nuclear-news

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

Let’s remember the 365 days of genocide as well as October 7 attack.

Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coaliton, Glen Ellyn IL, 7 Oct 24

The Chicago Tribune editorial ‘Remember October 7, 2023’ was right to mourn the Israeli dead, injured and those taken hostage from the Hamas attack a year earlier.

But it’s unfortunate there was no mention of the of Israel’s genocidal ethnic cleansing that followed which has inflicted near total destruction on Gaza’s 139 square miles in the following 365 days. The Tribune ignores the over 40,000 officially dead (likely upwards of 100,000), nearly all schools universities, hospitals, homes destroyed and most food, water and medicine kept from reaching the most devastated people on earth.

It’s unfortunate that there is no mention that the year long genocide in Gaza could not be occurring without tens of billions in US weaponry flowing into Israel for their ‘defense.’ Genocide is not defense…it is genocide.

It is unfortunate there was no mention of the people Israeli genocide is designed to remove from Gaza and eventually the West Bank. Say the word Chicago Tribune Editorial Board…they are Palestinians.

For the Tribune to state that the horrors unleased over the past year “can no longer be contained” is an abrogation of the media’s role to provide a solution to the most grotesque destruction of a people in this century. To state “we suspect it (the anniversary) will not be seen as a day to discuss politics or even the ongoing conflict now raging on another front” is being blind to evil that must be confronted relentlessly.  

This is precisely the day for the Chicago Tribune to engage its readership, regardless of ethnicity or religion, over the ongoing conflict. Had the Trib, along with the rest of mainstream media been doing just that for the past 365 days, this genocide might be over and negotiations for a Palestinian state underway.

October 8, 2024 Posted by | Atrocities, Israel | Leave a comment

At last – one corporate newsmedia admits there is no “cloud” – only dirty great steel structures

Stopping the great AI energy squeeze will need more than data centres

 Amazon Web Services is currently rolling out €30bn of investments in
Europe amid a boom in artificial intelligence, according to Neil Morris,
its Irish head. But none of that bonanza is going to Ireland, because
Amazon officials worry about future energy constraints.

Indeed, there are reports that the company has already been rerouting some cloud activity
because of this. And while the Irish government has pledged to expand the
grid, mostly via wind farms, this is not happening fast enough to meet
demand. The water infrastructure is creaking too. Yes, you read that right:
an (in)famously wet and windy country is struggling to sustain tech with
water and wind power. There are at least four sobering lessons here. First,
this saga shows that our popular discourse around tech innovation is, at
best, limited and, at worst, delusional.

More specifically, in modern
culture we tend to talk about the internet and AI as if it they were a
purely disembodied thing (like a “cloud”). As a consequence,
politicians and voters often overlook the unglamorous physical
infrastructure that makes this “thing” work, such as data centres,
power lines and undersea cables.

But this oft-ignored hardware is essential
to the operation of our modern digital economy, and we urgently need to pay
it more respect and attention. Second, we need to realise this
infrastructure is also increasingly under strain. In recent years the
energy consumption of data centres has been fairly stable, because rising
levels of internet usage were offset by rising energy efficiency.

However, this is now changing fast: AI queries use around 10 times more energy than
existing search engines. Thus the electricity consumption of data centres
will at least double by 2026, according to the International Energy Agency
— and in the US they are expected to consume nine per cent of all
electricity by 2030. In Ireland the usage has already exploded to over a
fifth of the grid — more than households.

 FT 4th Oct 2024,
https://www-ft-com.ezphost.dur.ac.uk/content/4fd66b27-f51b-4029-af3a-f5521368046f

October 8, 2024 Posted by | Ireland, spinbuster, technology | Leave a comment

Greenpeace warns of flooding risks at France’s biggest nuclear plant

Greenpeace is urging French energy giant EDF to abandon its plans to build two new reactors at its Gravelines nuclear plant, citing the risk of flooding due to rising sea levels. The environmental group accuses the French nuclear industry of underestimating the threat to the coastal site.

04/10/2024 By:RFI

With six 900MW reactors, the Gravelines nuclear power plant on the Channel coast is already the most powerful in Western Europe.

EDF’s proposal to build two additional new generation pressurised water reactors (EPR2) of 1600 MW each is part of President Emmanuel Macron’s nuclear revival programme.

The new reactors are currently the subject of public debate. If they pass safety criteria laid down by France’s nuclear safety authority (ASN), construction would begin in 2031 and they could be on stream by 2040.

While they would be built on a 11-metre-high platform, Greenpeace claims there is a significant safety risk.

“The entire power plant site could find itself – during high tides and when there is a 100-year surge – below sea level” by 2100, it warned in a report published Thursday.

EDF refutes their calculations.

“The height of the platform chosen for the EPR2 reactors at Gravelines provides protection against “extreme” flooding, taking into account the effects of IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] scenarios, which are among the most penalising with regard to sea-level rise”, EDF said in a statement to RFI.

Protective measures

Greenpeace argues that EDF’s calculations are outdated and do not fully account for the realities of global warming.

“We can’t think as if the current situation were going to remain stable and that sea levels were just going to rise a little”, says Pauline Boyer, Greenpeace’s energy transition campaigner.

The NGO has therefore based its projection on the IPCC’s most pessimistic scenario, which assumes that no action will be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2100……………………….

Boyer believes a comprehensive risk study, factoring in climate change, “should govern the choice of site”, and be carried out before the public debate ends on 17 January.

While Greenpeace’s report centres on Gravelines, Boyer warned that climate change threatens other nuclear plants, with risks tied to rising temperatures and extreme weather events like storms.

She also pointed to potential conflicts over access to river water needed to cool reactors.  https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20241004-greenpeace-warns-of-flooding-risks-at-france-s-biggest-nuclear-plant

October 8, 2024 Posted by | climate change, France | Leave a comment

Fulsome bribery to communities – from Canada’s  Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO)

Frank Greening, 7 Oct 24

Canada’s  Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) is using offers of money – and I’m talking about a lot of money in the millions of dollars range – to “persuade” local individuals or groups to vote in favor of constructing a DGR on their land. For example, consider the announcement by the township of Ignace after it agreed to allow NWMO to construct a used fuel DGR on its land:

There are of course many benefits to hosting the DGR in the area and these benefits will exceed the $170 Million monitory value of this agreement plus the cost of the Centre of Expertise, and thousands of dollars in housing, infrastructure, and capacity building studies to build the Township over the course of many years.

As we all know, NWMO is fond of saying that it will only proceed with the construction of a DGR at a particular location if there is a “willing host”. Now the dictionary definition of “willing” implies a readiness and eagerness to accede to or anticipate the wishes of another person or group. However, I’m sure if you asked the people of Ignace if they were ready and eager to host a DGR in their town, without any compensation or inducement, the answer would be a resounding NO! However, throw $170 million into the pot and everything changes! So, it’s obvious that the notion of “willingness” really means “a willingness to be bribed”.

Now some might argue that my use of the word bribe is too strong – dare I say offensive – but consider the dictionary definition of bribe: To give someone money or something else of value, to persuade that person to do something you want.  In this case “you” means the NWMO, and what NWMO “wants” is a township’s approval of a DGR. I would argue, however, that the true meaning of willingness is acceptance without inducement!

I believe that NWMO know full well that, as the saying goes, “money talks”, and NWMO appears to have plenty of money to talk unwilling hosts into becoming willing hosts. In this regard, consider the opinion of a certain James Kimberly as expressed in his letter to the Fort Francis Times, dated December 6th, 2023:

The NWMOs proposed budget for 2023 is $162 million dollars. Projections to 2026 increase their budget to $299.8 million dollars increasing on average $40 million dollars per year. Their budget is broken into eight categories; engineering, site assessment, safety, regulatory decisions, engagement, transportation, communications, staffing and administration. All of the money the NWMO spends in their budget is derived from the public – people who pay the electricity bills. The interesting thing about their budget projection is the amount of money dedicated to the different activities.

Second to staffing and administration the next major expenditure is what they call “engagement”. There are no specific details on what “engagement” entails but I think one could safely state it is getting the public on side for their proposed dump. The engagement portion of their budget in 2023 is $47.8 million rising to $81.9 million by 2026. Other parts of their budget such as engineering, site assessment and safety come in at much lower costs literally a fraction of the staffing and engagement dollars.

According to NWMO’s projections over the next five years they will spend $359.3 million dollars of public money in trying to convince people their plan will work and that is just a part of their bottomless pit of money…..

So, I’m sure we can continue to present endless technical arguments against NWMOs plans to build a DGR, and I believe we are doing the right thing because we have the moral high-ground, but how can such arguments compete with NWMO’s bottomless pit of money?

and …….  it looks like Ignace is being short-changed!

Check out the South Bruce Hosting Agreement:

Click to access Council-Considers-Hosting-Agreement.pdf

South Bruce stands to receive a stunning $418 million if it signs NWMO’s Hosting Agreement, (tabled in May of this year), and due to be voted on October 28th.

I would say, to quote a famous Mafia line, NWMO is making an offer South Bruce residents can’t refuse…

October 8, 2024 Posted by | Canada, secrets,lies and civil liberties | Leave a comment

Israel may attack Iran’s nuclear sites to target weapons: See map

Janet Loehrke, USA TODAY 3 Oct 24,  https://www.usatoday.com/story/graphics/2024/10/03/israel-iran-nuclear-sites-map/75496660007/ Very good maps on original

Tension have spiked in the Middle East after Iran’s missile attack on Israel this week.

Fears rose that Israel’s military intends to retaliate “significantly” and swiftly after Iran fired almost 200 missiles at Israel, but the country was still weighing what form a reprisal will take, according to a person briefed on the matter, USA TODAY reported.

Israel is still speaking with the United States while it looks into a number of ways to retaliate against Iran, according to the Guardian.

Where are Iran’s nuclear facilities?

Iran has several locations in its nuclear program, according to the Bulletin. Although there has been a long-standing threat of Israeli airstrikes, only a few of the locations have been constructed underground.

Iran has accelerated and expanded its nuclear program as its 2015 nuclear deal with major powers has deteriorated over time, cutting down on the amount of time it would need to produce a nuclear bomb, should it choose to do so − though it denies such intentions, according to Reuters.

Not the first time Israel has threatened Iran’s nuclear sites

Israel launched an attack deep into Iran April 19, close to the city of Isfahan. The strike appeared to be a reprisal for an Iranian drone and missile assault on Israel a few days earlier.

Although Israel’s target for a possible new remains unknown, an Israeli official said the nation intends to respond swiftly, according to an NBC story that cited a source that was not named.

On Wednesday, President Joe Biden told reporters the United States would not back Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

According to Reuters, Iran is now enriching uranium to up to 60% fissile purity, close to the 90% of weapons grade, at two sites. In theory it has enough material enriched to that level that if it is enriched further, it would have enough for almost four bombs, according to a yardstick of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. watchdog.

October 8, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Carnegie nuclear expert James Acton explains why it would be counterproductive for Israel to attack Iran’s nuclear program

Bulletin, By John Mecklin | October 5, 2024

In the aftermath of Iran’s massive missile attack on Israel this week, it has become clear that Israeli missile defenses are robust. Of the estimated 180 ballistic missiles that Iran launched, only a small percentage evaded Israel’s anti-missile defenses, causing limited damage at or near some Israeli intelligence and military sites and apparently having little impact on Israeli military operations. But the attack marks a major escalation in the Israel-Iran conflict and has led to widespread speculation about when and where Israel will respond. Much of that speculation has centered on the question of whether Israel will attack facilities related to Iran’s nuclear program.

Late this week, I asked James Acton, a physicist and wide-ranging nuclear policy expert who co-directs the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, for his assessment of the Israel-Iran situation, especially as regards the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. His answers follow in a lightly edited and condensed Q&A format.

John Mecklin: I gather you think it would be a bad idea for Israel to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. Can you explain why for our readers?

James Acton: Sure. If Israel or the United States tries to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, my belief is that that will harden Iranian resolve to acquire nuclear weapons without eliminating Iran’s capability to do so. Israel would be motivated, in part, to punish Iran for its recent attack on Israel, using that as an opportunity to try and destroy Iran’s nuclear program, so the Israelis didn’t have to worry about it in the future. I think if they decide to attack Iran’s nuclear program, they will find themselves worrying much more about Iran’s nuclear program in the future. We’ll elaborate on this, but an attack would, I believe, simultaneously harden Iranian resolve to acquire nuclear weapons while also not destroying permanently their capability to achieve that goal…………………….

…………..If the Iranian program today comprised a single reactor that had not been turned on, I think you could make a fair argument that it could be in Israel’s interests to attack it. But that’s nothing like what the Iranian program actually looks like…..

……………..But the Iranian program today is based around centrifuges, which are very small and can be manufactured quickly and placed almost anywhere. So even if an Israeli attack destroys Iran’s current centrifuge plants at Fordow and Natanz—and it’s not obvious to me that Iran has the capability to destroy Fordow, which is buried inside a mountain—but even if Israel can destroy Iran’s existing centrifuge plants, Iran is almost certainly going to reconstruct centrifuge facilities………………………………………………………………….

So people tend to say the Israelis can destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Even if that is true in the short term, the question they have to answer is: Then what?

Mecklin: Okay, the second question is: How likely do you think it is that Israel is actually contemplating attacking the nuclear facilities?

Acton: Let me distinguish between two ideas. Are they contemplating doing so? And will they do so?

I think there is an extremely high probability that there is a serious discussion going on right now in the Israeli Security Cabinet about whether to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. Many Israeli leaders have openly called for that at this juncture. And you know, Netanyahu has been publicly mentioning this possibility on and off for many years now. So I would be staggered if there was not a serious discussion within Israel right now about attacking Iranian nuclear facilities.

Would Israel actually go ahead and do that? I think it would be tough without a lot of US support. And Biden has come out and said unequivocally, no. And doing it without US support would do enormous damage to the US Israeli relationship. And I think the Israelis understand that.

I think the Israelis fully understand that if they attack Iran’s nuclear program, Iran then attacks Israel in a much larger way than we’ve seen before. The Israelis are going to want America’s help in defending against those attacks, and there must be at least some uncertainty in their mind, if they just point blank defy an American president, whether that help would be forthcoming. So for all of those reasons, if the US is being as clear in private as it is in public, I do think it’s substantially less than 50/50 that the Israelis are going to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. I think it’s higher than 10 percent, but it’s not, I think, 50/50. Which I find somewhat reassuring.

………………………..one thing that I feel pretty confident in saying is that if Iran has not yet made a decision to build a nuclear weapon, an Israeli strike makes it much, much more likely that It will make that decision to do so—both for reasons of defending the state and for reasons of domestic politics…….. more https://thebulletin.org/2024/10/carnegie-nuclear-expert-james-acton-explains-why-it-would-be-counterproductive-for-israel-to-attack-irans-nuclear-program/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=MondayNewsletter10072024&utm_content=NuclearRisk_NuclearExpert_10062024#post-heading

October 8, 2024 Posted by | Iran, Israel, weapons and war | Leave a comment

US’ next-gen nuclear submarines suffer delay with costs soaring past $130 billion.

The US Navy’s next-generation nuclear submarines face delays and rising costs, surpassing $130 billion.

Interesting Engineering, Bojan Stojkovski Oct 05, 2024 

A new report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a nonpartisan watchdog that reviews government operations for Congress, highlighted problems with the construction of the new submarines.

The GAO noted that both cost and schedule targets for the lead submarine have consistently been missed, according to the report released on Monday, Gizmodo reported.

“Our independent analysis calculated likely cost overruns that are more than six times higher than Electric Boat’s estimates and almost five times more than the Navy’s. As a result, the government could be responsible for hundreds of millions of dollars in additional construction costs for the lead submarine,” the GAO said in its report.Re-Timer and cold plasma, the best of IE this week

Navy plans to replace aging Ohio-class subs 

The country’s nuclear weapons are deployed through three methods: intercontinental ballistic missiles launched from silos, bombs dropped from strategic bombers, and missiles fired from stealth submarines. …………………………………………………………………..

General Dynamics Electric Boat is currently building the first Columbia-class submarine, but the construction is facing significant challenges. According to the GAO report, the program has struggled with ongoing issues such as delays in materials and design products, despite efforts over the years to address these problems. The report also stated that swift and substantial action is needed to improve the construction performance.

Submarine construction faces skilled labor shortages

Some of the challenges are systemic, as there are few skilled workers in the US capable of building nuclear submarines. Between the 1980s and 2020, the submarine supplier base, which provides critical parts and materials, has drastically reduced from around 17,000 suppliers to just 3,500. 

This has led Columbia-class shipbuilders to increasingly depend on single-source suppliers, limiting competition for contracts, according to the GAO.

As Defense One writes, the Navy and shipbuilders provide “supplier development funding” to support these critical suppliers. This funding is divided into two categories: “direct investments in suppliers,” which cover expenses like equipment, factory upgrades, and workforce development, and “specialized purchases to signal demand,” which involve placing orders to ensure that suppliers remain capable and motivated to produce, even when their products are not immediately required.

However, the GAO found that the Navy has not adequately assessed whether its financial investments in the supplier base are being utilized effectively. The GAO report outlined that the Navy has inconsistently defined the necessary information to evaluate whether these investments have led to increased production or cost savings and how these outcomes align with the program’s objectives  https://interestingengineering.com/military/us-nuclear-submarines-delayed-exceeding-costs

October 8, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Kazakhstan’s Nuclear Power Vote: Many Questions, But Just One On The Ballot

 Radio Free Europe 5th Oct 2024

ALMATY, Kazakhstan — Kazakh voters will head to the polls on October 6 to decide whether to approve the construction of the first nuclear power plant in Kazakhstan — the world’s largest producer of uranium.

And the question on the ballot will be just that: “Do you agree to the construction of a nuclear power plant in Kazakhstan?”

But the debate surrounding nuclear energy is far more complex, taking in the heavy legacy of Soviet-era nuclear tests, long-standing nuclear-phobia, and unanswered questions around the companies — and countries — that would build the plant if voters endorse it.

Ahead of the first referendum in Central Asia on nuclear power, RFE/RL takes a closer look at that conversation.

What The Government Says

In many countries, national referendums can divide governing coalitions and spark cabinet resignations, but there is no sign of anything like that in Kazakhstan — the political elite is firmly behind the plan to build a nuclear power plant.

That extends from the government to the legislature, where all six parties support the idea, and where at least one lawmaker who initially opposed the plan now says he changed his mind.

The government’s main argument is that only nuclear power has the capacity to provide near-zero carbon energy on the scale required to cover a power deficit that grows year-on-year, especially in the southern half of the country.

Why Not Renewables?

While wind and solar’s overall share of the fossil-fuel-heavy national energy mix has grown to around 6 percent in recent years, Energy Minister Almasadam Satkaliev argues that renewables’ dependence on “natural and climatic conditions” make them too “unpredictable” on a large scale.

President Qasym-Zhomart Toqaev first floated the idea of using nuclear power in 2019.

Like other officials, he has assured Kazakhs that a future nuclear plant will be built with the latest technology to ensure the highest safety standards.

As the world’s largest uranium producer, he says it is time for Kazakhstan to move up the nuclear-fuel cycle.

Why Hold A Referendum?

That is a good question, given that any sort of popular vote carries a protest risk, and Kazakhstan’s authoritarian regime has only recently held parliamentary elections (March 2023) and a presidential election (November 2022).

But the country’s leadership knows that the issue is contentious — not least because the nation’s introduction to nuclear power began with the Soviet Union’s first nuclear bomb test in 1949, with hundreds more taking a terrible human and environmental toll in the northeastern Semei region……………………………………….

Is There A ‘No’ Campaign?

To the extent that Kazakhstan allows such things, there is.

But nuclear naysayers have been repeatedly blocked from holding demonstrations against the plan in various cities, and most recently found that a hotel in the largest city, Almaty — where they had earlier agreed to hold an event — was suddenly unwilling to host them.

At least five Kazakh activists opposed to nuclear power have been placed in pretrial detention on charges of plotting mass unrest early this month, while others have faced administrative punishment. https://www.rferl.org/a/kazakhstan-nuclear-power-referendum/33146657.html

October 8, 2024 Posted by | Kazakhstan, politics | Leave a comment

On Army bases, nuclear energy can’t add resilience, just costs and risks

In this op-ed, Alan J. Kuperman argues that the risks of adding nuclear reactors to military bases outweigh any benefits.

By   Alan J. Kupermanon October 07, 2024, https://breakingdefense.com/2024/10/on-army-bases-nuclear-energy-cant-add-resilience-just-costs-and-risks/?fbclid=IwY2xjawFxlwlleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHZAdc8iogUaPZy6lBkxZanmlnIB3-Rh3nkB6DDMNuGH1snaqLwuI5-PJWA_aem_NL8jwrpce6F1ZUFkVDIG9A

Every now and then, the US government offers a huge subsidy to an industry on grounds that make no sense to anyone with even basic knowledge of the subject. The latest example, announced in June, is the Army’s Advanced Nuclear Power for Installations (ANPI) program to install small reactors on military bases, ostensibly to increase “energy resilience.”

This is perplexing for several reasons. First, such resilience can be provided much more effectively, safely, and cheaply with non-nuclear options. Second, nuclear reactors themselves cannot provide “resilience,” because their safe operation always has required input of electricity to the reactors from other power sources. Third, the Army’s planned reactors would lack a robust containment building, so an attack or accident could disperse radioactive waste, endangering base personnel and neighboring civilians.

Both the Army and taxpayers should cry foul on this indefensible waste of national security dollars.

Of course, energy resilience is a reasonable concern for Army bases, which now get their electricity from the commercial grid that is potentially subject to blackouts from bad weather or even cyberattacks. The simple and inexpensive solution, already utilized by military bases and other essential services including hospitals, is to maintain backup diesel fuel and generators for emergency use. It costs only about $2 million to $4 million for a set of diesel generators to produce 5 megawatts of electricity — the amount the Army seeks — and the diesel fuel would be cheap since the generators would operate only during rare emergencies.

By contrast, the price of a single nuclear reactor to produce the same five megawatts of electricity would be several hundred million dollars — roughly 100 times as expensive — according to government estimates and my previously published research. Even if, as the Army hopes, the reactor could replace the commercial grid as the primary source of power for the base, the electricity produced by the reactor would cost several times more than what the Army now pays for commercial electricity. So, regardless of whether the reactor was used for primary or backup power, Army costs would spike substantially.

What about resilience, which is the supposed justification for buying these expensive reactors?  Well, even though reactors can produce electricity, they have always required an external source of electricity to keep them running safely — most crucially to cool the fuel to avoid a nuclear meltdown and radioactive release. The Army’s recent request for proposals seems to acknowledge this reality by saying that in addition to an external electricity source, the reactor must have an “alternative credited independent power source as a backup.”

Therefore, an Army base reactor would almost surely depend on drawing electricity from the commercial grid. But this means the reactor would be no more resilient than the existing power source it is supposed to replace to increase resilience. In the event of a blackout of the commercial grid, what would the reactor do to get essential electricity? Of course, it would turn on its backup diesel generators. However, if the base requires backup generators anyway, it has no need for the super-expensive reactor.

It gets even worse. To prevent costs from rising even higher, the nuclear industry has decided that its small reactors — the kind the Army is seeking — will be built without a containment building that could prevent radiation from escaping in the event of an accident. This also means the reactors would be more vulnerable to attack by aircraft, missiles, rockets, and drones.

A successful kinetic attack could spread radioactivity in at least two ways. First, like a “dirty bomb,” it could disperse the reactor’s solid irradiated fuel over a wide area into a few or many radioactive chunks that would be very hazardous if approached. Even worse, if the attack interrupted the reactor’s active or passive cooling, the fuel could overheat and breach its cladding, thereby allowing gaseous radioactivity to spread more widely.

Ironically, it is not clear if the Army even wants these nuclear reactors, which originally were proposed in 2018 by Congressional advocates of nuclear energy, who also have promoted nuclear reactors for Air Force bases and forward operating bases — including in war zones where they would be even more vulnerable.

Comments from Pentagon officials about these programs indicate that at least part of the motivation is to help America’s struggling nuclear reactor companies, which have yet to find a single private-sector customer for their small but pricey powerplants. The Defense Secretary’s manager for the Army’s mobile reactor project touts it as “a pathfinder to advanced nuclear reactors in the commercial sector.”  A Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Air Force says, “We’re trying to … create a playbook of how other villages or communities and cities” can pursue “energy through a microreactor.”

But even if the civilian nuclear industry deserved additional subsidies, which is questionable, that would not justify wasting defense dollars on unnecessary reactors that could endanger our troops.

Truthfully, energy resilience for military bases is a real concern that deserves safe, effective, and economical solutions — but nuclear reactors satisfy none of those criteria.

Fortunately, we live in a democracy, so there is still a chance to stop these dangerous boondoggles. Service members and their dependents, communities near military bases, and taxpayers in general can and should call on Congress to suspend the ANPI program — and instead explore how its funding could be reprogrammed more productively.

Alan J. Kuperman is associate professor and coordinator of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project (www.NPPP.org) at the LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin.

October 8, 2024 Posted by | technology, USA | Leave a comment

Mordechai Vanunu, the scientist kidnapped and jailed for 18 years for revealing nuclear secrets

Metro Danny Rigg, Oct 6, 2024

The scientist who exposed Israel’s nuclear secrets is still banned from leaving the country or speaking to foreigners nearly 40 years since he was kidnapped by Mossad.

Since the 1960s, Israel was suspected of having nuclear weapons, something it refuses to admit or deny to this day.

But it wasn’t just one or two. Israel had a whole arsenal of them – as many as 200, developed in an underground factory beneath the Negev desert – making it the world’s sixth biggest nuclear power.

‘It has almost certainly begun manufacturing thermo-nuclear weapons, with yields big enough to destroy entire cities’, The Sunday Times reported, based on photos and information from Mordechai Vanunu, on October 5, 1986.

A Moroccan-born Jewish man who spent eight years as a nuclear technician in the Dimona secret bunker, Vanunu had grown increasingly sympathetic to Palestinian rights and opposed Israel’s 1982 war in Lebanon.

By the time the story broke, however, the 31-year-old had disappeared. He had left his London hotel in what police described as ‘unexplained circumstances’ on September 30.

At first a friend feared he had been kidnapped from his London hotel, which wasn’t entirely far from the truth.

Israeli intelligence had got its hands on him through a honeytrap designed to avoid souring its relationship with the British government.

In an apparent case of cabin fever after weeks of work on the story, Vanunu ‘began to get impatient’, Andrew Neil, then-editor of The Sunday Times, said.

‘He wandered off and made himself vulnerable.’

So he flew off for a holiday to Rome with Mossad agent Cheryl Bentov, who posed as an American tourist called Cindy to lure him from the safe house right into a taxi waiting outside the airport with two more agents inside.

‘We sat in the back’, he later told the BBC, ‘she used the time for kissing me, to divert my attention by a lot of kissing.’

Once there he was overpowered, drugged and shipped back to Israel to be tried for espionage and treason.

He revealed the truth by flashing words written on his palm and shouting ‘Italy’ to reporters outside a Jerusalem court before police covered his mouth that December.

‘I feel an injustice was committed against him’, his brother Asher said outside a guarded courtroom when Vanunu was jailed in 1988.

‘The trial was not conducted legitimately. No one was inside to see what was going on.’

The kidnapping prompted newspapers that previously ignored The Sunday Times article to start reporting his claims about Israel’s nuclear weapons.

Mr Neil told Sky News: ‘The Telegraph said it was all rubbish. It was only when we learned that Israel was so worried about the story it had sent its secret agents to kidnap Vanunu on British soil in a honeypot trap involving a blonde who said she was from California.’

Vanunu’s decision to snap 57 photos on two rolls of film before quitting his job after eight years in the nuclear weapons plant still costs him his freedom.

Even after spending 11 years in solitary confinement during his 18-year prison sentence, Vanunu lives with heavy restrictions imposed by Israeli courts.

He is so hated by his fellow citizens, his parents disowned him and a crowd gathered outside Shikma Prison to chant ‘Death to traitors’ when he was released in 2004.

But Vanunu remained defiant, saying in an impromptu press conference: ‘To all those calling me a traitor, I’m proud and happy to do what I did.’

Since then, he has faced a one-year ban on leaving the country, talking to foreigners, or approaching embassies or borders, which has been renewed every year.

He must also inform the security services where he lives and who he plans to meet, and have his internet and phone activity monitored.

Vanunu has been repeatedly arrested and jailed for violating these conditions of his release.


Norway has him permission to move there to join his Norwegian wife, but this would require Israel to allow him to leave……………………………………………

On the first day of each month, Vanunu has posted the same message on X: ‘One more year without freedom since 1986-2024, now I am waiting for my freedom, freedom to leave Israel, I will continue to wait until my freedom comes, Born to be free, See you in freedom.’

That was until restrictions were renewed again in July, when Vanunu, who turns 70 next week, said: ‘NEXT POST WILL BE FROM FREEDOM ONLY.’

Israel is now believed to have at least 90 nuclear warheads along with fissile material stockpiles for up to 300 more, but it has never publicly tested them.

An escalating conflict with Iran, which has its own nuclear ambitions, is fuelling fears that Israel’s war in Gaza, which has spread north to Lebanon, will explode into all-out regional war, if not World War 3.

In his first interview after his release in 2004, Vanunu defended his actions, saying: ‘I felt it was not about betraying; it was about reporting. It was about saving Israel from a new holocaust.’ https://metro.co.uk/2024/10/06/scientist-kidnapped-jailed-18-years-exposing-israels-nuclear-secrets-21733868/

October 8, 2024 Posted by | PERSONAL STORIES | Leave a comment

It is Time to Expose the Great British Nuclear Fantasy Once and for All

Thomas, Stephen and Blowers, Andrew, It is Time to Expose the Great British Nuclear Fantasy Once and for All (September 30, 2024). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4971427 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4971427

Abstract

In April 2022, the then UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, set a target of 24GW of new nuclear capacity to be completed in Great Britain by 2050. At the heart of the proposal was the creation of a new government owned entity, Great British Nuclear (GBN), with a mission of ‘helping projects through every stage of the development process and developing a resilient pipeline of new builds’ designed to ensure energy security and to meet the UK’s commitment to achieving net zero.

Despite the sound and fury, the GBN project is bound to fail. Its contribution to achieving net zero by 2050 will be nugatory. No amount of political commitment can overcome the lack of investors, the absence of credible builders and operators or available technologies let alone secure regulatory assessment and approval

Moreover, in an era of climate change there will be few potentially suitable sites to host new nuclear power stations for indefinite, indeed unknowable, operating, decommissioning and waste management lifetimes. And there are the anxieties and fears that nuclear foments, the danger of accidents and proliferation and the environmental and public health issues arising from the legacy of radioactive waste scattered on sites around the country.

October 8, 2024 Posted by | spinbuster, UK | Leave a comment