nuclear-news

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

“Difficult-to-Return” zones

Some have returned to areas contaminated by the Fukushima disaster but they should never be considered safe, writes Ruiko Muto

 https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2025/03/09/difficult-to-return-zones/ 9 Mar 25

Last summer, I had the opportunity to visit parts of the Difficult-to-Return zones in Fukushima. A hospital, where more than 50 patients died during evacuation efforts in the 2011 nuclear disaster, was now overgrown with dense trees and grasses. In a care home for older people, I saw disarrayed beds and scattered items, such as diapers, medicines and documents, all left untouched since the residents had to evacuate suddenly for safety. The meal plan for 11th March 2011 was still written on the whiteboard.

At a nearby primary school, I found dictionaries placed on each small wooden desk. Pupils’ bags, shoes, brush washers, and even fallen bicycles as well as helmets were still there – everything was left behind. No sounds were to be heard except for the hum of cicadas. There is no doubt that people lived here until just 13 years ago, but now, there is no one. These places remain abandoned even today.

Only a very small number of people have returned to the areas where evacuation orders were lifted. Empty houses need to be demolished one by one. Grand gates and storehouses, seemingly with centuries of history, are being torn down. New homes have been built nearby for disaster-affected families, with some residents with children moving in from outside Fukushima. A resident told me that the current indoor radiation level was as high as 0.3μSv/h, five to ten times higher than the levels before 2011. Part of the Difficult-to-Return zone begins just behind the fences surrounding these homes. Such living conditions should never be called safe.

Meanwhile, the Japanese government has removed its pledge to reduce reliance on nuclear energy from its Seventh Strategic Energy Plan, signalling their intention to revive the industry. To someone like me, who is acutely aware of the ongoing sufferings from the Fukushima nuclear disaster and the reality that local residents cannot safely stay or evacuate if a similar disaster were triggered by an earthquake in areas like the Noto Peninsula, the epicentre of a major earthquake in 2024, Japan’s continued reliance on nuclear energy seems inconceivably absurd. 

In 2022, Japan’s Supreme Court ruled that the government was not liable for the 2011 disaster, dismissing the claims of many evacuees and victims seeking fair compensation and accountability. Since then, it has been revealed by a journalist that there was a collusion between the judge and the executives of Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO). The state of the judicial system in Japan is deeply concerning. Similar rulings in other Fukushima nuclear disaster related cases followed in lower courts, leaving those suffering in an incredibly difficult position.

The extraction of 0.7 gramme of nuclear debris from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant has been recently reported, but the modest “success” was achieved only after repeated failed attempts. Harsh working conditions with high levels of radiation exposure and mismanagement by TEPCO — such as failing to send a company staff member to properly inspect a telescopic device — became evident during the process. No review of the plant’s decommissioning roadmap has been carried out to account for the radioactive decay period, even though no one believes the decommissioning process will be completed by 2051, as originally planned.

Having released contaminated underground water from the plant into the ocean despite strong opposition, Japan is now distributing contaminated soil to wider areas, touting it as a “recycled” material for rebuilding works. In doing so, the Japanese government continues to propagate nuclear safety myths, particularly among younger people, while asserting that they alone have the authority to determine which evidence is scientific and which is not.

Along the quiet Fukushima coastline, almost empty of people, lavish corporate facilities and state-of-the art laboratories have been built with generous subsidiaries under the guise of reconstruction efforts. 


A nuclear disaster not only devastates your life and home, but it also deprives you of basic human rights. Confronted with this harsh reality even 14 years after the disaster, I cannot help but feel a sense of despair about the future of Fukushima.

With winter nearly gone and spring just around the corner, I long to be filled with good intentions and to see the world with discerning eyes. Encouraged by the knowledge that many friends around the world are tirelessly working to end nuclear energy production, I will continue to contribute as much as possible to this important cause.

Update: Last week the Japanese Supreme Court upheld the acquittals made by a lower court of two of the three TEPCO ex-executives charged. The charges against ex-chairman Katsumata Tsunehisa were dropped following his death in October last year.  Lawyers from the criminal trial support group and Ruiko Muto, the plaintiff’s representative, held a press conference. The following are excerpts from Ms. Muto’s statement, translated from the original Japanese:

“Although the defendants were all acquitted by the District Court and the High Court, we put our hope in the dignity of judges and in the justice of the Supreme Court.

“The fact that this decision was made today just before March 11 shows the heartlessness with which the victims of the nuclear accident were truly treated. I wonder how many victims are disappointed and angry.

“The Fukushima nuclear accident is still ongoing. How much damage has been caused by this accident, how many lives have been ruined, how much negative legacy has been inflicted on future generations! Failure to hold accountable the management of the companies responsible for the accident could lead to another nuclear accident. It is very regrettable and disappointing that the court did not understand all this. We cannot challenge this decision in court, but we are not convinced of its validity. I believe that the responsibility for this accident will be challenged in many ways in the future, and we are determined to continue working towards that goal.”

Ruiko Muto is a Fukushima native and a longtime opponent of nuclear power who has spent more than 30 years in the anti-nuclear movement. Ms. Muto is also co-representative of the Nuclear Accident Victims Group Liaison Committee and the Chair of the Complainants for the Criminal Prosecution of the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster. Translation from the Japanese by Japanese Against Nuclear (UK).

March 11, 2025 Posted by | Fukushima continuing | Leave a comment

Fukushima victims angered, saddened by TEPCO acquittals.

THE ASAHI SHIMBUN, March 7, 2025,  by Susumu Okamoto, Noriyoshi Otsuki, Yuto Yoneda and Takashi Endo.  https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/15659097?fbclid=IwY2xjawI5r7VleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHWN3s0dp9P01VgNx6-uHR7J7t09vvNY9N_2gIceMP_VQvQV1fbE1ExO8Qw_aem_q068mi2UQmCXSqQO2wrDJQ

Victims of the Fukushima nuclear disaster expressed outrage and sadness after the Supreme Court upheld the acquittals of two former executives of Tokyo Electric Power Co., operator of the stricken nuclear plant.

But for Yoshinobu Ishii, the March 5 decision came as no surprise.

“I expected this because the rulings of the first and second trials were ‘not guilty,’” said Ishii, 80, from Kawauchi, Fukushima Prefecture.

Ishii’s mother, Ei, died at the age of 91 after being forced to flee from the nuclear accident in March 2011.

“My mother is not coming back, even if I blame someone (for her death),” said Ishii, resigned.

The two former vice presidents at TEPCO were charged with professional negligence resulting in death and injury concerning the company’s preparations for a tsunami that could hit its Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.

However, the top court agreed with earlier rulings that said a tsunami of that scale could not have been foreseen and absolved them of criminal responsibility.

Ishii said he was concerned the ruling could further promote Japan’s return to using nuclear power generation for its energy needs.

EVACUATION PLAN ‘USELESS’

On the morning of March 11, 2011, Ishii’s wife, Aiko, 75, visited Ei at an affiliated facility near Futaba Hospital in Okuma, near the nuclear plant.

Ei, who had hurt her back, ate the grated apple and pickled radish that Aiko had brought, and then said her last words to her daughter-in-law: “Be careful on your way home. Come again tomorrow.”

The Great East Japan Earthquake struck that afternoon, unleashing a tsunami that caused the triple meltdown at the nuclear plant.

In the ensuing chaos, patients left behind in hospitals and related facilities were forced to take buses and other means on a harsh evacuation route exceeding 200 kilometers.

A week after the tsunami, the Ishii couple found Ei’s body wrapped in a white cloth in a high school gymnasium. Her death certificate read: “Cause of death: hypothermia” and “Date of death: around March 14.”

The former TEPCO executives were cleared of negligence charges concerning the deaths of 44 people, including hospital patients like Ei who died in evacuation.

Immediately after the nuclear accident, there was a growing movement to move away from nuclear power generation.

Now, however, nuclear reactors are increasingly being restarted around the nation.

“Japan is a country where many earthquakes occur, so ‘100 percent safety’ is impossible,” Ishii said. “That’s why the nuclear accident happened and why the evacuation plan was useless.”

FEELING HELPLESS

A group of victims in Fukushima Prefecture initiated the criminal procedures against the former TEPCO executives.

The group’s leader, Ruiko Muto, 71, ran a coffee shop in Tamura, Fukushima Prefecture, about 40 kilometers west of the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.

She had no choice but to close the shop after the accident.

“I wanted to make it clear through a criminal trial who should take responsibility to prevent a repeat of the same mistakes,” she said.

She had sat in the galleries of court rooms since the first hearing of the trial at the Tokyo District Court in 2017.

When she learned on March 6 that the Supreme Court had effectively finalized the not guilty verdicts, she felt frustrated and shed tears.

She fears the acquittals will intensify a sense of helplessness among those affected in Fukushima Prefecture.

“Victims of damage caused by the nuclear accident tend not to speak out,” Muto said.

FOCUS NOW ON CIVIL CASE

Yuichi Kaido, a lawyer representing plaintiffs in both the criminal case and a civil lawsuit against former TEPCO managers, criticized the Supreme Court’s decision at a news conference on March 6.

“Its logic was too rough,” Kaido said.

But he said some good came out of the trial and appeals process, which took more than seven years to complete.

Many TEPCO employees and other related parties testified as witnesses.

“The testimonies at the trial have become invaluable evidence when discussing the nuclear accident,” Kaido said.

In the civil lawsuit, the Tokyo District Court ordered the former TEPCO managers to pay more than 13 trillion yen ($88 billion) in damages over the nuclear accident.

The defendants appealed the ruling, and the Tokyo High Court is expected to hand down its ruling in June.

“It is important to ensure the district court’s ruling is upheld,” Kaido said.

DISAPPOINTMENT

In the criminal case, prosecutors initially decided not to charge the former TEPCO executives.

But a citizens inquest panel twice ruled that they should be prosecuted, and mandatory indictments were applied.

(A third former TEPCO executive was charged, but his trial was terminated after his death in October last year.)

The four designated lawyers who acted as prosecutors in the trial held a news conference after the top court’s decision.

“The Supreme Court did not respond to our arguments,” Shozaburo Ishida said. “I wish they had made a more rigorous decision.”

March 11, 2025 Posted by | Fukushima continuing, Legal | Leave a comment

US Threatens Possible Military Response After Tehran Rejects Nuclear Outreach

The White House again warned Tehran that it can be dealt with either through military means or by reaching a deal over its nuclear program, remarks that came hours after Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei rejected a US proposal for negotiations between the two bitter rivals.

“We hope the Iran Regime puts its people and best interests ahead of terror,” White House National Security Council spokesman Brian Hughes said in a statement on March 9 while reiterating remarks by President Donald Trump that “if we have to go in militarily, it’s going to be a terrible thing.”

In an interview with Fox Business recorded on March 6, Trump said, “There are two ways Iran can be handled: militarily, or you make a deal” to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

“I’ve written them a letter saying, ‘I hope you’re going to negotiate because if we have to go in militarily, it’s going to be a terrible thing,'” Trump said.

“I would rather negotiate a deal. I’m not sure that everybody agrees with me, but we can make a deal that would be just as good as if you won militarily,” Trump added.

“But the time is happening now. The time is coming up. Something’s going to happen one way or the other.”

Snippets of the interview were aired on March 7,  but the full sit-down will be broadcast on March 9, Fox said.

In separate comments to reporters, Trump said: “We have a situation with Iran that, something’s going to happen very soon. Very, very soon.”

Ali Khamenei, speaking on March 8 to a group of Iranian officials — without specifically mentioning Trump or the United States — said, “Their talks are not aimed at solving problems.”

“It is for…’Let’s talk to impose what we want on the other party that is sitting on the opposite side of the table.'”

“The insistence of some bullying governments on negotiations is not to resolve issues…. Talks for them is a pathway to have new demands; it is not only about Iran’s nuclear issue…. Iran will definitely not accept their expectations,” Khamenei was quoted by state media as saying.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on March 8 said Tehran had not yet received a letter from Trump……………………………… more https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-trump-nuclear-khamenei-negotiations/33341412.html

March 11, 2025 Posted by | Iran, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Turbine, cooling: these unforeseen events that keep the Flamanville EPR at a standstill.

EDF is extending an unscheduled shutdown of the Flamanville EPR until the end of March in order to make adjustments to the turbine. During its first 100 days of operation, the nuclear reactor will have undergone 76 days of maintenance.

By Amélie Laurin, March 6, 2025

EDF had warned: the ramp-up of the Flamanville EPR, the first nuclear reactor to be commissioned in France in twenty-five years, would be very gradual. The public group has once again shut down, for a month and a half, its Normandy pressurized water reactor, which had been connected to the electricity grid on December 21, the first day of winter.

These maintenance operations were not planned and are the result of technical difficulties. They began on February 15 and are due to continue until March 30, after being extended three times.

Turbine heating

This work follows two initial suspensions of electricity production at Flamanville, between Christmas and mid-January, and at the turn of February. Two shutdowns that were, themselves, scheduled. In total, the reactor will have been immobilized for 76 days, during its first 100 days of operation.

The cause: various technical adjustments. In mid-February, the EPR stopped producing electrons due to an insufficient water flow in the seawater cooling circuit, which is only used “in exceptional situations”. This was followed by an intervention “on a temperature probe of the main circuit”, specifies a regulatory press release.

March 11, 2025 Posted by | climate change, France | Leave a comment

More Guns, Less Butter: Starmer’s Defence Spending Splash

To pursue such rearmament, Starmer has decided to take the axe to the aid budget, 

March 8, 2025 Dr Binoy Kampmark,  https://theaimn.net/more-guns-less-butter-starmers-defence-spending-splash/

The urge to throw more money at defence budgets across a number of countries has become infectious. It was bound to happen with Donald Trump’s return to the White House, given his previous insistence that US allies do more to fatten their own armies rather than rely on the largesse of Washington’s power. Spend, spend, spend is the theme, and the UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has shown himself willing to join this wasteful indulgence.

On February 25, just prior to his visit to Washington, Starmer announced that spending on defence would reach 2.5% of GDP from April 2027. In the next parliament, it would rise to 3%. “In recent years,” states a UK government press release, “the world has been reshaped by global instability, including Russian aggression in Ukraine, increasing threats from malign actors, rapid technological change, and the accelerating impacts of climate change.”  

Almost predictably, the term “Cold War” makes its retro appearance, with the spending increase the largest since that conflict of wilful misunderstandings and calculated paranoia. Russia figures prominently, as do “malign actors” who have burdened “the working people of Britain” with “increased energy bills, or threats to British interests and values.”

The governing Labour Party has also gone a bit gung-ho with the military–industrial establishment. In an open letter reported by the Financial Times, over 100 Labour MPs and peers thought it wise that ethical rules restricting investment by banks and investment firms in defence companies be relaxed. Financial institutions, the letter argues, should “rethink ESG [environmental, social and governance] mechanisms that often wrongly exclude all defence investment.” It was also important to address the issue of those “unnecessary barriers” defence firms face when “doing business in the UK.” Among such barriers are those irritating matters such as money laundering checks banks are obliged to conduct when considering the finance needs of defence and security firms, along with seeking assurances that they are not financing weapons banned under international law.

That these uncontroversial rules are now being seen as needless barriers to an industry that persists in shirking accountability is a sign of creeping moral flabbiness. Across Europe, the defence and arms lobbyists, those great exploiters of fictional insecurity, are feeling more confident than they have in years. They can rely on such figures as European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, who stated on March 4 that, “We are in an era of rearmament. And Europe is ready to massively boost its defence spending.”

To pursue such rearmament, Starmer has decided to take the axe to the aid budget, reducing it from its current level of 0.5% of gross national income to 0.3% in 2027. It was, as the press release goes on to mention, a “difficult choice” and part of “the evolving nature of the threat and the strategic shift required to meet it.” The Conservatives approved the measure, and the populist Reform UK would have little reason to object, seeing it had been its policy suggestion at the last election.

It was a decision that sufficiently troubled the international development minister, Anneliese Dodds, to quit the cabinet. In a letter to the prime minister, Dodds remarked that, while Starmer wished “to continue support for Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine; for vaccination; for climate; and for rules-based systems,” doing so would “be impossible … given the depth of the cut.”

Making the Office of Overseas Development Assistance absorb such a reduction would also see Britain “pull-out from numerous African, Caribbean and Western Balkan nations – at a time when Russia has been aggressively increasing its global presence.” It would be isolated from various multilateral bodies, see “a withdrawal from regional banks and a reduced commitment to the World Bank.” Influence would also be lost at such international fora as the G7 and G20.

Defence establishment figures have also regarded the decision to reduce aid with some consternation. General Lord Richards, former Chief of Defence Staff, saw the sense of an increase in military spending but not at the expense of the aid budget. “The notion that we must weaken one to strengthen the other is not just misleading but dangerous,” opined Richards in The Telegraph. “A lack of investment and development will only fuel greater instability, increase security threats and place a heavier burden on our Armed Forces.”The aid budgets of wealthy states should never be seen as benevolent projects. Behind the charitable endeavour is a calculation that speaks more to power (euphemised as “soft”) than kindness. Aid keeps the natives of other countries clothed, fed and sufficiently sustained not to want to stray to other contenders. The sentiment was expressed all too clearly by a disappointed Dodds: a smaller UK aid budget would embolden an already daring Russia to fill the vacuum. How fascinating, then, that a daring Russia, its threatening posture inflated and exaggerated, is one of the primary reasons prompting an increase in Britain’s defence spending in the first place.

March 11, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

US report discusses possibility of nuclear submarine accident, if subs supplied to Australia

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/top/544422/us-report-discusses-possibility-of-nuclear-submarine-accident-if-subs-supplied-to-australia 11 Mar 25

A report to the US Congress discusses the possibility of an accident with a nuclear-powered submarine if it supplies one to Australia.

This comes amid renewed questions over whether an AUKUS submarine deal would leave the US vulnerable, and an accident off the English coast where a tanker carrying jet fuel for the US military has hit a cargo ship.

The risk of a marine accident is one of three risks looked at around the submarines deal that is central to the the AUKUS Pillar One pact.

The congressional research report said an accident “might call into question for third-party observers the safety of all US Navy nuclear-powered ships”.

That could erode US public support and the ability of US nuclear-powered ships to make port calls around the world.

The 111-page report by the Congressional Research Service discussed the US not handing over the subs at all – although Canberra just made a $870m downpayment on them.

Keeping them might make up for the US sub fleet hitting “a valley or trough” around now till the 2030s, and shipbuilding being at a low point, it said.

Donald Trump’s pick for the top defence policy role at the Pentagon, Elbridge Colby, has said AUKUS could leave the US short and “it would be crazy to have fewer SSN Virginia-class [attack submarines] in the right place and time”.

The new research report to Congress said Pillar One was launched in 2021 without a study of the alternatives.

One alternative “would keep all US-made SSNs under the control of the US Navy, which has a proven record extending back to 1954 of safely operating its nuclear-powered ships”.

The original Pillar One pact is for the US to sell between three and five subs to Australia, then Australia to use US and UK nuclear propulsion technology to build another three-to-eight nuclear powered, conventionally armed submarines itself, for a total fleet of eight.

Australia’s Defence Minister Richard Marles said on Monday that Elbridge Colby was broadly supportive of AUKUS, if enough subs were available.

Canberra was aware of the challenge in the US around producing submarines, “and that’s why we’re contributing to the US industrial base”.

“And it’s a significant contribution and it’s going to increase the availability of Virginia class submarines for the United States.

“That’s a point which has been accepted and understood by the US Defence Secretary, Pete Hegseth, in the meeting that I had with him.”

Australia was last year included as a “domestic source” of US military production for the first time, and is aiming to ramp up making ammunition and missiles, as well as test hypersonic weapons with the US and UK.

“That’s going well in the sense that we are making the contributions, we are seeing an increase in production rates, and over the time frame in which we are looking to have our Virginia class submarines transferred to us, we are confident that this challenge can be met,” Marles told the ABC.

In the US, Trump appears most focused on building an ‘Iron Dome’ missile defence system, as he mentioned in his speech to Congress. This would be another huge pressure on military spending.

The report to Congress covered three big risks – accidents and whether Pillar One was the best option for deterrence and “warfighting cost-effectiveness”, and how the tech – the “crown jewels of US military technology” – could be kept secret, especially from China.

It debated a different “military division of labour”.

“Australia, instead of using funds to purchase, build, operate, and maintain its own SSNs, would instead invest those funds in other military capabilities – such as … long-range anti-ship missiles, drones, loitering munitions, B-21 long-range bombers, or other long-range strike aircraft” to conduct “missions for both Australia and the United States”.

The general rule was programmes should not go ahead without a sound business case, it noted.

“There is little indication that, prior to announcing the AUKUS Pillar 1 project in September 2021, an analysis of alternatives … or equivalent rigorous comparative analysis was conducted to examine whether Pillar 1 would be a more cost-effective way to spend defence resources for generating deterrence and warfighting capability”.

The report made no mention of how New Zealand, Japan, Korea and others might join AUKUS Pillar Two, an agreement for sharing advanced military tech.

March 11, 2025 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, safety | Leave a comment

Coalition’s nuclear plan most expensive option for Australia, former US climate official says

Dr Jonathan Pershing, a former US special envoy for climate change and climate negotiator under Democratic presidents, says few countries building nuclear power plants

Adam Morton Climate and environment editor, Tue 11 Mar 2025 ,  https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/mar/11/coalitions-nuclear-plan-most-expensive-option-for-australia-former-us-climate-official-says

A longtime senior US climate official has weighed in on Australia’s energy debate, saying “very, very few people” internationally are building new nuclear power plants and, in most cases, the combination of solar and batteries delivers “higher reliability than gas”.

Dr Jonathan Pershing, a former US special envoy for climate change and climate negotiator under Democratic presidents, was in Sydney on Monday to speak at the city’s climate action week. Asked whether nuclear power as proposed by the Coalition was a viable option for Australia, he said “almost all the numbers that I have seen suggest that that’s a more expensive option than other choices”.

“What’s really interesting is the global community’s progress on nuclear with, frankly, a bigger head start than Australia’s had, because the ban here has been in place for a long time,” he told Guardian Australia.

“Very, very few people are building new nuclear.”

Pershing, who is program director at the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, said even if Australia was able to overcome two immediate hurdles to nuclear energy – the legislated ban and an historical lack of public support for the technology – it then faced asking taxpayers to pay “holding costs” for 10 to 20 years when it could be building the same amount of generating capacity sooner.

“The cheapest one still globally, and I think here as well, is probably a combination of solar plus batteries – and that’s firm capacity, by the way,” he said. “If we look at the way that’s been analysed, the combination of the two [solar and batteries] gets you higher reliability than you get from gas.

He cited the example of the 40-year-old Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, in California. He said it was not likely to be replaced with a new nuclear generator once it reached the end of its life because of the cost. “They’ll do some life extensions, but they don’t think it is even plausible to imagine building new capacity there,” he said. “It’s just too expensive.”

The Coalition has claimed that its proposal to slow the rollout of renewable energy, extend the life of ageing coal plants, rely more on gas-fired power and later build publicly funded nuclear plants at seven sites, mostly after 2040, would be cheaper and more reliable than Labor’s promise of sourcing 82% of Australia’s electricity from renewable energy by 2030.

Peter Dutton has said the Coalition’s claim is supported by a report by consultants at Frontier Economics. But several other independent energy experts have argued the Coalition’s plan would, in relative terms, be likely to be more expensive for consumers over the next decade, at least, and less reliable and lead to substantially higher greenhouse gas emissions.

Pershing said a another problem for Australia would be training personnel for a nuclear power industry. Technical experts would have to be brought from overseas, which isn’t the case for other types of energy generation, he said.

That expertise could come from Canada, China, France or Russia, adding that in the case of Russia, “I’m not so convinced that that’s where you’d want to go”.

Pershing said the Trump administration’s anti-climate action stance would have an effect “but, I think, less than people might imagine”. He said the change in the US was an opportunity for Australia, “depending on how it chooses to engage”.

“The thing that’s most salient is that the rest of the world has decided that the least-cost solution to provide for more energy, particularly for electricity, is through some combination of renewables technologies plus batteries,” he said, citing International Energy Agency data showing it was the cheapest and faster solution “for about 80% of the world”.

“In much of the world, demand [for energy] is rising and you’re going to have to supply that demand from something. That means transition minerals, and that means technology, and that means investment. Those are places that the Australian economy is well positioned to deliver.”

Based on Trump’s language and early actions, the US was likely to slow the construction of wind and solar power and electric vehicles while increasing its demand for critical minerals, he said. But the US was “not the primary place where things are happening”.

“The place where things are happening is across Asia, broadly, with enormous continued demand from China, demand from India, demand from Indonesia and then actually others around the world who are building on that capacity,” he said.

Regarding fossil fuel exports, Pershing said the question for Australia was how it replaced the economic value of the coal and gas it sells with other exports, and what commitments it has made that were consistent with keeping global heating to less than 2C.

Australia could, for example, build a new mutually beneficial trade relationship with Japan where Australia produced and sold zero carbon steel and other metals. Pershing said Australia would also have to deal with the future of communities, such as in the Hunter Valley and its nearby port of Newcastle, that rely heavily on coal mining and coal exports.

“I think these are difficult questions, and they’re legitimate ones for the whole society to take up,” he said. “[A change] is coming. It’s not that it won’t come, but if we don’t manage it, it’ll have enormously negative consequences for communities, and I think that’s on the collective government, civil society and thought leadership to resolve and to address”.

March 11, 2025 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, business and costs | Leave a comment

What if a Fukushima-sized nuclear accident happened in Australia?

Today is the 14th anniversary of the Fukushima disaster, and this morning the good folks at Don’t Nuke the Climate released a huge research project that shows what a Fukushima-style nuclear disaster would look like if it happened at one of Dutton’s seven proposed reactor sites. 

About these maps,  https://nuclearplume.au/ 11 Mar 25

The seven sites on this map have been selected by the federal Coalition to house multiple nuclear power reactors.

You can select the reactor site and wind direction to see how a Fukushima-scale nuclear disaster would contaminate different areas surrounding the seven sites in Australia. 

The interactive map uses a radiation plume map, originally peer reviewed and published by the European Geosciences Union. It shows the deposition of radioactive caesium-137 from the Fukushima disaster as of July 2011. The darker the shading, the higher the level of radioactive contamination and the higher the radiation exposures for people in those areas. At distances far from the Fukushima plant, radiation exposures were low but even low radiation doses can cause negative health impacts including fatal cancers and cardiovascular disease.

Caesium-137 has been one of the most significant radioactive contaminants since the March 2011 Fukushima disaster but many other types of radioactive particles contaminated wide areas (iodine-131, xenon-133, etc.).

Other radiation fallout maps from the Fukushima disaster can be seen here and here.

DOWNLOAD THE BRIEFING PACK

March 11, 2025 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, safety | Leave a comment

Why is an ‘ethical’ investor funding arms companies?

Norway’s sovereign wealth fund holds shares in UK weapons firms that arm Israel, despite its ethical guidelines.

ANDREW FEINSTEIN and JACK CINAMON, 5 March 2025,  https://www.declassifieduk.org/why-is-an-ethical-investor-funding-arms-companies/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=Button&utm_campaign=ICYMI&utm_content=Button

Scandinavian countries are often held up as models for a better society. None more so than Norway, flush with North Sea oil wealth, which it can invest responsibly.

The money is put aside in a sovereign wealth fund, owned by the Norwegian government and managed by the country’s central bank, Norges Bank. It is the largest such fund in the world, worth £1.4 trillion.

Called the Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG), or just the Oil Fund, it is supposed to adhere to ethical guidelines by excluding certain companies from its portfolio.

That’s if they are involved in serious violations of human rights – especially in conflicts – gross corruption, the production of nuclear weapons and more.

However, in outright contradiction to these guidelines, the GPFG invests billions of pounds in many of the world’s largest arms companies. In fact, it owns stakes in exactly half of the world’s top 100 arms companies, accumulating at almost £14 billion. 

This includes arms companies here in the UK that supply Israel – despite Norway recognising the state of Palestine as recently as May 2024 and excluding companies from the GPFG involved in activities violating international law.

So why is Norwegian money finding its way into Britain’s arms industry, which supplies Israel? 

Arming Israel

Among these investments is QinetiQ in which the GPFG holds over £46 million in shares. 

The British defence tech firm has collaborated with the Israeli military to develop the Watchkeeper drone system, a joint project with Israel’s Elbit Systems, a company dropped from the fund in 2009 for supplying surveillance systems for the separation barrier in the West Bank. 

Following sustained direct action from Palestine Action, Elbit Systems UK lost its largest-ever British arms contract, worth over £2.1bn, after the UK Ministry of Defence scrapped its Watchkeeper drone programme.

QinetiQ subsidiaries, such as QinetiQ Australia, are involved in the F-35 fighter jet program. Israel has used its fleet of these aircraft to pound Gaza.

Then there is the almost £35m invested in Babcock International, another UK company in Norway’s portfolio. It claims to not provide weapons to Israel, but with partnerships involving Israeli defence firms IAI, Elbit, and Rafael Systems, the line between ‘not involved’ and ‘indirectly arming’ becomes quite blurry. 

Babcock also sustains the entirety of the UK’s submarine fleet, including by delivering through-life support and life extension of the UK nuclear armed Vanguard class submarine.

Rolls-Royce and Leonardo

Norway’s largest UK arms investment, however, is in British engineering giant Rolls-Royce, where the fund holds around £1.07bn in shares, representing over 2% of the company.

Rolls-Royce is not just about luxury cars, it is a critical supplier on the F-35 program, powering Israeli military operations. Case in point: Rolls-Royce’s German subsidiary, MTU, produces the engines for Israel’s Merkava tanks and most of the Israeli Navy’s vessels.

Divesting from the UK defence sector is far from unlikely, as the Oil Fund previously decided to exclude BAE Systems, the UK’s largest arms company, from its portfolio in 2018 for its involvement in nuclear weapons production.

However, few investments in Norway’s portfolio illustrate its ethical blind spots as starkly as its stake in Anglo-Italian arms manufacturer Leonardo. Leonardo’s presence in the UK comes largely from its ownership of Leonardo UK, formerly AugustaWestland. 

Leonardo operates from several locations in the UK, and has deep collaborations with the UK MOD, BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce and MBDA UK, especially with reference to its joint venture program, the Tempest new-generation fighter jet, expected to enter service in 2035.

With around £165m invested; the company has become a focal point for divestment campaigns – and for good reason. 

Leonardo supplies weapons to Israel, including naval guns for Sa’ar 6 warships used in the bombardment and siege on Gaza, and it is a key player in the F-35 program. 

Ignorance or hypocrisy?

Despite a history of corruption – linked to bribery scandals in Indonesia and India – Leonardo remains on the GPFG portfolio, even managing to convince the Council of Ethics (the body tasked with reviewing investments) “that the risk of gross corruption in the company’s operations no longer is unacceptable” as they occupied an observation list for five years until being revoked from assessment in 2022. 

The company has recently been accused of providing the military junta in Myanmar with weapons in violation of a UN arms embargo. The company also contributes to nuclear weapons production through MBDA, a joint venture with BAE Systems and Airbus SE. Leonardo’s role in Israel’s military operations and its corruption scandals demand urgent re-evaluation by the Council on Ethics.

The fund clearly channels billions of pounds into corporations that fuel violence, sustain occupations, and profit from human suffering. These aren’t just financial decisions; they’re moral failings, directly contradicting the fund’s stated ethical guidelines. 

How does Norway square these investments with its loud-and-proud commitment to peace and human rights? Is this ignorance or hypocrisy? Norway must divest from UK arms companies, sending a powerful message: that peace and human rights are not negotiable, and profit should never come at the expense of human lives.

To see the full list of investments in the world’s top 100 arms companies click here.

Part of a more detailed blog published by Corruption Tracker

March 11, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, EUROPE, Religion and ethics | Leave a comment

Canada Unveils $490-Million Push Towards Nuclear Energy

 Energy

Canada Unveils $490-Million Push Towards Nuclear Energy

10 Mar 25,

A massive push towards nuclear in Canada is set after several investments have been announced by Minister of Energy and Natural Resources Jonathan Wilkinson. Wilkinson is pushing what the government describes as “crucial steps towards clean, affordable, and homegrown nuclear technology.”

Central to Canada’s nuclear revival is a $304 million joint investment with engineering firm AtkinsRéalis to advance the next generation of Canada’s signature CANDU reactor. The initiative aims to refine the standard design of this Canadian-developed reactor technology.

Also key to Canada’s nuclear expansion involves small modular reactors, which provide scalable and versatile solutions for regional power needs. Ontario Power Generation received $55 million through the Future Electricity Fund to develop pre-construction activities for three SMRs at its Darlington facility.

Saskatchewan also received a substantial $80 million investment for SMR predevelopment. Managed by SaskPower through Saskatchewan’s Crown Investments Corporation, the project will focus on technical, regulatory, and community engagement tasks.

In Alberta, Capital Power Limited Partnership secured $13 million to evaluate potential SMR locations in the province, alongside a notable $8.3 million investment in the Peace Region for preliminary work on a large-scale nuclear facility with a potential capacity of 4,800 MW.

Western University in London, Ontario, received nearly $5 million to study advanced nuclear fuels, specifically the TRi-structural ISOtropic or TRISO fuel type. Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, situated in Chalk River, Ontario, was awarded over $3.5 million to establish new standards and strategies for SMR deployment across Canada, aiming to optimize waste management.

Additionally, the Saskatchewan Industrial and Mining Suppliers Association received approximately $2.8 million to assess and enhance the province’s nuclear supply chain readiness, explicitly incorporating Indigenous businesses.

Complementary to nuclear advancements, the Alberta Electric System Operator secured $18.5 million to develop IT infrastructure capable of managing increased complexity arising from clean electricity generation. Alberta is also investing $1.3 million in the Tent Mountain Pumped Hydro Energy Storage Project near Coleman for advancing integrated clean energy storage solutions alongside nuclear development.

March 11, 2025 Posted by | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

Families sickened by radiation exposure want Congress to revive this key compensation program.

7 Mar 2025

The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act or RECA, first enacted in 1990, created a compensation program to process claims from people exposed to radiation leftover from nuclear testing done by the U.S. government.

After the latest expansion of the bill expired in June 2024, communities across the country, including Missouri and the Navajo Nation say they are waiting for the legislation to not only be taken up again, but also to include communities like theirs that were never originally included. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0icfLF6AVEQ

March 11, 2025 Posted by | health, USA | Leave a comment