nuclear-news

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

Delays, debts and false promises — inside France’s nuclear nightmare.

The energy giant EDF pledged to rebuild Britain’s atomic power sector,
starting with Hinkley Point. But setbacks to a similar project in Normandy
throw the UK’s nuclear future into doubt.

This week, the one and only EPR
that France has itself tried to build was finally switched on — 12 years
behind schedule. When work got under way on the reactor in Flamanville,
Normandy, in 2007, engineers had promised that it would be up and running
by 2012, at a cost of €3.3 billion (£2.8 billion).

The final bill is estimated to be €19.1 billion and it is not even plugged into the grid
yet. EDF says that will happen “by the end of the autumn”, signalling
yet another delay.

The project has been beset by problems. Safety
inspectors discovered “deviations” in eight welds in the reactor’s
main steam transfer pipe, for instance. It instructed EDF’s welders to do
the job again. Then the Nuclear Safety Authority, the French watchdog, came
across what it called a “manufacturing anomaly in the lower dome and the
vessel closure head”, which are also key components.

It has ordered the replacement of the head, although it agreed to allow the reactor to start
up with the existing one still in place. It will be removed after about 18
months of operation, to coincide with the first fuelling outage. The delays
and cost overruns at Flamanville have been viewed as a national
humiliation. Critics have asked how the project could have gone so wrong,
given France’s proud nuclear tradition — its reactors supplying about
two thirds of the country’s electricity.

 Times 4th Sept 2024

https://www.thetimes.com/world/europe/article/delays-debts-and-false-promises-inside-frances-nuclear-nightmare-h2wpfhx0w

September 6, 2024 Posted by | France, technology | Leave a comment

Starmer permanently ties UK nuclear arsenal to Washington

: Britain’s nuclear weapons are now forever reliant on US military scientists after a transatlantic treaty was quietly rewritten.

RICHARD NORTON-TAYLOR, 3 September 2024,
https://www.declassifieduk.org/starmer-permanently-ties-uk-nuclear-arsenal-to-washington/

Labour has reinforced the “special relationship” with Washington by agreeing to make Britain’s nuclear arsenal permanently dependent on the US.

In one of its first, but little-noticed foreign policy moves, Labour has amended the Eisenhower-era 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement (MDA) that is crucial to Britain’s Trident nuclear missile system.

Officials deleted a long-standing sunset clause that required it be renewed every ten years. 

All references to an “expiry date” have been removed “to make the entirety of the MDA enduring, securing continuing cooperation with the US”, according to a memorandum signed by defence secretary John Healey.

Kate Hudson from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) told Declassified: “This spells farewell to even the smallest notion of parliamentary responsibility for Britain’s foreign and defence policies.” 

She added that at least nominally parliament has had the opportunity, once a decade, to debate and reconsider America’s role in Britain’s nuclear programme. 

“This amendment, introduced in the most undemocratic fashion by the government – at a time when it will be lost in the recess and party conference season – will eradicate those opportunities. This must not go unchallenged.”

The change was agreed by senior British and US officials on 25 July, three weeks after Keir Starmer became UK prime minister.

It comes as Starmer described Britain’s nuclear weapons as the “bedrock” of the country’s defence and amid concern about possible threats to the future of the MDA if Donald Trump wins back the White House.

During a visit to Washington shortly before the general election, David Lammy, now foreign secretary, told a centre-right think tank that Labour: “will always work with the United States, whatever the weather…”

The MDA enables the US to provide Britain with nuclear weapons materials and know-how without which Trident would not be able to function. 

It gives the lie to persistent claims by the Ministry of Defence that Britain’s submarine-launched nuclear arsenal is “operationally independent”. 

American client

Trident missiles themselves are obtained from America and a cross-party report concluded that the life expectancy of Britain’s nuclear capability without US support could be measured in months.

US presidents have also alluded to this dependency, with George W. Bush saying in 2005 that the US helped Britain maintain a “credible nuclear force”.

Barack Obama declared it was in America’s interest to continue to help Britain “in maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent” when the MDA was renewed ten years ago.

As Declassified recently reported, British military aircraft regularly cross the Atlantic with highly radioactive ingredients supplied by the US. These ingredients are absolutely vital to the Trident missile system. 

The memorandum signed by Healey states: “The MDA provides the necessary requirements for the control and transmission of submarine nuclear propulsion technology, atomic information and material between the UK and US, and the transfer of non-nuclear components to the UK.”

It continues: “The MDA underpins the defence nuclear relationship between the UK and US.”

Above democracy

The memo further states that the amendment does not require any change in the law. Although the MDA is incorporated in US law, it has no statutory basis in the UK. 

Astonishingly, despite its huge significance, it has never been the subject of a substantial debate in Parliament.

The government describes the MDA as covering the exchange of information on “sensitive nuclear technology” for developing “defence plans” and “military applications of atomic energy”.

Other aspects involve evaluating “the capabilities of potential enemies in the employment of atomic weapons”.

It also concerns the sale of “naval nuclear propulsion plants” and the transfer of materials like U-235 enriched uranium.

However, governments have long refused to provide information about how much nuclear material for British warheads the US has provided to the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston and the nearby Burghfield warhead factor, and at what cost.

The quantity is likely to be significant. Nearly 1,000 non-nuclear components for atomic weapons systems were exchanged between the US and UK in 2020-23 under the MDA, according to new research by the Nuclear Information Service.

A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said the removal of the 10-year renewal provision was decided “given the longstanding nature of this agreement”. She added that making the entirety of the MDA “enduring” was “the case with other international agreements.”

Peter Burt of Nukewatch UK which monitors the UK’s nuclear weapons programme commented: “Every UK Prime Minister since the Second World War has been petrified about losing influence with the US, and in a large part this hinges around access to nuclear weapons technology and military intelligence.

“This is the main reason the UK government always aligns itself with US foreign policy and allows itself to be drawn into US military adventurism, even when it is clearly not in the interests of this country to follow America.”

September 6, 2024 Posted by | politics international, UK | Leave a comment

Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs) in Canada

While civil society opposition to SMRs is broad and substantial in Canada, ultimately the exorbitant cost of SMRs will be their undoing. Conclusive analysis shows that SMRs cannot compete economically with wind, solar and storage systems.

SMRs will last as long as governments are willing to pour public funds into them, and SMRs will start to disappear after the money tap is turned off. Already the nuclear hype in Canada is turning back to big reactors.

 WISE/NIRS Nuclear Monitor, August 29, 2024 | Issue #918, By Brennain Lloyd and Susan O’Donnell

Introduction: CANDUs versus SMRs

Canada developed the CANDU reactor, fueled with natural uranium mined in Canada and cooled and moderated with heavy water. All 19 operating power reactors in Canada – 18 in Ontario on the Great Lakes and one in New Brunswick on the Bay of Fundy – are CANDU designs with outputs ranging from about 500 to 900 MWe.

It’s been more than 30 years since the last CANDU was completed and connected to the grid in Canada. Attempts to build new ones were halted over high projected costs, and CANDU exports have dried up. To keep itself alive, in 2018 the nuclear industry launched a “roadmap” to develop smaller reactors and kick-start new nuclear export opportunities.

From 2020 to 2023, the Canadian government funded six so-called “Small Modular Nuclear Reactor” (SMR) designs. Only one – Terrestrial Energy’s Integral Molten Salt Reactor (IMSR) design – is Canadian.

The six designs are not only unlike the CANDU but also different from each other. The fuels range from low-enriched uranium, TRISO particles and HALEU (High-Assay, Low-Enriched Uranium) to plutonium-based fuel, and the different cooling systems include high-temperature gas, molten salt, liquid sodium metal and heat pipes. One design – Moltex – requires a separate reprocessing unit to extract plutonium from used CANDU fuel to make fuel for its proposed SMR.

Only one of the grid-scale SMR designs seems plausible to be built – the GE Hitachi 300 MWe boiling water reactor (BWRX-300) being developed at the Darlington nuclear site on Lake Ontario. This design uses low-enriched uranium fuel and is cooled by ordinary water. The Darlington site owner, the public utility Ontario Power Generation (OPG), is planning to build four of them.

Canada gave OPG a $970 million “low-interest” loan to help develop the BWRX-300 design. The other five SMR designs received considerably less federal funding, from $7 million to $50.5 million each, and most SMR proponents have been struggling to source matching funds. One design, Westinghouse’s off-grid eVinci micro-reactor, had early development costs funded by the U.S. military and now seems to have independent funding.

The Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) at Chalk River received more than $1.2 billion in 2023. CNL is operated by a private-sector consortium with two U.S. companies involved in the nuclear weapons industry and the Canadian firm Atkins-Réalis (formerly SNC Lavalin) which is also involved in almost every SMR project in Canada. CNL and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited are building an “Advanced Nuclear Materials Research Centre” at Chalk River, one of the largest nuclear facilities ever built in Canada, that will conduct research on SMRs.

Canada recently released a report suggesting that SMRs will be in almost all provinces by 2035, although most provincial electrical utilities have expressed no interest, and only Ontario, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and Alberta are promoting SMRs. Alberta says it wants SMRs to reduce the GHG emissions generated in tar sands extraction.

SMR “project creep”

Proponents of most of the SMR designs keep changing the description of their projects. This is not unique to Canada, but is certainly apparent in Canada, and the regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), aids and abets that practise for those SMRs in the review stream.

In the case of the BWRX-300 proposed for the Darlington site, the CNSC not only accepted a 2009 environmental assessment for very different reactors as a stand-in for the BWRX-300 but also is carrying out the current review as if for a single reactor. The nuclear regulator made this decision despite Ontario Power Generation very publicly stating its intent to construct four reactors in rapid succession at the Darlington site.

The proposed “Micro Modular Reactor” (MMR) for the Chalk River site in Ontario is another example of “project creep” and demonstrates just how flexible “scope of project” is in the domain of the CNSC.

Earlier this year, CNSC staff released a document outlining communications from the MMR proponent, Global First Power, describing significant project changes. The proponent wants to triple power output, and to operate with fuel enrichment levels from 9.75% (LEU+) up to 19.75%.

Global First Power also wants a shift from no need to refuel in a 20-year operating life to provision for on-site refueling and defueling with periods varying from three to 13.5 years. They also want to double their facility design life from 20 years to 40 years.

Despite all these significant changes to key elements of the design, the CNSC staff concluded that the Global First Power MMR project remained within scope of its initial (very different) description.

Another example of SMR project creep is in New Brunswick. In June 2023, the provincial utility NB Power applied to the CNSC for a licence to clear a site for the ARC-100 design at the Point Lepreau nuclear site on the Bay of Fundy. The design for the sodium-cooled reactor requires HALEU fuel, which is scarce because of sanctions imposed on Russia, the sole supplier.

News reports have suggested the ARC-100 design might need to change because changing the fuel means changing the design. Meanwhile the ARC company CEO left suddenly, and staff received layoff notices. Despite these obvious problems, the application under CNSC review and a provincial environmental assessment underway with the CNSC are continuing with the original design.

SMRs complicate radioactive waste management

One of the (many) false promises floated about SMRs is that they will alleviate the significant challenges of managing radioactive wastes. This is patently false. Some of this misleading rhetoric stems from the notion of “recycling” and claims by some SMR promoters that their particular design of reactor will use high-level radioactive wastes as “fuel” for their reactor.

But the reality is that the introduction of so-called “next generation” designs of reactors in Canada will only complicate the already complex set of problems related to the caretaking of these extremely hazardous materials.

……………………………………………..The shift from natural uranium to enriched uranium in commercial power reactors in Canada will fundamentally change the nature and characteristics of the spent fuel waste and will take away one of the nuclear industry’s favourite pitch points for the CANDU design: that there is no potential for criticality after the fuel is removed from the reactor.

The new potential for the irradiated enriched fuel wastes to “go critical” is only one of the many problems being overlooked by both government and industry.

Another very obvious shift is in the dimensions of the fuel, from the relatively uniform dimensions of CANDU fuel to the widely divergent shapes and sizes of fuel being depicted for the various small modular reactor designs.

The CANDU fuel bundles are approximately 50 cm long and 10 cm in diameter. In contrast, the fuel waste dimensions are significantly different for SMRs. For example, the BWRX-300 fuel bundles are much larger, the casks much heavier, and the reactor will generate higher level activity wastes. These differences will require different approaches and designs for interim and long-term dry storage of used fuel.

SMR wastes not considered in Canada’s repository design

As a fleet, small modular reactors will generate more waste per energy unit than the larger conventional reactors that preceded them. But in Canada they will also require redesign of the “concept” plan currently being promoted for the long-term dispositioning of the used fuel to a deep geological repository (DGR).

Since 2002 an association of the nuclear power companies, operating as the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), have been pursuing a single site to bury and then abandon all of Canada’s high-level nuclear waste.

Their siting process, launched in 2010, caught the interest of 22 municipalities that allowed themselves to be studied for the “$16-24 billion national infrastructure project.” Hundreds of millions of dollars later – with tens of millions going directly into the coffers of the participating municipalities – the NWMO is now down to two candidate sites in Ontario.

The NWMO say they will make their final selection by the end of 2024. But even at this late date they have produced only “conceptual” descriptions of their repository project, including for key components such as the packaging plant where the fuel waste would be transferred into that final container, and the DGR itself. But all of the conceptual work is premised on the characteristics and dimensions of the CANDU fuel bundle.

The process lines of the used fuel packaging plant, the final container, and the spacing requirements for the repository will all need to be redone for different SMR wastes with their very different dimensions and characteristics.

While it could be said that the NWMO design progress has been surprisingly slow given their target of selecting a site this year and beginning the regulatory and licensing process next year, it will be back to square one if their proposed DGR is to accommodate SMR wastes.

There is, however, a strong possibility that the regulator, the CNSC, will allow the NWMO to skate through at least the first license phase with large information gaps, as the CNSC is doing with the plan to construct four BWRX-300s at the Darlington site.

As mentioned in the example of “project creep,” earlier this year the CNSC announced it would accept an environmental assessment approval of a generic 2009 reactor proposal instead of requiring that the BWRX-300 be subject to an impact assessment. This was despite the marked differences between the technologies assessed in 2009 and the BWRX-300 technology.

These differences will impact the management of the project’s radioactive waste. For example, the BWRX-300 public dose rates are estimated to be 10 x higher for one accident scenario (pool fire) and 54% higher in a dry storage container accident, the waste contains different proportions of radionuclides than the waste that was assessed in 2009, radio-iodine and carbon-14 emissions will be higher, alpha and beta-gamma activity per cubic metre of waste will be higher and the BWRX-300 will generate higher activity spent fuel.

Despite the NWMO having successfully wooed two small municipalities, there is broad opposition to the transportation, burial and abandonment of all of Canada’s high-level radioactive wastes in a single location, either in the headwaters of two major watersheds in northern Ontario or the rich farm lands of southwestern Ontario.

This opposition is amplified by concerns about SMR wastes and the NWMO’s open ticket to add other operations to their DGR site. Of particular concern are the potential for the NWMO to add an SMR to power their repository site or even to add a reprocessing plant at the site to extract plutonium from the used fuel. The Canadian government’s refusal to include an explicit ban on commercial reprocessing in the 2022 review of the national radioactive waste policy heightened the latter concern.

Who/what is behind the SMR push in Canada?

Although proponents claim that SMRs will contribute to climate action, critics are sceptical. It is doubtful that any SMR will be built in time to contribute to Canada’s target to decarbonize the electricity grid by 2035, and independent research found that SMRs will cost substantially more than alternative sources of grid energy.

The high cost and lengthy development timelines of SMRs, the questionable claims of climate action, as well as the significant challenges related to SMR wastes, raises an obvious question: who is pushing SMRs and why?

A central reason is a political imperative to keep the Canadian nuclear industry alive. The industry is small in Canada, but nuclear power looms large in the political imagination. Canada sees itself as a global leader in the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

Without a nuclear weapons industry, Canada needs nuclear exports to keep its domestic industry alive and ensure Canada’s membership in the international nuclear club. Earlier this year, Canada released an action plan to get nuclear projects built faster and ensure that “’nuclear energy remains a strategic asset to Canada now and into the future.”

Since the start of the nuclear age, Canada has spent a disproportionate amount of research funding on nuclear reactor development. Politicians see the CANDU design as a success, despite its costly legacy and lackluster exports. The CANDU reactors in Canada have all required significant public subsidies, and the CANDUs sold for export have been heavily subsidized by Canada as well.

Selling more CANDUs outside Canada is unlikely in the foreseeable future. But Canada wants a nuclear industry, and that requires choosing and aggressively marketing at least one nuclear reactor design. Despite being a U.S. design, the G.E. Hitachi BWRX-300 is the chosen favourite in Canada. The reactor, in early development at the Darlington site, is being promoted globally by Ontario Power Generation as part of an international collaboration with GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and Synthos Green Energy.

What’s the future for SMRs in Canada?

Since the nuclear industry and its government partner Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) launched their SMR roadmap in 2018, the political and business hype for SMRs has been intense. The SMR buzz is meant to attract private sector investment, but so far that strategy is failing.

Almost everyone understands now that SMRs, like the CANDUs, are expensive projects that will need continuous massive public subsidies. To date, taxpayers have provided just over $1.2 billion in direct subsidies to SMR proponents in Canada, not nearly as much as the industry will need to develop an SMR fleet in the country.

A broad coalition of groups – from climate activists to Indigenous organizations and other groups protecting lands and waters from radioactive waste – have been pushing back against public funding for SMRs. A 2020 statement signed by 130 groups called SMRs “dirty, dangerous distractions” from real climate action. In March this year, 130 groups in Canada also signed the international declaration against new nuclear energy development launched in Brussels at the Nuclear Summit organized by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

While civil society opposition to SMRs is broad and substantial in Canada, ultimately the exorbitant cost of SMRs will be their undoing. Conclusive analysis shows that SMRs cannot compete economically with wind, solar and storage systems.

SMRs will last as long as governments are willing to pour public funds into them, and SMRs will start to disappear after the money tap is turned off. Already the nuclear hype in Canada is turning back to big reactors.

The Bruce Nuclear Generating Station on Lake Huron in Ontario, with eight CANDU reactors, is already the largest operating nuclear plant in the world. Bruce Power recently began the formal process to develop four new big reactors at the site, to generate another 4,800 megawatts of electricity. It remains to be seen if the sticker shock for the proposed big nuclear reactors will, like it has for SMRs, scare off investors.

Although more than six years of SMR promotion in Canada has produced almost no private investor interest, the SMR buzz remains strong. The SMR star may be fading but the SMR story is far from over.

Brennain Lloyd is the coordinator of Northwatch in Ontario. Susan O’Donnell is the lead researcher for the CEDAR project at St. Thomas University in New Brunswick and a spokesperson for CRED-NB.  https://crednb.ca/small-modular-nuclear-reactors-smrs-in-canada/

September 6, 2024 Posted by | Canada, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Leukaemia, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma mortality after low-level exposure to ionising radiation in nuclear workers (INWORKS): updated findings from an international cohort study

Klervi Leuraud, PhDa klervi.leuraud@irsn.fr ∙ Dominique Laurier, PhDa ∙ Michael Gillies, MScb ∙ Richard Haylock, PhDb ∙ Kaitlin Kelly-Reif, PhDc ∙ Stephen Bertke, PhDc∙ et al. August 30, 2024 Link: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanhae/article/PIIS2352-3026(24)00240-0/abstract

Summary

Background

A major update to the International Nuclear Workers Study (INWORKS) was undertaken to strengthen understanding of associations between low-dose exposure to penetrating forms of ionising radiation and mortality. Here, we report on associations between radiation dose and mortality due to haematological malignancies.

Methods

We assembled a cohort of 309 932 radiation-monitored workers (269 487 [87%] males and 40 445 [13%] females) employed for at least 1 year by a nuclear facility in France (60 697 workers), the UK (147 872 workers), and the USA (101 363 workers). Workers were individually monitored for external radiation exposure and followed-up from Jan 1, 1944, to Dec 31, 2016, accruing 10·72 million person-years of follow-up. Radiation-mortality associations were quantified in terms of the excess relative rate (ERR) per Gy of radiation dose to red bone marrow for leukaemia excluding chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL), as well as subtypes of leukaemia, myelodysplastic syndromes, non-Hodgkin and Hodgkin lymphomas, and multiple myeloma. Estimates of association were obtained using Poisson regression methods.

Findings

The association between cumulative dose to red bone marrow, lagged 2 years, and leukaemia (excluding CLL) mortality was well described by a linear model (ERR per Gy 2·68, 90% CI 1·13 to 4·55, n=771) and was not modified by neutron exposure, internal contamination monitoring status, or period of hire. Positive associations were also observed for chronic myeloid leukaemia (9·57, 4·00 to 17·91, n=122) and myelodysplastic syndromes alone (3·19, 0·35 to 7·33, n=163) or combined with acute myeloid leukaemia (1·55, 0·05 to 3·42, n=598). No significant association was observed for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (4·25, –4·19 to 19·32, n=49) or CLL (0·20, –1·81 to 2·21, n=242). A positive association was observed between radiation dose and multiple myeloma (1·62, 0·06 to 3·64, n=527) whereas minimal evidence of association was observed between radiation dose and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (0·27, –0·61 to 1·39, n=1146) or Hodgkin lymphoma (0·60, –3·64 to 4·83, n=122) mortality.

Interpretation

This study reports a positive association between protracted low dose exposure to ionising radiation and mortality due to some haematological malignancies. Given the relatively low doses typically accrued by workers in this study (16 mGy average cumulative red bone marrow dose) the radiation attributable absolute risk of leukaemia mortality in this population is low (one excess death in 10 000 workers over a 35-year period). These results can inform radiation protection standards and will provide input for discussions on the radiation protection system.

Funding

National Cancer Institute, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire, Orano, Electricité de France, UK Health Security Agency.

Translation

For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

References – (many)

September 6, 2024 Posted by | radiation, Reference | 1 Comment

Ukrainian Tipping Points: UPDATE

by Gordonhahn September 3, 2024 https://gordonhahn.com/2024/09/03/ukrainian-tipping-points-update/

Rueters reports US is just about se to send long-range missiles to Ukraine for attacks deep inside Russia:

US close to agreeing on long-range missiles for Ukraine; delivery to take months

Summary

-Stealthy JASSM weapons have range to hit targets inside Russia

-Decision expected in autumn, U.S. officials say

-Pentagon trying to integrate JASSMs on Soviet-era Ukrainian jets

WASHINGTON, Sept 3 (Reuters) – The U.S. is close to an agreement to give Ukraine long-range cruise missiles that could reach deep into Russia, but Kyiv would need to wait several months as the U.S. works through technical issues ahead of any shipment, U.S. officials said. The inclusion of Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles (JASSM) in a weapons package is expected to be announced this autumn, three sources said, though a final decision has not been made (https://www.reuters.com/world/us-close-agreeing-long-range-missiles-ukraine-delivery-take-months-2024-09-03/).

September 6, 2024 Posted by | Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

#NoWar2024 Conference To Address USA’s Military Base Empire

2 20 -22 September #NoWar2024 Conference: Resisting the USA’s Military Empire

A global hybrid conference from September 20-22 will bring together activists from dozens of countries worldwide to examine the impacts of the USA’s network of foreign military bases, which provoke war, pollute communities, and steal land from Indigenous peoples.
WHEN: Friday, September 20 – Sunday, September 22, 2024, in honor of the International Day of Peace (September 21)
WHERE: Online on Zoom and live in 4 locations: Sydney, Australia; Wanfried, Germany; Bogotá, Colombia; and Washington, DC, USA
This September 20-22, in honor of the International Day of Peace, World BEYOND War is organizing its annual global #NoWar2024 Conference focused on the theme of the U.S. military base empire — its impacts and the solutions.
The United States of America, unlike any other nation, maintains a massive network of foreign military bases around the world, over 900 bases in 90 countries. These bases perpetuate war-making, pollute waterways, and cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $80 billion a year.

The permanent stationing of more than 220,000 U.S. troops, weapons arsenals, and thousands of aircraft, tanks, and ships in every corner of the globe makes the logistics for U.S. aggression, and that of its allies, quicker and more efficient. Bases also facilitate the proliferation of nuclear weapons, with the United States keeping nuclear bombs in five NATO member countries, and nuclear-capable planes, ships, and missile launchers in many others.
Furthermore, the U.S.’s network of foreign military bases perpetuates empire — an ongoing form of colonialism that robs Indigenous people of their lands. From Guam to Puerto Rico to Okinawa to dozens of other locations across the world, the military has taken valuable land from local populations, often pushing out Indigenous people in the process, without their consent and without reparations.
Each base has its own story of injustice and destruction, impacting the local economy, community, and environment. The U.S. military has a notorious legacy of sexual violence, including kidnapping, rape, and murders of women and girls. Yet U.S. troops abroad are often afforded impunity for their crimes due to Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs) with the so-called “host” country.

Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs) also often exempt U.S. foreign military bases from adhering to local environmental regulations. The construction of bases has caused irreparable ecological damage, such as the destruction of coral reefs and the environment for endangered species in Henoko, Okinawa. Furthermore, it is well documented at hundreds of sites around the world that military bases leach toxic so-called “forever chemicals” into local water supplies, which has had devastating health consequences for nearby communities.
Over 40 speakers from around the world will address the social, ecological, economic, and geopolitical impacts of U.S. military bases in their regions, plus the powerful stories of nonviolent resistance to prevent, close, and convert bases to peacetime uses.

The #NoWar2024 Conference is being organized by World BEYOND War and has been sponsored or endorsed by over 60 organizations. More information at https://worldbeyondwar.org/nowar2024/. A conference promotional video is available on Twitter (X),
Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, YouTube, and Tiktok.

September 6, 2024 Posted by | weapons and war | Leave a comment

Physicist MV Ramana on the problem with nuclear power

Lenore Taylor Editor, Guardian Australia, 5 Sept 24
Nuclear is costly, risky and slow, Ramana says. Why then, he asks in his new book, do governments still champion it?

You would be forgiven for thinking that the debate on nuclear power is pretty much settled. Sure, there are still some naysayers, but most reasonable people have come to realise that in an age of climate crisis, we need low-carbon nuclear energy – alongside wind and solar power – to help us transition away from fossil fuels. In 2016, 400 reactors were operating across 31 countries, with one estimate suggesting roughly the same number in operation in mid-2023, accounting for 9.2% of global commercial gross electricity generation. But what if this optimism were in fact wrong, and nuclear power can never live up to its promise? That is the argument the physicist MV Ramana makes in his new book. He says nuclear is costly, dangerous and takes too long to scale up. Nuclear, the work’s title reads, is not the solution.

This wasn’t the book Ramana, a professor at the University of British Columbia, planned to write. The problems with nuclear are so “obvious”, he wagered, they do not need to be spelled out. But with the guidance of his editor, he realised his mistake. Even in the contemporary environmental movement, which emerged alongside the anti-war and anti-nuclear movements, there are converts. Prominent environmentalists, understandably desperate about the climate crisis, believe it is rational and reasonable to support nuclear power as part of our energy mix.

But with a PhD in physics, and a previous book examining why India’s nuclear programme had not worked and would not work, Ramana is well versed in not just the moral but the technical and practical arguments against nuclear. He lays these out in his new work and then looks at what he originally set out to explore: why, despite the overwhelming evidence against nuclear, governments and corporations continue to invest in it.

When we speak online, he obligingly takes me through the problems in detail. It is gone 11pm in Canada, but Ramana, who is enthusiastic and affable, patiently and carefully explains why he thinks each justification I put to him is wrong.

Perhaps most urgently, the risks of nuclear are too great, he says. …………………………………………………………….

Though major malfunctions are rare, the likelihood of them happening is exacerbated by “extreme weather patterns due to climate change”, says Ramana, and cost-cutting measures made by companies that care primarily about the bottom line.

………………………“There’s a definite relationship between your exposure to radiation and cancer,” he says, adding that there is “no evidence” showing “that below a certain threshold, there is no risk of cancer”. “The absence of evidence,” he says, “is not evidence of absence.”

This is not how nuclear is sold to communities where plants are located, he says. What do government and industry tell a community, such as Wylfa on Anglesey (Ynys Môn), where there had been talk of building another nuclear plant? That there is a small chance – small but not zero – that there might be an accident that will mean you have to leave your home and potentially never come back? Or that it is completely safe? It is almost always the latter and that is simply not honest, he says. The safest assumption is that radiation, even at the lowest levels, is dangerous. This is true for waste, too, which remains radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years and cannot currently be safely managed in the longer term, meaning it could contaminate the biosphere at some point.

What about the argument that the industry provides jobs to people who need them, and could supply energy to so many around the world who currently go without? Who are we in the developed world to stand in the way of this? Nuclear creates fewer jobs than renewables per unit of energy generated, he says in the book, and when it comes to the latter, jobs are more geographically distributed. As for supplying vast amounts of energy globally, he sayd nuclear cannot be scaled up fast enough to “match the rate at which the world needs to lower carbon emissions” or to quickly provide to those without. It takes at least 15 to 20 years to plan for and build a nuclear plant and this would probably be much more difficult in the many countries that presently do not have the infrastructure for it.

Finally, Ramana is keen to point out that the nuclear energy industry only survives because of government support. ……………………………………….

A key reason governments sink so much money into nuclear is because of how tightly bound up it is with nuclear weapons, which ostensibly guarantee a country’s security and strength,……………………

But where nuclear is not up to the task, renewables are, says Ramana, pointing to the statistics. The share of global energy produced by nuclear reactors is down from an estimated 16.7% in 1997 to 9.2% in 2022, largely owing to cost and the slow rate of deployment. Meanwhile, in the first half of 2024, wind and solar generated 30% of all of the EU’s electricity, narrowing the role of fossil fuels. The International Energy Agency suggests that by 2028, renewable energy sources will account for over 42% of global electricity generation. more https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/sep/04/mv-ramana-why-nuclear-power-not-solution-energy-needs

September 6, 2024 Posted by | media | Leave a comment

Israeli Official: Without US Aid, Israel Couldn’t Sustain Gaza Operations for More Than a Few Months

The US has sent over 50,000 tons of weapons to Israel since the genocidal war began and increased shipments over the past month

by Dave DeCamp September 3, 2024 ,  https://news.antiwar.com/2024/09/03/israeli-official-without-us-aid-israel-couldnt-sustain-gaza-operations-for-more-than-a-few-months/

A senior Israeli Air Force official has told Haaretz that without US military aid, Israel would not have been able to sustain military operations in Gaza for more than a few months, demonstrating how crucial US support is for the genocidal slaughter of Palestinians.

The support is especially crucial for the Israeli Air Force. The report said the US provides the IAF with “all of its fighter planes and some of its bombs, missiles and intelligence equipment.” The US also helps Israel develop “joint weapons systems for all three layers of air defense.”

Since October 7, the US has shipped Israel over 50,000 tons of weapons and other military equipment. Weapons shipments have increased over the past month, with flight tracking data showing that August was the busiest month for US deliveries since October 2023.

President Biden also signed a bill into law that included $17 billion in additional military aid for Israel on top of the $3.8 billion it receives in annual military assistance. The administration recently approved $20 billion in new arms deals for Israel, which includes a new fleet of F-15 fighter jets.

The official speaking to Haaretz said the IAF is crafting a recommendation to increase the domestic production of bombs, missiles, and other ammunition to reduce reliance on the US. But any changes would take years to implement, meaning Israel will continue to be almost entirely reliant on US support.

Israel’s reliance on the US gives the Biden administration enormous leverage over the Israeli government. The administration has refused to use that power to force a ceasefire despite claims that US officials are working for one.

September 6, 2024 Posted by | Gaza, Israel, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Declassified files reveal plans for nuclear power plant in Tyrone, northern Ireland

WeAreTyrone, By Callum McGuigan, 3 September 2024

DECLASSIFIED Government documents have revealed high-level discussions over a proposal to build a nuclear power plant near Coalisland during the 1950s.

Papers recently opened at the Public Records Office in Belfast under the 20-year rule outline how close Tyrone and the North was to achieving atomic power decades ago.

The two sites envisioned for the dawn of a nuclear age in the North were earmarked as Washing Bay and Derrywarragh Island, both just miles from Coalisland.

Secret talks were held between Stormont and Westminister with the strictest confidence, not just because of Cold War paranoia, but also in fear of recent IRA skirmishes at the border…………………………………………………………………………………

Disaster

The nuclear planning preparations were shortlived, as in October of 1957 the worst nuclear disaster in the UK would halt the progress of developments in the North.

The Windscale nuclear site in England caught fire and radiation spread across the UK and Europe.

The disaster was ranked five out of seven on the International Nuclear Disaster Scale, just two rankings below Chernobyl.

Ultimately, the plans never went ahead.

Reacting to the proposals contained in the recently-declassified files, Coalisland independent councillor, Dan Kerr, said that the ‘risks would have outweighed the positives’.

“When you think of nuclear plants you think of big industrial cities and urban areas, but you also can’t help but remember the Chernobyl disaster in 1986.

“It would have been a huge employment opportunity in Coalisland, but at the same time, the risks to locals and the environment would have far outweighed the positives.

“Looking at Lough Neagh now, you could imagine if a disaster like Chernobyl were to have happened here, the whole area and maybe even large parts of the North, could have been turned into a complete wasteland………………………………… https://wearetyrone.com/news/declassified-files-reveal-plans-for-nuclear-power-plant-in-tyrone/

September 6, 2024 Posted by | history, UK | Leave a comment