nuclear-news

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

TODAY: Is Ukraine REALLY winning the war?

The mainstream media would have us believe that Ukraine IS going to win this war against Russia. The latest news coverage of the Ukrainian incursion into Russia at Kursk is the most blatant lying propaganda.

Stories about how happy are the Russian residents of Kursk, to have the Ukrainians there, treating them so kindly! Stories about how overwhelmed are Putin, and the Russian administration to see themselves losing the war at Kursk! Stories about how delighted is the Ukrainian population with this glorious victory now enthusing them about the inevitability and certainty of Ukraine’s coming victory!

And of course – the whole Russian intention in starting what was at first a “special military operation” was always to destroy democracy, invade NATO countries, and take over the world, wasn’t it? Nothing at all to do with ending Ukraine’s 8 year war against the Donbass area having autonomy, was it?

Anyway, leaving that purpose aside, we might remember that The U.S. Has Staged Operations With Extremists From Ukraine To Undermine Russia For Nearly 8 Decades. So, it’s no surprise that today’s media coverage of this war continues to toe the USA line.

But – coming back to today – this latest coverage of the Ukrainian incursion to Kursk is a remarkably egregious example of deceptive coverage of the news.

Admittedly – there is some truth in it. Some Ukrainians have undoubtedly been kind to the Russian inhabitants (the few not evacuated) of Kursk. Ukrainian soldiers have undoubtedly been brave and forceful. For some Ukrainians, the whole thing is probably a morale boost.

Now we come to the Russian propaganda about the Kursk invasion ? –  9700 Ukrainian Soldiers Killed Invading Russia, -the latest report from Russian military expert, Dr. Vladimir Kozin. So the losses are “around 80% of the entire invading force“ “Other losses include: 81 tanks, 39 infantry fighting vehicles, 70 armored personnel carriers, 576 armored combat vehicles …………………………..”

Even assuming that this article is propaganda from the other side – it is pretty shaking! What if there’s some truth in it?

And what was the purpose of the incursion to Kursk? It was not a military target. Was it to endanger or sabotage Kursk’s nuclear power station? The Ukrainians made a point of stating that it was not their plan for Ukraine to permanently occupy this area. It did take many troops away from the aim of repelling Russian troops from the crucial battle lines. Ukraine’s president has been accused of sacrificing towns on the eastern front for the headline-grabbing Kursk offensive into Russia.

The Western media has really been making a welter of this purported military success at Kursk. But that is looking more and more like a cover-up for the reality that Ukraine is not going to win this war, despite the frightening new developments towards USA and NATO supplying long range weapons and agreeing to their use. What? Ukraine Is Not Winning the War? The Narrative Turns – Now What?

September 7, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

USING UKRAINE SINCE 1948

By Joe Lauria, Consortium News., June 11, 2024,  https://popularresistance.org/using-ukraine-since-1948/


The U.S. Has Staged Operations With Extremists From Ukraine To Undermine Russia For Nearly 8 Decades.

It’s led us to the doorstep of nuclear annihilation.

The United States has for nearly 80 years seen Ukraine as the staging ground for its once covert and increasingly overt war with Russia.

After years of warnings, and after talk since 2008 of Ukraine joining NATO, Russia fought back two years ago. With neither side backing down, Ukraine is increasingly becoming a flashpoint that could lead to nuclear war.

The West thinks Russia is bluffing.

But its doctrine states that if Russia feels its existence is threatened it could resort to nuclear arms. Instead of taking these warnings seriously, NATO is recklessly opening corridors for a ground war against Russia in Ukraine; France says it’s putting together a coalition of nations to enter the war, despite Russia saying French or any other NATO force would be fair game.

In Paris the other day Joe Biden said Russia wants to conquer all of Europe but can’t even take Khariv. It is this kind of inflammatory nonsense, combined with allowing Ukraine to fire NATO weapons into Russian territory, that is imperiling us all.

The danger started building up many years ago but it is now reaching a climax.

The U.S. relationship with Ukraine, and its extremists, to undermine Russia began after the Second World War. During the war, units of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN-B) took part in the Holocaust, killing at least 100,000 Jews and Poles.

Mykola Lebed, a top aide to Stepan Bandera, the leader of the fascist OUN-B, was recruited by the C.I.A. after the war, according to a 2010 study by the U.S. National Archives.

Lebed was the “foreign minister” of a Banderite government in exile, but he later broke with Bandera for acting as a dictator. The U.S. Army Counterintelligence Corps termed Bandera “extremely dangerous” yet said he was “looked upon as the spiritual and national hero of all Ukrainians….”

Instead of Bandera, the C.I.A. was interested in Lebed, despite his fascist background. They set him up in an office in New York City from which he directed sabotage and propaganda operations on the agency’s behalf inside Ukraine against the Soviet Union.

The U.S. government study says:

CIA operations with these Ukrainians began in 1948 under the cryptonym CARTEL, soon changed to AERODYNAMIC. …

Lebed relocated to New York and acquired permanent resident status, then U.S. citizenship. It kept him safe from assassination, allowed him to speak to Ukrainian émigré groups, and permitted him to return to the United States after operational trips to Europe.

Once in the United States, Lebed was the CIA’s chief contact for AERODYNAMIC. CIA handlers pointed to his ‘cunning character,’ his ‘relations with the Gestapo and … Gestapo training,’ [and] the fact that he was ‘a very ruthless operator.’

The C.I.A. worked with Lebed on sabotage and pro-Ukrainian nationalist propaganda operations inside Ukraine until Ukraine’s independence in 1991.

“Mykola Lebed’s relationship with the CIA lasted the entire length of the Cold War,” the study says. “While most CIA operations involving wartime perpetrators backfired, Lebed’s operations augmented the fundamental instability of the Soviet Union.”

Continued Until And Beyond Ukrainian Independence

The U.S. thus covertly kept Ukrainian fascist ideas alive inside Ukraine until at least Ukrainian independence was achieved.

Mykola Lebed, Bandera’s wartime chief in Ukraine, died in 1998.

He is buried in New Jersey, and his papers are located at the Ukrainian Research Institute at Harvard University, the U.S. National Archives study says.

The Successor Organization To The OUN-B In The United States Did Not Die With Him, However. &Nbsp;It Had Been Renamed The Ukrainian Congress Committee Of America (UCCA), According To IBT.

“By the mid-1980s, the Reagan administration was honeycombed with UCCA members. Reagan personally welcomed [Yaroslav] Stetsko, the Banderist leader who oversaw the massacre of 7,000 Jews in Lviv, in the White House in 1983,” IBT reported.  “Following the demise of [Viktor] Yanukovich’s regime [in 2014], the UCCA helped organise rallies in cities across the US in support of the EuroMaidan protests,” it reported.

That is a direct link between the U.S.-backed 2014 Maidan coup against a democratically-elected Ukrainian government and WWII-era Ukrainian fascism.

Since 2014, the U.S. pushed for an attack on the Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine who had rejected the coup, and NATO began training and equipping Ukrainian troops.  Combined with talk since 2008 of Ukraine joining NATO, Russia reacted after years of warning.

More than two years after Russia’s intervention, with Ukraine clearly losing the war, Western leaders will do just about anything to save their political skins, as they’ve staked too much on winning in Ukraine.   Don’t listen to them.  They need a West in denial of the dangers facing us.

As President John F. Kennedy said in his 1963 American University speech:

“Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy–or of a collective death-wish for the world.”

The world may wake up when it’s too late — after nuclear missiles have already started flying.

September 7, 2024 Posted by | history, secrets,lies and civil liberties, Ukraine, USA | Leave a comment

The billions for Sizewell C show Labour’s shameful nuclear hypocrisy

LINDA PENTZ GUNTER condemns Starmer’s willingness to let children go hungry and the elderly shiver while pouring billions into doomed nuclear projects that won’t address the climate crisis

  https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/billions-sizewell-c-show-labours-shameful-nuclear-hypocrisy Linda Penz Gunter6 Sept 24

THE Keir Starmer Labour government won’t scrap the two-child benefit cap because, it claims, the country can’t afford it. Doing away with this punitive measure would lift close to half a million children out of poverty at an estimated cost of £3.6 billion a year.

On the other hand, the Starmer government is perfectly happy to scrap the winter fuel allowance for pensioners, because doing so saves money — an estimated £1.4bn this financial year. That potentially life-saving support will now be stripped from as many as 10 million eligible pensioners.

That’s £5bn saved, on the backs of children and the elderly, two of the most vulnerable segments of our society.

Instead, the Labour government has now announced it will assign almost this identical sum — as much as £5.5bn in life support — to the planned 3,200 megawatt (MW) two-reactor Sizewell C nuclear power plant project on the Suffolk coast.

pensioners shiver in the dark in exchange for an entirely futile energy project that will keep no-one warm anytime soon, if at all.

Reacting to the announcement, Pete Wilkinson, spokesperson for Together Against Sizewell C, a local opposition group, observed: “It’s staggering that Labour has increased the potential outlay on this white elephant project to £8bn just days after Labour claimed the country couldn’t afford winter fuel payments for millions of pensioners.”

This would be the second government subsidy the scheme has received on top of an earlier £2.5bn handed out by the previous Tory government.

The announcement was made on August 30 by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, which described it as “a new subsidy scheme — the Sizewell C Devex Scheme — to enable continued support to the development of the proposed new nuclear power plant Sizewell C (SZC) to the point of a Final Investment Decision (FID) and thereby ultimately reach operation.”

The word “ultimately” is key here, since that operational date is very uncertain. Realistically, Sizewell C will never be completed in time to address the climate crisis. The project was initiated in 2010 with the contract awarded to French government corporation, EDF, in 2012.

Fourteen years later, the estimated cost at completion is £20bn, although these calculations are typically unpredictable and underestimated and could soar as high as £30-£40bn. Meanwhile, there are no reactors under construction.

Shovels are in the ground, but only to raze forests and fragile habitats adjacent to the precious Minsmere Nature Reserve. This is being done to make way for non-nuclear construction projects including “new offices, and training facilities,” according to Sizewell C’s joint managing directors Julia Pyke and Nigel Cann.

Further compounding the risks at Sizewell — in addition to the unsolved dangers of radioactive waste storage and meltdowns — the site sits on the shores of the North Sea where erosion has already taken its toll. With climate change precipitating sea-level rise, the plant will become ever more vulnerable to severe flooding and violent storms by the time it becomes operational.

All of this ignores the warnings of climate experts that we now have a window of five years or less in which to take urgent action to reduce carbon emissions to net zero.

Despite this, the Labour government continues to support another nuclear debacle, EDF’s first two-reactor project, the 3,200 MW Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant in Somerset.

Conceived in 2010 in the waning days of the Tony Blair Labour government, it was then ardently embraced by Conservative prime minister, David Cameron, and his Tory successors. Six years into actual construction, Hinkley Point C remains unfinished while its costs have ballooned to at least £34 billion. EDF’s vague completion date is now “after 2029.”

Claims that small modular reactors (SMR) are a promising alternative and can be rolled off assembly lines to answer energy needs are just more pie in the sky. That’s because the hundreds if not thousands of SMRs needed would result in such poor economies of scale it will send electricity prices even higher to compensate for the up-front costs.

SMR designs remain on paper, there is scant interest from buyers, and the flagship SMR project in the US, NuScale, has already collapsed under the weight of its exorbitant finances, which proved unacceptable to investors, many of whom dropped out.

Furthermore, squandering money on new nuclear power plants that are unlikely to materialise on time if ever, diverts much-needed resources away from the technologies that could be deployed quickly and on a significant scale, such as solar and wind power. For every pound squandered on nuclear power, more carbon reductions could be achieved faster by spending it on renewable energy instead.

All of this, however, falls on deaf ears in Westminster. “Labour complained about a black hole in the country’s finances yet now they are proposing to dig still further,” observed Alison Downes of Stop Sizewell C. “Where would this cash come from?”

Certainly not from the military, another nuclear hog at the subsidy trough that Labour is more than happy to overfeed. As Jeremy Corbyn, the former Labour leader and independent MP for Islington North remarked: “If the country’s finances are so bad, then why are we still spending £50bn a year on the military? If there’s no money left, why are we spending £12,000 a minute on nuclear weapons?”

Linda Pentz Gunter is a writer based in Takoma Park, Maryland. She is the independent specialist at Beyond Nuclear (www.beyondnuclear.org).

September 7, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

The US empire is hidden in plain sight

The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) was ‘created… to do in the open what the Central Intelligence Agency has done surreptitiously for decades,’

The UK appears to have very little control over what happens on the USAF-operated bases or the missions that are flown from them.

these agreements ‘ultimately reserve jurisdiction of US personnel to the US’. Most of the American bases are called RAF stations and leased by the US.

1 September 2024

So-called RAF bases filled with US military personnel are a tell-tale sign of Britain’s key role in US imperialism, writes Matt Kennard.

Four years after my book The Racket was first published, I started my own media outlet with historian and journalist Mark Curtis. It was a departure from what I had focused on before – the consequences of US imperialism around the world – because this new publication, Declassified UK, would cover British foreign policy.

Britain handed the mantle of world domination to the US after World War Two and the received history is that it then retired from any kind of imperial role. I found out pretty quickly at Declassified that this was a misunderstanding. The truth is the empire never died. Britain merely became a ‘junior partner’ to the US hegemon. London’s adjunct status did not mean it was insignificant, however. The City of London’s role as the world’s financial capital which spreads neoliberalism around the world, Britain’s vast network of military bases, alongside its corporate giants like BP and BAE Systems, showed the country still served a critical imperial role for its senior partner.

But a more interesting realization for me came when I started to look at the institutions that make up the US empire and their role in Britain. I had spent years looking at what institutions like the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy, or the US military were doing in the Global South, where their power was exercised against often weak states. But I saw quickly that the infrastructure of the US empire which had colonized so much of the world had also colonized my home country, the country where I had lived nearly all my life. Britain, in fact, appeared to be more completely under the control of its American ally than any country I’d looked into around the world in The Racket.

The similarities did not stop there. Like the mainstream media could never mention the term ‘US empire’ or explain its real role in world affairs, those same establishment journalists did not touch US influence in Britain. This was, again, an invisible empire, hiding in plain sight. The work I began doing would have never made it into the pages of my old employer, the Financial Times, like so many truths in The Racket never could.

Into the state

The colonization by the US empire of Britain became particularly clear when the Labour party elected Jeremy Corbyn leader in September 2015. A veteran anti-war and anti-imperialist politician and activist, Corbyn was a complete outlier within the British political system. He was dangerous to the rule of the British establishment, but also the ability of the US to retain Britain as a vassal state. 

The different pressure points that stay hidden in normal times, when the system is running like it should, quickly became exposed. This was made explicit in June 2019, when US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo visited Britain and was recorded saying privately: ‘It could be that Mr Corbyn manages to run the gauntlet and get elected. It’s possible. You should know, we won’t wait for him to do those things to begin to push back. We will do our level best. It’s too risky and too important and too hard once it’s already happened.’

……………….. Britain’s traditional subservience to the US ‘could have gone a different way at various points in modern history, recently if Jeremy Corbyn hadn’t been destroyed by a vicious media campaign,’ Noam Chomsky has written. But it was not a coincidence. The US was integral to building a British political system that made a ‘different way’ next to impossible. m that made a ‘different way’ next to impossible. I began looking at how the US state had been interfering in British politics to stop the rise of anti-imperialist leaders. Britain has never had a prime minister that was not signed up to the US imperial project. I started to realize this was not a mistake, but the result of concerted efforts from Washington.

…………………………………………………………Declassified files from the CIA show how concerned the intelligence agency then was by the left turn in Labour. The BBC noted ‘the deep level of concern inside the CIA about the strength of the Left within Labour in the early 1980s, a political force which the agency regarded as anti-American’.  The CIA was particularly concerned about Foot winning the 1983 general election, with an internal report stating that ‘a Labour majority government would represent the greatest threat to US interests’. Foot’s 1983 election manifesto questioned ‘the programme for establishing American-controlled cruise missiles on our soil’ and noted that a new European security pact should end with the ‘phasing out’ of NATO. The BAP’s own official history notes that ‘the traditional British leftwing remained deeply suspicious of the United States, particularly on foreign policy and security issues’ in the period, adding ‘this was the era of Michael Foot’s leadership of a Labour Party committed to unilateral nuclear disarmament’.

………………………………. Michael Foot was a founder and strong supporter of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), while Corbyn has been a member of the peace group since he was 15 and was, at the time of his election to the Labour leadership, its vice-chair.

The US neutralization campaign, which was leaked to the Washington Post, ‘would take three forms’, Dorrill continued: mobilizing public opinion, working within the churches, and a ‘dirty tricks’ operation against the peace groups.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) was ‘created… to do in the open what the Central Intelligence Agency has done surreptitiously for decades,’ the New York Times reported in 1997……………………………………..  Since the end of the Cold War, the NED had grown and been involved in trying to undermine or remove governments independent of Washington,………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………….. John Kiriakou, a CIA officer from 1990 to 2004, told me that recent changes in the law have widened the potential targets of US information operations. ‘In 2011, the US Congress changed the law that forbade the Executive Branch from propagandizing the American people or nationals of the other ‘Five Eyes’ countries – the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand,’ he said.

……………….. The CIA’s propaganda efforts throughout history have been shameless. But now that they’re not legally relegated to just Russia and China, the whole world is a target.’ One particularly interesting case was Index on Censorship, the UK’s foremost free expression group which monitors threats to free speech and publishes censored writers. It received £603,257 from the NED in 2016–21, according to its Charity Commission accounts.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. This is how it works. Not just in the developing world, but, I was learning, in the developed world, too. In fact, the control was even deeper. I soon understood that the US was not just interfering in the British political process, media and civil society. The hidden fist of the US empire which I’d seen deployed all over the developing world – the massive American military – was also occupying Britain.

I found the US Air Force (USAF) had 9,730 personnel permanently deployed throughout Britain, a number which was increasing rapidly.

……………………………………………… US military personnel in Britain are all in England, with access to 11 Royal Air Force (RAF) bases, stretching from Cambridgeshire to Yorkshire. They are known officially as United States Visiting Forces (USVF). 

……………………….Jewel in the crown

The largest US military presence is at RAF Lakenheath, a 727 hectare site in Suffolk. Despite being called an RAF base, it is leased to the USAF, and its population is overwhelmingly American. There were 5,404 US Department of Defense personnel based there in 2022. 

……………………………………………… The US is spending billions of pounds upgrading air bases in Britain to enable Washington to intercept international communications and launch military strikes more quickly. Some of the locations are hubs for offensive bombing missions. RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire is the USAF’s only bomber Forward Operating Location, or military base, in Europe. The aircraft deployed there ‘enable US and NATO warfighters to conduct a full spectrum of flying operations’. 

………………………………………………..But the UK appears to have very little control over what happens on the USAF-operated bases or the missions that are flown from them. The overarching framework for the stationing of US forces in the UK comes from two pieces of legislation. In 1951, NATO agreed a ‘status of forces’ agreement to govern hosting arrangements between its member states. The following year, The Visiting Forces Act incorporated the NATO agreement into UK law.

But Hudson said that these agreements ‘ultimately reserve jurisdiction of US personnel to the US’. Most of the American bases are called RAF stations and leased by the US. ‘Because of this, while the physical buildings comprising the bases are usually the property of the UK Ministry of Defence, very little of what happens in them is controlled by the British government,’ Hudson said. The empire never sleeps and, despite the mainstream media working to keep it invisible, it’s everywhere.

This is an edited version of the new preface to The Racket: A Rogue Reporter vs The American Empire by Matt Kennard. The second edition is out now, published by Bloomsbury and available at bloomsbury.com and via all good bookshops.

September 7, 2024 Posted by | politics international, UK | Leave a comment

Rare photos show Earth’s fatal hotspot that can kill any human standing nearby in just five minutes

Harrowing photos of the lethal area reveal how dangerous it is to be near the hotspot

Joshua Nair, https://www.ladbible.com/news/world-news/chernobyl-elephants-foot-radiation-photos-743946-20240906 6 Sept 24

There’s a spot on Earth that is so dangerous, it could kill someone if they stood nearby for just five minutes.

And the story behind it is haunting.

A lot of things on our blue planet can be dangerous towards us humans, but something we can’t really avoid is radiation.

No, I’m not talking about generating electricity for all of our technology, I mean the radiation that can be caused by the use of weapons, which can leave everlasting effects on certain areas of the world.

Nuclear weapons are bad, but the biggest tragedy related to this isn’t to do with weapons at all, and it occurred in Chernobyl after a tragic power plant explosion in Pripyat, Ukraine.

What was the Chernobyl disaster?

At a nuclear power plant in the Ukrainian city of Chernobyl on 26 April, 1986, reactor number four exploded during a failed steam test, killing 30 people instantly.

Radiation released could be detected in countries as far as Sweden, while several civilians and workers in the area would go on to die from severe radiation poisoning, while others died from other health issues and terminal illnesses from the unsafe levels of radiation put into the atmosphere.

It is still by far and away the worst nuclear disaster in human history, reportedly costing governments around $700 million (£532 million) to deal with, while the area is uninhabitable.

The ‘Elephant’s Foot’

Known as the most dangerous object on the planet, it was caused by the Chernobyl disaster as a large hunk formed at the bottom of the reactor, which was caused by uranium fuel becoming molten when it overheated.

Steam blew the reactor apart, as heat, steam and molten nuclear fuel combined to make a 100-ton flow of dangerous chemicals that poured out of the reactor and through to the basement of the plant, solidifying and being given the name the ‘Elephant’s Foot’, resembling one.

Why is it so dangerous?

People soon realised after the explosion that it shouldn’t be approached for a while, as the radioactive lump continued to sear for months.

When measured, the Elephant’s Foot released almost 10,000 roentgens per hour, equivalent to the exposure given by four and a half million chest X-rays.

It’s is incredibly dangerous, with photos of people near the hotspot showcasing some of the bravest scientists out there, putting their lives at risk to better understand the Elephant’s Foot.

According to science magazine Nautilus, 30 seconds of exposure would have your cells haemorrhaging, and in just four minutes, violent vomiting and diarrhoea would hit, and if you got to five minutes in the lump’s vicinity, you’d die within two days.

Studies on the Elephant’s Foot

People have chosen to visit and study the site for short periods of time, and while it is still cooling down, the Elephant’s Foot is incredibly dangerous to be around, as scientists have only taken the smallest of samples to carry studies out on.

The Elephant’s Foot remains entombed in the New Safe Confinement (NSC) that was slid over Chernobyl to prevent any more radiation leaks from the nuclear power plant.

September 7, 2024 Posted by | Ukraine, wastes | Leave a comment

ICC Prosecutor Says World Leaders ‘Threatened’ Him Over Israel Arrest Warrants

 The International Criminal Court judges have yet to issue arrest warrants for the Israeli prime minister and defense minister four months after prosecutor Karim Khan requested them

News Desk, SEP 5, 2024, https://thecradle.co/articles/icc-prosecutor-says-world-leaders-threatened-him-over-israel-arrest-warrants

The chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) says world leaders pressured him not to apply for arrest warrants for the Israeli prime minister and defense minister on allegations of war crimes in Gaza, the BBC reported on 5 September.

Karim Khan told the BBC, “Several leaders and others told me and advised me and cautioned me,” he said.

In May, Khan said there were reasonable grounds to believe that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant had committed war crimes during the Israeli assault on Gaza that has killed over 40,000 Palestinians, the majority women and children.

The state of Israel faces separate genocide charges at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

The chief prosecutor also applied for arrest warrants for Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif, and Ismail Haniyeh, claiming they bear criminal responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity for actions taken by the organization’s armed wing, the Qassam Brigades, when it stormed Israeli military bases and settlements on 7 October as part of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood.

Some 1,200 Israeli soldiers and civilians were killed in the operation. Some were killed by Hamas, while many were killed by Israeli forces using attack helicopters, drones, and tanks, per the controversial Hannibal directive.

Haniyeh, the head of Hamas’ political bureau, was assassinated in Iran by an Israeli strike on 31 July. Israel claims Deif was also killed in an airstrike in Gaza, but Hamas officials have stated he is still alive.

Though several months have passed since Khan’s application, ICC judges have not issued any arrest warrants.

Speaking to the BBC, Khan said it was important to show the court would hold all nations to the same standard in relation to alleged war crimes. He also welcomed the new UK government’s recent decision to drop its opposition to the arrest warrants.

“There’s a difference of tone, and I think of substance in relation to international law by the new government. And I think that’s welcome,” he told the BBC’s Nick Robinson.

Khan explained the ICC needed to request warrants for leaders on both sides of the conflict so that the court is viewed as applying “the law equally based upon some common standards.” “If one had applied for warrants in relation to Israeli officials and not for Gaza, [some would] say: ‘Well, this is an obscenity’ and, ‘How on earth is that possible?’” he said.

“You can’t have one approach for countries where there’s support, whether it’s NATO support, European support [and] powerful countries behind you, and a different approach where you have clear jurisdiction,” he added.

In response to criticism for applying for arrest warrants for Israeli leaders, Khan stated, “I have one advantage at least. Hopefully, even they will concede I’ve seen the evidence. They haven’t … The application is not public. It is confidential. It is filed to the chamber. So they are guessing what evidence has been submitted.” 

This week, a pro-Israel legal group in the UK threatened to press charges against Khan, claiming that his efforts to issue arrest warrants against Israeli officials are based on false premises.

The organization UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) wrote a letter to Khan dated 27 August, in which it attempts to refute his allegations against Netanyahu and Gallant.

If Khan were to be charged and found guilty of that accusation, he could potentially – as a barrister in the most serious cases – be disbarred and forbidden from practicing law in the UK.

In May, a dozen Republican senators sent a letter warning Khan not to issue arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant.

“Target Israel, and we will target you,” the senators, led by Senator Tom Cotton, warned in the letter. “Such actions are illegitimate and lack legal basis, and, if carried out, will result in severe sanctions against you and your institution.” Senators Mitch McConnell (minority leader), Rick Scott, Tim Scott, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio also signed the letter.

September 7, 2024 Posted by | secrets,lies and civil liberties | Leave a comment

Why nuclear-powered commercial ships are a bad idea

By George M. Moore | September 5, 2024, https://thebulletin.org/2024/09/why-nuclear-powered-commercial-ships-are-a-bad-idea/

Late last year, Jiangnan Shipyard, a part of the Chinese government-owned China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC), announced that it would create one of the largest cargo container ships ever built, and power the vessel with a thorium reactor.[1] The announcement came amid a flurry of publicity about nuclear-powered commercial shipping that harkens back to the era when nuclear energy was going to provide electrical energy that would be too cheap to meter.

The recent burst of enthusiasm for nuclear-powered ships is largely driven by concerns about climate change and belief in new, supposedly safer nuclear reactor designs that would dramatically cut greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping.

But that enthusiasm ignores nuclear safety and security concerns that make the development of nuclear-powered commercial ships a particularly bad idea in an era of international terrorism and piracy. And that’s not even to mention the cost of insuring them.

A history of failure. Like clothing fashions, ideas for the applications of nuclear energy phase in and out of vogue. After President Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace speech in 1953, nuclear propulsion of commercial ships made initial steps forward. In 1959, the United States launched the nuclear-powered NS Savannah, a passenger/cargo vessel that became known as the “Peace Ship.”[2]

Germany followed with the nuclear ship Otto Hahn,[3] launched in 1964, which was primarily a research vessel and bulk cargo (e.g. ore) carrier. In 1969 Japan launched the nuclear-powered research/cargo vessel Mutsu.[4]Finally, in 1986 the Soviet Union launched, and the Russian Federation continues to operate, the nuclear-powered cargo ship Sevmorput,[5] a container vessel specially reinforced for Artic operations. Also, the Russian Federation operates several nuclear-powered icebreakers, the first of which pre-dated NS Savannah and was the first nuclear-powered civilian ship of any type. Except for the Sevmorput, the four commercial vessels have been powered by reactors fueled with low-enriched uranium.[6]

One of the key failures of these first-generation nuclear-powered commercial ships was that they were not economic to operate. For example, Savannah had only a small cargo-carrying capacity and carried just a few passengers. In addition, the ships were built in an era when containerized shipping had not reached its present domination of the cargo industry. They were designed as relatively small capacity cargo carriers or commodity bulk carriers and could not produce enough revenue to justify the cost of operating the nuclear power plants. The Otto Hahn and Mutsu had their reactors replaced with conventional power plants and went on to have successful post-nuclear careers. NS Savannah operated until 1971 and then underwent a protracted decommissioning period. Savannah is slated to become a museum piece when the final stages of its ongoing decontamination are completed. Note that over the years the idea of using nuclear power for commercial ships has reappeared periodically but has not been pursued.[7]

Another key failure of these first-generation ships was the considerable adverse public reaction to them. The ports that would allow them access did so on a special permit basis, often as a one-time allowed visit. Particularly in Japan, there were public demonstrations against the vessels that cited environmental and safety concerns.

Revisiting the commercial nuclear-powered ship concept. Renewed interest in nuclear-powered commercial vessels has been driven by at least two factors: The first is a desire to decrease fossil fuel emissions to protect the environment. The second centers on the belief that new small modular reactors (SMRs) can provide safer and more economic alternatives to the small pressurized water reactors that powered previous generations of commercial nuclear ships.[8]

China recently announced plans for a massive nuclear-powered container ship.[9] In addition, Rafael Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, has encouraged a study of nuclear power applied to commercial shipping to aid the environment.[10]

But the post-9/11, post-Three Mile Island/Chernobyl/Fukushima world is vastly different from the 20th century political and social environment in which the first generation of nuclear ships were developed. Even if economic issues can be overcome with newer, cheaper technologies and increased carrying capacity of either cargo (as China apparently thinks their mega-container ship will do) or passengers (as some commentators have suggested), making nuclear-powered ships economical, the security and safety concerns, real and imagined, would far outweigh the benefits of nuclear power. There are real nuclear security risks and safety concerns associated with nuclear-powered commercial ships. And even if those concerns seem reasonable to those with sufficient technical background to evaluate these risks, the public perception of these risks would likely pose an all-but insurmountable barrier.

One does not have to imagine the Somali pirates capturing a nuclear-powered ship to be aware that the ships could be a significant terrorist target, both in port and at sea. In contrast to military nuclear-powered ships, which maintain arguably significant security protections, commercial ships and shipping facilities are afforded relatively little security protection. Even if the public accepted the use of nuclear-powered ships in their ports, in all probability expensive security measures would be needed for operations to be considered reasonably safe from terrorist attacks. Overcoming these concerns would pose significant financial burdens on the vessel operator and port facility and would limit the number of ports where nuclear-powered ships could dock.

Second, the potential for a reactor accident, albeit low, must be considered. Proponents argue that use of new fuels such as TRi-structural ISOtropic (or TRISO) pellets, which the Energy Department claims to be the most robust nuclear fuel ever created, and concepts such as low-pressure molten salt reactors make the spread of contamination from an accident far less likely than was the case with the high-pressure, water-cooled reactors that are used in use in military naval ships. Such arguments tend to ignore one fact: Commercial ships are surrounded by water. If there is leakage, waterborne contamination that could be extremely difficult to contain, potentially threatening expanded areas and raising concerns about, for example, commercial fishing.

Nuclear propulsion of commercial shipping also creates unique risks. In contrast to military vessels designed to resist damage, commercial ships are relatively thin-skinned and not nearly as damage-tolerant as military hulls. In addition to the risk of terrorist or wartime attacks, nuclear-powered commercial vessels face the risks of collision, grounding, and weather-related damage.

The protections needed if nuclear-powered commercial ships are built. At least for the foreseeable future, nuclear-powered commercial ships are a bad idea. However, it appears that China, perhaps followed by other countries, may build at least a few of these ships in the near future. Assuming that is the case, it is essential that the countries’ regulatory bodies for nuclear power plants be involved in the review of any commercial ships that are nuclear powered. The agencies will need to expand their risk analysis methodology to include unique seagoing risks, and they should be empowered to block construction if the risks are found to exceed acceptable levels.

Should such ships be built and operated outside the territory of the state in which they were built, it is essential that information be shared with other states to ensure that they can effectively evaluate risks and prepare adequate emergency response plans.

On a final note, the international insurance system will need to grapple with how to evaluate the risks associated with nuclear-powered commercial shipping, and insurance and treaty agreements will need to be structured to ensure that the public is adequately compensated in case of an accident. The potential costs are not negligible.

Notes – ample references…………………………..

September 7, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Summer 2024 was world’s hottest on record

 Summer 2024 was the Earth’s warmest on record, according to the Copernicus
Climate Change Service. It was also the warmest across Europe at 1.54C
above the 1991-2020 long term average, exceeding the previous record from
2022.

August was also the 13th month in a 14-month period where the global
average temperature exceeded 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. Despite the
UK having its coolest summer since 2015, much of Europe experienced a
hotter than average summer.

 BBC 6th Sept 2024

https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/articles/c93p5kz9elro

September 7, 2024 Posted by | climate change | Leave a comment

France’s newest nuclear reactor shuts itself down

France’s newest nuclear reactor automatically shut itself down Wednesday, a day after starting up for the first time. The state-owned operator said there was no need for concern and that shutdowns can happen during such “long and complicated” startup processes. The European Pressurised Reactor, which is the model for France’s new generation of power plants, was completed 12 years late and four times over budget.

 05/09/2024, https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20240905-new-french-nuclear-reactor-enters-automatic-shutdown

France’s newest nuclear reactor, plagued by massive delays and cost overruns, shut itself down automatically Wednesday just a day after starting up for the first time……………………………..

EDF’s latest reactor, supposed to be the model for a new generation of power plants pushed by President Emmanuel Macron for the coming decades, has been completed 12 years late at a cost of 13.2 billion euros ($14.6 billion) — around four times the 3.3 billion initially budgeted………………..

The Flamanville plant will gradually ramp up to 25 percent output before being connected to the grid “by the end of autumn”, the power company says — a further delay from its previous target of the end of summer…….

September 7, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

‘Dangerously hot’ weather roasts US west as brutal summer continues

California, Nevada and Arizona swelter in what could be the most intense heatwave of an already blazing season.

. Excessive heat warnings were in effect across parts of southern
California, Arizona and Nevada, affecting tens of millions of people. The
harsh weather was predicted to peak beginning on Wednesday and lasting into
the weekend. The city of Los Angeles could see temperatures approaching
100F (37.7C), with locations further inland hitting nearly 110F (43.3C) or
higher, according to a forecast from the National Weather Service (NWS).

 Guardian 4th Sept 2024

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/sep/04/us-west-heatwave-summer

September 7, 2024 Posted by | climate change, USA | Leave a comment

Controversy Surrounds Kazakhstan’s Nuclear Referendum

Oil Price, By RFE/RL staff – Sep 04, 2024,

  • Kazakhstan has allocated $32 million for a referendum on the construction of a nuclear power station.
  • The referendum, scheduled for October 6, has sparked controversy due to concerns over nuclear safety and Russia’s potential involvement.
  • Despite public opposition, the Kazakh government is pushing forward with the plan, highlighting the country’s tightly controlled political environment.

…………………………………………….Mustafina’s deputy Konstantin Petrov said more than 12 million Kazakh citizens are eligible to vote at more than 10,000 voting sites across the country and 78 stations will be set up in different countries for Kazakh citizens residing abroad.

Only one question will be asked in the referendum: “Do you agree that Kazakhstan needs to construct a nuclear power station?”

Many in Kazakhstan expect that the answer will be “yes,” considering the country’s tightly controlled political environment.

But the push to build a nuclear power plant has been met by significant opposition despite apparent efforts to silence dissent on the issue. In recent weeks, several activists known for their stance against the nuclear power station’s construction have been prevented from attending public debates on the matter.

Nuclear-power-related projects have been a controversial issue in Kazakhstan, where the environment was severely impacted by operations at the Soviet-era Semipalatinsk nuclear test site from 1949 to 1991 and the Baikonur spaceport, which is still being operated by Moscow.

Hours before his decree was made public on September 2, President Toqaev reiterated his support for the plan to build a nuclear power station.

There was no official information about the site of the future nuclear station, but a public debate was held last year in the village of Ulken on the shore of the Lake Balkhash in the southeastern region of Almaty about the possibility of constructing a nuclear power station there.

The idea to build a nuclear power station in Kazakhstan has been circulating in the country for years, leading to questions regarding what countries would be involved in the project.

Kazakh officials have tried to avoid answering the question, saying the decision would be made after a referendum.

Shortly before launching its ongoing invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Russia proposed its Rosatom nuclear agency to be Kazakhstan’s major partner in the project.  https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Controversy-Surrounds-Kazakhstans-Nuclear-Referendum.html

Kazakh Internet users mostly rejected the idea of Rosatom’s involvement, citing the legacy of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster and Russia’s gaining control over the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant in Ukraine as examples of Russia’s attitude toward nuclear safety.

September 7, 2024 Posted by | Kazakhstan, politics | Leave a comment

“Subsidy for UK nuclear build calls funding into question”

“It’s not a great argument for public ownership. Doing it because private investors won’t touch it“

 https://montelnews.com/news/869e9af8-b520-4124-98d5-9a05abeb4cf2/subsidy-for-uk-nuclear-build-calls-funding-into-question

(Montel) The UK’s decision to pump an additional GBP 5.5bn into getting the 3.2 GW Sizewell C nuclear power station to a financial investment decision has triggered more uncertainty about its financing and cost, said industry sources.

Reporting by: Kelly Paul, 03 Sep 2024

“I think there’s a lot of uncertainty about it,” Paul Dorfman, visiting professor at the UK’s University of Sussex, told Montel.

“There are questions around what does it actually mean and will that money be drawn up before 2025 [when a final investment decision is expected].”

“Clearly the decision is already made,” said Steve Thomas, emeritus professor of energy policy at Greenwich University.

Won’t abandon project
“The government is not going to spend GBP 8.5bn [including an original cost estimate and additional payments] then abandon the project. The uncertainty is what proportion investors will take and on what terms, or will we just make it 100% public.”

The UK’s new Labour government is proposing a GBP 5.5bn subsidy scheme aimed at covering Sizewell C’s costs up to and including a final investment, subject to next month’s spending review.

It comes amid a protracted process of trying to attract private investors to Sizewell C, namely via the regulated asset base financing model launched last year, designed to ensure a significant proportion of capital is secured before the construction phase to shore up the contribution of the lead developer, EDF of France.

Yet doubt surrounds the status of private investment into the project, with financially strapped EDF’s share capped at 19.99% after a final decision is taken. The total cost of Sizewell is estimated at GBP 20bn.

“I don’t feel like this equity round has been a resounding success,” Alison Downes, a director at campaign group Stop Sizewell C, told Montel, citing anonymous government sources and pointing to the apparent absence of sovereign wealth and pension funds.

The lack of clarity around final costs and timeline also called into question the role of nuclear in the country’s bid to achieve a decarbonised economy by 2030 and in terms of contributing to its energy security, she added.

“2030 is not the be all and end all but it is a critical part in terms of the government’s goals,” she said.

Greater costs?
Meanwhile, the government could find itself saddled with greater costs as potential investors seek to minimise their share of the risk, the sources said.

“It’s not a great argument for public ownership. Doing it because private investors won’t touch it,” Thomas said.

When contacted by Montel, an energy ministry spokesperson said: “We are committed to Sizewell C, which will play an important role in helping the UK achieve energy security and net zero, while securing thousands of good, skilled jobs and supporting our energy independence beyond 2030.

“Subject to all the relevant approvals, we aim to reach a final investment decision before the end of the year.

“Any investment from the [GBP 5.5bn subsidy] scheme will be subject to approvals and in line with the project’s spending plans, as agreed by the government and its co-shareholders.”

Sizewell C, the company managing the nuclear project, was unavailable for comment when contacted by Montel.

September 7, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment