear testing after the Academy announced that “Oppenheimer” leads in nominations.
Hawley sent a letter Friday urging the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to include programming that pays tribute to the victims of nuclear testing ahead of the 2024 Academy Awards.
“Oppenheimer,” directed by Christopher Nolan, chronicles the life of J. Robert Oppenheimer, the American physicist whose stewardship of the Manhattan Project led to the atomic bomb. The Manhattan Project‘s scientists built and deployed two bombs that were dropped on Japanese cities, leading to the country’s surrender in World War II.
“Oppenheimer” leads this year with 13 nominations.
“The ‘Oppenheimer’ film tells a compelling story of these test programs. But it does not tell the story of the Americans left behind—still reckoning with the health and financial consequences of America’s nuclear research, after all these years,” Hawley wrote in the letter.
The Missouri lawmaker pointed to Americans, like those in his home state, who suffer from cancer or other medical conditions because of radiation exposure from the radioactive waste that was not cleaned up as part of the Manhattan Project.
“Congress stands poised to allow what limited compensation the government has offered victims to expire. That cannot be allowed to happen,” he wrote. “These victims deserve justice through fair compensation from their government—and you can help by telling their stories.”
Hawley has long been an advocate for those impacted by government-caused nuclear contamination.
In December, Hawley called upon his colleagues in Congress to reauthorize the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act in the 2024 annual defense spending bill. The legislation compensates victims of government-caused radiation in the St. Louis region.
He created a procedural hurdle as the Senate worked to pass the defense bill and voted against the bill after the compensation program was not included in its final version
Brexit blamed for delays to nuclear power project
EDF’s former CEO had pledged christmas turkeys would be cooked by the plant by 20172
i By Ben Gartside, 24 Jan 24
The UK’s premier nuclear power project could be delayed by another four years as costs continue to balloon, with Brexit cited as a major factor………………According to EDF, the French firm in charge of developing the site, issues on the project had been caused by Brexit, the Pandemic and inflation…………………………………………………….
How has Brexit affected construction costs?
Developers have been hit hard by both the Covid pandemic and soaring energy prices. Tim Heatley, co-founder of Manchester-based Capital&Centricm, said Brexit had also been a “major factor”.
He previously told i: “On the surface there doesn’t seem as much jeopardy in construction as car manufacturing – you can’t outsource building new homes to Asia.
“But, I’d argue, we’re facing even bigger economic consequences if we don’t get things under control.”
“Both construction material and labour costs have rocketed here way more than EU countries, so Brexit must be a major factor.”
A report published in 2023 found that between 2015 and 2022 the cost of construction materials including cement, timber and steel increased by 60 per cent in the UK compared to 35 per cent in the EU…………………….. https://inews.co.uk/news/brexit-blamed-delays-nuclear-power-lower-energy-bills-2871548—
Microsoft Looks to Nuclear to Fuel AI Plans, (with help from nuclear front group Terra Praxis)
Microsoft goes nuclear to deal with energy influx due to the meteoritic rise of its AI platforms.
tech.co by Abby Ward, January 25, 2024,
Microsoft is looking to fuel its future AI plans with nuclear, according to a recent moves by the company.
AI notoriously requires huge amounts of energy on a daily basis, and with more and more of us using it, and companies investing heavily in the technology, the scramble for power is ramping up.
With Microsoft throwing its weight (and money) behind AI, including huge investments in OpenAI, it seems nuclear power could be the key to its success………………………………
Due to the explosive arrival of AI, consuming a whopping four times more power than cloud servers, Microsoft appears to be preparing for this increased demand to power their data centers as they continue to accelerate their growth plans in the AI arena.
Among other signs that Microsoft will be looking to nuclear power to plan for the shortfall in energy is the appointment of a Director of Nuclear Development Acceleration last week.
Data Center Energy Shortfall
Data centers, the things that physically store and share applications and data, require an enormous amount of energy to run……………………
To put the size of the problem into perspective, McKinsey wrote that a hyperscaler’s data center can use as much power as 80,000 households do.
In the same article, McKinsey forecasted that the power needed to facilitate US data centers are set to jump from 17 gigawatts (GW) in 2022 to 35 GW by 2030………………………………………
A recent collaboration between Microsoft and Terra Praxis, a non-profit advocating for repurposing old coal plants into SMR facilities, further underlines the company’s nuclear ambitions. According to reports from Data Center Dynamics, together, they developed a generative AI model to streamline the lengthy and costly nuclear regulatory process, showcasing Microsoft’s commitment to making nuclear power a viable option for its data centers…………………………………..
Microsoft’s foray into nuclear power is bound to raise eyebrows and concerns about safety and waste disposal will need to be addressed in due course………………………………
https://tech.co/news/microsoft-nuclear-fuel-a
“Doomsday Clock” Kept at 90 Seconds to Midnight for 2024
The Sentinel By Karl Grossman., Jan 25, 2024
The “Doomsday Clock” of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was kept at 90 seconds to midnight this week—the closest to midnight that the clock has been set since it was created in 1947. Midnight is defined by The Bulletin as “nuclear annihilation.”
The hands of the clock were initially moved forward to 90 seconds to midnight last year. In moving the clock forward in 2023, The Bulletin, founded by Albert Einstein and scientists who helped develop the first atomic weapons in the Manhattan Project, issued a statement declaring it was: “A time of unprecedented danger.”
“Largely” but “not exclusively,” said The Bulletin in 2023, the clock was moved “to 90 seconds to midnight—the closest to global catastrophe it has ever been”—because of the war in Ukraine. It went on: “Russia’s thinly veiled threats to use nuclear weapons remind the world that escalation of the conflict—by accident, intention, or miscalculation—is a terrible risk,” said the statement. “The possibility that the conflict could spin out of anyone’s control remains high.”
On this Tuesday, January 23, The Bulletin, in keeping the clock at 90 seconds to midnight issued a statement that said: “Ominous trends continue to point the world toward global catastrophe.”
Said Dr. Rachel Bronson, president and CEO of The Bulletin, “Make no mistake: resetting the clock at 90 seconds to midnight is not an indication that the world is stable. Quite the opposite. It’s urgent for governments and communities around the world to act.”
The hands of the Doomsday Clock are set every year by The Bulletin’s Science and Security Board which includes 10 Nobel laureates.
Last year, The Bulletin’s statement quoted Antonio Guterres, secretary-general of the United Nations, as saying it had become “a time of nuclear danger not seen since the height of the Cold War.”
Since, there have been additions to that nuclear danger.
Take North Korea……………………………………………………………………………..
Consider Iran…………………………………………………………………….
Consider China and Taiwan. ………………………………………………….
As to Russia and Ukraine,……………………………………………..
Meanwhile, the organization Beyond Nuclear (I’m on its board) ran an article on its Beyond Nuclear International website this month headlined: “’Steadfast Noon’ spells doom.” Its subhead: “US prepared for nuclear war at foreign bases.” The article was written by John LaForge, co-director of the organization Nukewatch.
It told of how in October 2023, “the alliance” supporting Ukraine in its war with Russia “began its annual nuclear attack rehearsal dubbed ‘Steadfast Noon.’ This practice involves air forces from 13 countries, the ‘exercising’ of fighter jets and U.S. B-52s [which] roared over Italy, Croatia and the eastern Mediterranean.” It quoted NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg saying: “Our exercise will help to ensure the credibility, effectiveness and security of our nuclear deterrent.”
Meanwhile, the U.S. is in the midst of a nuclear weapons “modernization” program. Notes the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation: “The United States plans to spend up to $1.5 trillion over 30 years to its nuclear arsenal by rebuilding each leg of the nuclear triad and its accompanying infrastructure.
The good news: the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons has been enacted, taken force and is moving forward. This month an additional two nations ratified it. The treaty, providing a legally binding agreement to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading to their total elimination, was adopted by the UN General Assembly—with 122 nations in favor—in 2017. The treaty bans the development, testing, production, stockpiling, stationing, transfer, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons.
“Let’s eliminate these weapons before they eliminate us,” Secretary-General Guterres has said of the treaty, an initiative “toward our shared goal of a world free of nuclear weapons.”
Leading in the drive for the treaty has been the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). As it declares on its website: “Nuclear weapons are the most inhumane and indiscriminate weapons ever created. They violate international law, cause severe environmental damage, undermine national and global security, and divert vast public resources away from meeting human needs. They must be eliminated urgently.”
A big problem: the so-called “nuclear weapons states” including the U.S., Russia, China, France and Great Britain have not signed on to the treaty.
This is where pressure must be focused—through grassroots actions and through politics, and by media—directed at the “nuclear weapons states.”
People should join in with ICAN, become members. Its website is: https://www.icanw.org/………………… ” — https://www.thesentinel.com/communities/doomsday-clock-kept-at-90-seconds-to-midnight-for-2024/article_baacc924-bbef-11ee-a494-23c8a77b6613.html
Plan to store nuclear waste under Holderness for 175 years
Nuclear waste from across the UK could be stored below an area of East Yorkshire for up to 175 years.
Government agency Nuclear Waste Services (NWS) announced proposals today to build a storage facility beneath South Holderness.
A group has been set up to examine the proposals, but the agency’s chief executive Corhyn Parr said the scheme would only go ahead with residents’ approval.
She said: “This is a consent-based process, meaning if the community does not express support… it won’t be built there.”
Ms Parr added that the new geological disposal facility would bring benefits to the area, including thousands of jobs and transport improvements.
Two similar working groups are already established in Cumbria and at Theddlethorpe on the Lincolnshire coast.
Dr David Richards, independent chair of the South Holderness working group, said the aim was to work with local communities to discuss the potential of a series of vaults and tunnels being built deep underground, or under the sea, where the material would be buried.
He added: “My role as chair is to make sure local communities have access to information and to understand what people think.”…………………………
Graham Stuart, the MP for Beverley and Holderness, said that he will be meeting with Dr David Richards to discuss the plans.
He wrote on Facebook: “I’ll be asking for a copper bottomed guarantee that nothing would happen without public consent…………………………. https://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2024-01-25/plan-to-store-nuclear-waste-under-east-yorkshire-for-175-years
The Doomsday Clock is still at 90 seconds to midnight. But what does that mean?2 B1
THE CONVERSATION, Rumtin Sepasspour, January 25, 2024
Once every year, a select group of nuclear, climate and technology experts assemble to determine where to place the hands of the Doomsday Clock.
Presented by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the Doomsday Clock is a visual metaphor for humanity’s proximity to catastrophe. It measures our collective peril in minutes and seconds to midnight, and we don’t want to strike 12.
In 2023, the expert group brought the clock the closest it has ever been to midnight: 90 seconds. On January 23 2024, the Doomsday Clock was unveiled again, revealing that the hands remain in the same precarious position.
No change might bring a sigh of relief. But it also points to the continued risk of catastrophe. The question is, how close are we to catastrophe? And if so, why?
Destroyer of worlds
The invention of the atomic bomb in 1945 ushered in a new era: the first time humanity had the capability to kill itself.
Later that year, Albert Einstein, along with J. Robert Oppenheimer and other Manhattan Project scientists, established the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, in the hope of communicating to the public about the new nuclear age and the threat it posed.
Two years on, the Bulletin, as it came to be known, published its first magazine. And on the cover: a clock, with the minute hand suspended eerily only seven minutes from midnight.
The artist Martyl Langsdorf sought to communicate the sense of urgency she had felt from scientists who had worked on the bomb, including her physicist husband, Alexander. The placement was, to her, an aesthetic choice: “It seemed the right time on the page … it suited my eye.”
Thereafter, Bulletin editor Eugene Rabinowitch was the gears behind the clock’s hands until his passing in 1973, when the board of experts took over.
The clock ha
The clock has been moved 25 times since, particularly in response to the ebb and flow of military buildups, technological advancement and geopolitical dynamics during the Cold War.
Nuclear risk did not abate after the collapse of the Soviet Union, even as the total number of nuclear weapons shrank. And new threats have emerged that pose catastrophic risk to humanity. The latest setting of the clock attempts to gauge this level of risk.
A precarious world
In the words of Bulletin president and chief executive Rachel Bronson:
Make no mistake: resetting the Clock at 90 seconds to midnight is not an indication that the world is stable. Quite the opposite……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… more https://theconversation.com/the-doomsday-clock-is-still-at-90-seconds-to-midnight-but-what-does-that-mean-221871?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The%20Weekend%20Conversation%20-%202858829013&utm_content=The%20Weekend%20Conversation%20-%202858829013+CID_8a44781376868ca758fe734ea2dc1adc&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=The%20Doomsday%20Clock%20is%20still%20at%2090%20seconds%20to%20midnight%20But%20what%20does%20that%20mean
What is wrong with UK nuclear power? Too much “Hopium”?
What looks like a potential solution to some of our energy issues has
turned into what Taylor Swift would describe as “Trouble, Trouble,
Trouble”. Cost overruns and delays are like the twins you do not want. It
is hardly auspicious when this is the plan. The UK government has said in
the past it wants nuclear to provide up to 25% of the UK’s electricity
needs by 2050 as part of its plans to combat climate change. That frankly
looks like pie in the sky at the present rate of progress. Or what has come
to be called “Hopium”. We have a political class who seem unable to
manage any sort of large project. They spend money yes but what do we get
in return? Edf continue the theme by talking about “productivity” in
relation to Hinkley Point C when so far nothing has been produced. Will
Sizewell C be even running by 2050?
Not a Yes Man’s Economics 25th Jan 2024
Small modular reactors may have climate benefits, but they can also be climate-vulnerable.
Sipri, 26 January 2024, Vitaly Fedchenko
“……………………………… large nuclear power plants have almost exclusively been built in industrialized countries.
More recently, a new class of small modular reactors (SMRs) for power generation have been gaining in popularity and are supposedly better suited for use in developing countries. SMRs hold the promise of driving progress towards universal access to modern energy sources and several other Sustainable Development Goals in a climate-friendly way. However, while they may not have a negative impact on future climate change, SMRs are not immune to the direct and indirect impacts of an already changing climate.
………………………….. dozens of states have expressed interest in building an SMR of some kind. According to data from the OECD’s Nuclear Energy Agency and the World Nuclear Association, at least 40 states are taking steps towards building an SMR on their territories.
The IAEA has counted at least 80 SMR designs. Most are intended to produce electricity for 60 years or more. With the time allowed for construction, decommissioning and potential extensions of operating life, it is conceivable that the lifetimes of future SMRs may approach 100 years or more.
The other side of the coin: SMRs and climate risks
A century is a long time. At any given location, political and societal changes are inevitable, many impossible to predict. …………………………………
Climate change and its direct and indirect effects, including on politics and security, also pose risks for nuclear power plants and other critical infrastructure. Direct effects include rapid-onset extreme weather events (such as storms and storm surges, heatwaves and flash floods) as well as slower-onset phenomena (such as sea-level rise, water scarcity, changes to rainfall or average temperatures). All of this can undermine the safe and secure functioning of nuclear facilities. For instance, drought—especially compounded by competing demands for water—could disrupt the cooling water supply to a reactor, potentially necessitating a shutdown, while floods or storms could damage critical systems.
A 2021 analysis of nuclear power plants’ vulnerability to such climate-linked effects is full of important insights. The study shows that the average frequency of climate-linked power outages at nuclear power plants globally has dramatically increased—from 0.2 outages per reactor-year in the 1990s to about 0.82 in 2000s, to 1.5 in 2010–19. It projects that energy losses due to climate change will continue to rise among the world’s nuclear power plants.
That study’s findings for the period 2010–19 suggest that, after hurricanes and typhoons (in the United States, South and South East Asia), the second largest climate-linked contributor to outages was increased ambient temperatures. Higher ambient temperatures can affect nuclear power plants in a variety of ways. For example, warmer temperatures can foster the rapid growth of algae or other biological material, which can in turn clog cooling water intakes, reducing production and even requiring the plant to shut down, particularly in warmer areas or reactors using seawater for cooling. High ambient temperatures can also make power generation less efficient. Many of the developing countries where electricity access is currently lowest (and thus where SMRs might have the greatest value in promoting development) already have relatively high ambient temperatures, which are likely to increase further.
… some of the states that have already announced interest in building SMRs are in areas highly exposed to the physical effects of climate change, including lower-middle income countries. Although the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in 2011 was caused by a natural disaster unrelated to climate change, it demonstrated that even in a wealthy, industrialized country like Japan, nuclear facilities can be vulnerable to extreme natural events.
TODAY. A new Waterloo defeat for France – a nuclear economic one,
Almost 200 years before Electricite de France (EDF) signed a nuclear contract with Britain, France got decisively beaten by England, in the battle of Waterloo. That defeat ended France’s attempts to dominate Europe.
Now in 2024, France is suffering a humiliating blow, because of that 2016 contract. In essence, EDF agreed to be solely responsible for cost overruns during construction of Britain’s Hinkley Point C nuclear power station.
To make matters worse, in 2022, the debt-laden EDF was fully nationalised by the French government, – which paid 9.7 billion euros to take on this burden. Back in 2016, the plant was meant to cost £18bn; it’s now headed to cost. £46bn .
Sacre bleu indeed!
France’s President Macron aims to make the nation the dominating nuclear industry power. Delusions of grandeur indeed. Apart from his grandiose plans for new fleets of big and little reactors, - around his neck is – as The Guardian puts it – a financial albatross that has only become heavier.
EDF a total basket case, weighed down by its 50 Billion pound nuclear turkey at Hinkley point
Jonathon Porritt, https://www.jonathonporritt.com/edf-a-total-basket-case-weighed-down-by-its-50-billion-nuclear-turkey-at-hinkley-point/ 25 Jan 24
EdF’s bosses must be thanking their lucky stars that President Macron decided to take complete control of EdF back in 2022. Otherwise, its latest announcements about further delays and cost increases for its new reactors at Hinkley Point would have sent any remaining investors running for the hills.
The scale of those announcements is staggering:
- The price tag for Hinkley Point C has now been reset at £31-34 billion (in 2015 prices), twice the original £18 billion.
- In today’s money, that’s around £46 billion – with further delays and cost hikes (rising to at least £50 billion) all but inevitable.
- EdF’s shortfall in completing Hinkley Point has risen substantially, and could now be as high as £25 billion on its balance sheet.
- EdF has admitted that 2029 is now the earliest Hinkley Point will come online. Fat chance of that.
Which makes Hinkley Point C even more of a bust than EdF’s current worst reactor construction nightmare at Flamanville in France. And significantly worse than its plant at Olkiluoto in Finland, which it just managed to get over the line last year.
So, watch out for the fallout.
Hinkley Point C was meant to be coming online in 2027. All neutral commentators now reckon 2031 (EdF’s so-called ”unfavourable scenario”) is the earliest that will happen. That’s a further four-year delay before its low-carbon electrons (providing 7% of the UK’s electricity) will be available to help the UK meet its various decarbonisation targets.
Add to that the knock-on impact of this on the Government’s/Labour’s hopes for a Hinkley Point look-alike (really!) at Sizewell C. The sales pitch to investors for that has now become even trickier than it was before: “Just look at this beautiful £50 billion turkey: another one just like it could be all yours at a bargain-basement price of, say, £40 billion”.
Which leads to the following conclusions:
EdF is even more screwed than it was before, deeper in debt, with further delays for rolling out its look-alike plant at Sizewell C now inevitable.- The Tory Government is screwed, with no chance of Hinkley Point C (let alone Sizewell C) making any serious short-term contribution to its decarbonisation strategy.
- Labour is screwed – for exactly the same reasons.
- The UK’s Net Zero strategy by 2050 looks less and less viable. And that will soon be tested, again, in the courts.
- All this because of the nuclear obsessions of the UK’s entire political establishment – Labour just as much as the Tories.
Happily, there’s no need to panic: the case for the “renewables + efficiency + storage + smart grids” option just got a whole lot stronger, both economically and politically. We just need the donkeys in Whitehall to give up on their nuclear turkeys. Finally!
It May be Genocide, But it Won’t Be Stopped
The ruling by the International Court of Justice was a legal victory for South Africa and the Palestinians, but it will not halt the slaughter.
SCHEERPOST, By Chris Hedges 26 Jan 24
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) refused to implement the most crucial demand made by South African jurists: “the State of Israel shall immediately suspend its military operations in and against Gaza.” But at the same time, it delivered a devastating blow to the foundational myth of Israel. Israel, which paints itself as eternally persecuted, has been credibly accused of committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Palestinians are the victims, not the perpetrators, of the “crime of crimes.” A people, once in need of protection from genocide, are now potentially committing it. The court’s ruling questions the very raison d’être of the “Jewish State” and challenges the impunity Israel has enjoyed since its founding 75 years ago.
The ICJ ordered Israel to take six provisional measures to prevent acts of genocide, measures that will be very difficult if not impossible to fulfill if Israel continues its saturation bombing of Gaza and wholesale targeting of vital infrastructure.
The court called on Israel “to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide.” It demanded Israel “take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance.” It ordered Israel to protect Palestinian civilians. It called on Israel to protect the some 50,000 women giving birth in Gaza. It ordered Israel to take “effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope of Article II and Article III of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide against members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip.”
The court ordered Israel to “take all measures within its power” to prevent the crimes which amount to genocide such as “killing, causing serious bodily and mental harm, inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, and imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.”
Israel was ordered to report back in one month to explain what it had done to implement the provisional measures.
Gaza was pounded with bombs, missiles and artillery shells as the ruling was read in The Hague — at least 183 Palestinians have been killed in the last 24 hours. Since Oct. 7, more than 26,000 Palestinians have been killed. Almost 65,000 have been wounded, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health. Thousands more are missing. The carnage continues. This is the cold reality.
Translated into the vernacular, the court is saying Israel must feed and provide medical care for the victims, cease public statements advocating genocide, preserve evidence of genocide and stop killing Palestinian civilians. Come back and report in a month.
It is hard to see how these provisional measures can be achieved if the carnage in Gaza continues.
“Without a ceasefire, the order doesn’t actually work,” Naledi Pandor, South Africa’s minister of international relations, stated bluntly after the ruling.
Time is not on the side of the Palestinians. Thousands of Palestinians will die within a month. Palestinians in Gaza make up 80 percent of all the people facing famine or catastrophic hunger worldwide, according to the United Nations. The entire population of Gaza by early February is projected to lack sufficient food, with half a million people suffering from starvation, according to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, drawing on data from U.N. agencies and NGOs. The famine is engineered by Israel.
At best, the court — while it will not rule for a few years on whether Israel is
committing genocide — has given legal license to use the word “genocide” to describe what Israel is doing in Gaza. This is very significant, but it is not enough, given the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza.
Israel has dropped almost 30,000 bombs and shells on Gaza — eight times more bombs than the U.S. dropped on Iraq during six years of war. It has used hundreds of 2,000-pound bombs to obliterate densely populated areas, including refugee camps. These “bunker buster” bombs have a kill radius of a thousand feet. The Israeli aerial assault is unlike anything seen since Vietnam. Gaza, only 20 miles long and five miles wide, is rapidly becoming, by design, uninhabitable.
Israel will no doubt continue its assault arguing that it is not in violation of the court’s directives. In addition, the Biden administration will undoubtedly veto the resolution at the Security Council demanding Israel implement the provisional measures. The General Assembly, if the Security Council does not endorse the measures, can vote again calling for a ceasefire, but has no power to enforce it.
Defense for Children International – Palestine v. Biden was filed in November by the Center for Constitutional Rights against President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. The case challenges the U.S. government’s failure to prevent complicity in Israel’s unfolding genocide of the Palestinian people. It asks the court to order the Biden administration to cease diplomatic and military support and comply with its legal obligations under international and federal law.
The only active resistance to halt the Gaza genocide is provided by Yemen’s Red Sea blockade. ………………………………………………………………….
The ICJ was founded in 1945 following the Nazi Holocaust. The first case it heard was submitted to the court in 1947.
“Decisions that endanger the continued existence of the State of Israel must not be listened to,” Ben-Gvir added. “We must continue defeating the enemy until complete victory.”……………………………………………………
It is clear from the ruling that the court is fully aware of the magnitude of Israel’s crimes. This makes the decision not to call for the immediate suspension of Israeli military activity in and against Gaza all the more distressing.
But the court did deliver a devastating blow to the mystique Israel has used since its founding to carry out its settler colonial project against the indigenous inhabitants of historic Palestine. It made the word genocide, when applied to Israel, credible. https://scheerpost.com/2024/01/26/chris-hedges-it-may-be-genocide-but-it-wont-be-stopped/
Tripling nuclear power: public relations fairy dust
January 2024, https://preview.mailerlite.io/emails/webview/664455/111177290781558405
| The federal government recently endorsed two similar nuclear fantasies. This month, Natural Resources Canada published a statement endorsing a plan to work with other countries to “advance a global aspirational goal of tripling nuclear energy capacity from 2020 by 2050.” The global nuclear declaration attracted endorsements from only 22 countries. In contrast, the official COP28 pledge to triple renewable energy by 2030 was signed by 123 countries and adopted by consensus as the official COP declaration.Earlier, in 2023, the Canadian energy regulator projected a tripling of Canadian nuclear generation capacity by 2050. Why is Canada engaged in a nuclear fantasy? |
Nuclear power plants operate in only two provinces. About 60% of Ontario’s electricity is produced by 18 nuclear power reactors. New Brunswick’s one power reactor produces about 19% of the electricity used in that province, when it’s not shut down. The federal energy regulator models envision tripling nuclear capacity by building small modular nuclear reactors in Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.
Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is promising that its SMR design will be the first in the world to be deployed commercially starting in 2030, although the design has not yet been licenced to build in Canada or anywhere else.
Assuming that this unit is chosen for widespread deployment in Canada, nearly 90 would need to be built and operating effectively on the grid between 2030 and 2050 to achieve the proposed tripling. Given the known construction time overruns for nuclear power plants, this is impossible.
Environment and Climate Change Canada published the official COP28 statement that does not mention nuclear energy. Instead, it highlights “groundbreaking goals to triple renewable energy, double energy efficiency, and, for the first time ever… a historic consensus to move away from fossil fuels in energy systems.”
Tripling renewable energy and doubling energy efficiency by 2030 is sensible and doable, as long as the requisite political will is present. It is past time to get real about the energy generation technologies we need to be supporting.
The ICJ’s Provisional Orders: The Genocide Convention Applies to Gaza
January 27, 2024, Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.com/the-icjs-provisional-orders-the-genocide-convention-applies-to-gaza/—
On January 26, legal experts, policy wonks, activists and the plain curious waited for the order of the International Court of Justice, sitting in The Hague. The topic was that gravest of crimes, considered most reprehensible in the canon of international law: genocide. The main participants: the accused party, the State of Israel, and the accuser, the Republic of South Africa.
Filed on December 29 last year, the South African case focused on its obligations arising under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and those of Israel. Pretoria, in its case, wished that the ICJ adjudicate and declare that Israel had breached its obligations under the Convention, and “cease forthwith any acts and measures in breach of those obligations, including such acts or measures which would be capable of killing or continuing to kill Palestinians, or causing or continuing to cause serious bodily or mental harm to Palestinians or deliberately inflicting on their group, or continuing to inflict on their group, conditions of life calculated to bring out its physical destruction in whole or in part, and fully respect its obligations under the Genocide Convention.”
The latter words derive from Article II of the Convention, which stipulate four genocidal actions: the killing of the group’s members; the causing of serious bodily or mental harm to those group’s members; the deliberate infliction of conditions calculated to bring about the physical destruction, in whole or in part, of that group and imposing measures to prevent births within the group.
The sheer extent of devastation being wrought by Israeli Defence Forces in Gaza, justified by the Netanyahu government as necessary self-defence in the aftermath of the Hamas attacks of October 7, led the South African team to also seek immediate provisional measures under Article 41 of the Court’s statute. (The review on the case’s merits promises to take much longer.) They included the immediate suspension of the IDF’s military operations in and against Gaza, the taking of all reasonable measures to prevent genocide, and desisting from committing acts within Article II of the Convention. The expulsion and forced displacement of Palestinians should also stop, likewise the deprivation of adequate food, water and access to humanitarian assistance and medical supplies and “the destruction of Palestinian life in Gaza.”
By 15-2, the court accepted that “the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip is at serious risk of deteriorating further before the Court renders its final judgment.” (Over 26,000 Palestinians have been killed, extensive tracts of land in Gaza pummelled into oblivion, and 85% of its 2.3 million residents expelled from their homes.) Measures were therefore required to prevent “real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused to the rights found by the Court to be plausible, before it gives its final decision.”
The grant of provisional measures was, however, more conservative than that sought by Pretoria. Conspicuously missing was any explicit demand that Israel pause its military operations. That said, the judgment did little to afford Israel’s leaders and the IDF comfort from the obligatory reach of the Genocide Convention, an instrument they had argued was irrelevant and inapplicable to the conduct of “innovative” military operations.
To that end, Israel was obligated to take all possible measures to prevent the commission of acts under Article II of the Genocide Convention, including by its military; prevent and punish “the direct and public incitement to genocide” against the Palestinian populace in Gaza; permit basic services and humanitarian assistance to the Gaza Strip; ensure the preservation of, and prevent destruction of, evidence related to acts committed against Gaza’s Palestinians within Articles II and III of the Convention; and submit a report to the ICJ on how Israel was abiding by such provisional measures within one month.
As is very much the form, the justice from the country in the dock, in this case, Israel’s Aharon Barak, could see nothing inferentially genocidal in his country’s campaign. South Africa, he insisted, had intentionally ignored the role played by Hamas in its October 7 attacks, and “wrongly sought to impute the crime of Cain to Abel.”
-ADVERTISEMENT-
Inevitably, the singular experience of the Holocaust survivor, the sui generis Jewish view of trauma, used as solid armour against any possibility that Israel might ever commit genocide, became a point of contention. Genocide “is the gravest possible accusation and is deeply intertwined with my personal life experience.” Israel had a firm commitment to the rule of law, and to accept that it was committing genocide “is very hard for me personally”. Tellingly, he suggested that Israel’s campaign in Gaza be examined, not from the viewpoint of the Genocide Convention but international humanitarian law.
With classic casuistry, Barak did vote for the measure requiring Israel to do everything “within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza strip.” But having identified nothing in the way of such intent, the issue became a moot one. With some relief, Barak could state that certain measures sought by South Africa, including an immediate suspension of military operations, were rejected by the ICJ, which preferred “a significantly narrower scope”.
From the other side of the legal aisle, the South African foreign minister, Naledi Pandor, wished that the ICJ had grasped the nettle to order a halt in military operations. But, with some deft reasoning, she was satisfied that the only way Israel could implement the provisional measures would be through a ceasefire. Much the same view was expressed by the Associated Press: “The court’s half-dozen orders will be difficult to achieve without some sort of cease-fire or pause in the fighting.” That logic is clear enough, but the actions, given the various statements from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his officials alleging slander and a blood libel against their country, are unlikely to follow.
-
Archives
- February 2026 (220)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
-
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 