Mika Noro’s speech on the impact of radiation in Japan
Published on Jun 3, 2013
Ms. Noro has been organising a hosting program of Chernobyl children in her native Hokkaido. The NPO “Kakehashi (bridge) to Chernobyl” has hosted hundreds children from Chernobyl and they are currently organising recuperation program for Fukushima children. Since 3.11 she has lectured all around Japan for the public, especially for the mothers who concern about the health effect of radiation.
May 18, 2013
Collective Evacuation Trial Team
http://fukushima-evacuation-e.blogspo…
World Network for Saving Children from Radiation
http://www.save-children-from-radiati…
URGENT PETITION: For Protecting Human Right of Fukushima Disaster Victims
Friday, 31 May 2013
Published by Mia
拡散希望: 福島事故被災者の「健康に生きる権利」を、守るための緊
急署名
賛同・署名】 国連「健康に生きる権利」特別報告者の勧告を支持します
日本政府は勧告を受け入れて／原発被害者の「生きる権利」を
Image source ; http://www.morgentaler25years.ca/benefits-of-decriminalization/statement-of-support-from-the-u-n/
昨年11月に来日し、福島原発事故後の人権状況を調査した国連「健康に対する権利」の特別報告者のアナンド・グローバー氏が、5月27日（現地時 間）から開催される国連人権理事会（ジュネーブ）で調査内容を報告し、日本政府に対する勧告を発表しました。
Mr. Anand Grover who had visited Japan last November and investigated how human rights had been addressed in Japan after the Fukushima disaster. reported his survey at the UN Human Right committee in Geneva and presented his recommendation to the Japanese Government on the 27th of May, 2013.
追加被爆量１ｍＳｖ以上の地域での健康調査の実施や、１ｍＳｖを下回るまでは帰還を強いるべきでないことなどを盛り込み、原発被害者の「健康に生きる権利」を具体的に示した価値ある内容です。
The content of his report is truly valuable, pointing out precisely the way to protect human rights and for nuclear victims to be able to lead a healthy life. His report included a request to the Japanese Government to implement a health survey for people living in the areas effected with more than a dose of ionizing radiation of 1mSv/y. Mr. Anand Grover also requested to not make evacuees return to their hometown until the level of ionizing radiation was reduced below 1mSv/y.
外務省、関係各省（復興庁、原子力災害対策本部、環境省、厚労省など）および国連特別報告者アナンド・グローバー氏にお送りしたいと思います。 ぜひ加わってください！
ヒューマンライツ・ナウ
ピースボート
地球の子ども新聞
福島老朽原発を考える会
福島の子どもたちを守る法律家ネットワーク（SAFLAN）
原発事故子ども・被災者支援法市民会議
子どもたちを放射能から守る全国ネットワーク
子どものための平和と環境アドボカシー（PEACH)
被ばく労働を考えるネットワーク
K-pop star Psychological operations in Japan – performs “Fukushima Style” for TEPCO.
Published on Jun 1, 2013
In the wake of the ongoing and unprecedented radiation release from Fukushima, the company responsible, TEPCO, commissioned Ebisu Studios to make a Psy-style music video to enhance its much-tarnished image. This is the result…
New! Noam Chomsky interview: the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster – June 1 2013
Published on Jun 1, 2013
Campaign for Evacuation of the Children from the Highly Contaminated Areas
Can you Help us Send Messages to the Court from All Over the World?
http://fukushima-evacuation-e.blogspo…
Please leave your comments to the Japanese court to save the children
http://www.fukushima-sokai.net/action…
World Network for Saving Children from Radiation
http://www.save-children-from-radiati…
Noam Chomsky on a matter of urgency for the children of Fukushima and Miyagi
Published on May 31, 2013
Campaign for Evacuation of the Children from the Highly Contaminated Areas
Can you Help us Send Messages to the Court from All Over the World?
http://fukushima-evacuation-e.blogspo…
ICRP, WHO and UNSCEAR and their effect on the Fukushima children
“….the Ordinance on Prevention of Ionizing Radiation Hazards in Japan,
which requires that areas where radiation dose shall not exceed 50mSv/year and 100mSv/5years ….”
Published by nuclear-news.net
By Arclight2011
28 May 2013
Image source ; fukushima-appeal-70-years-high-conference-in-chicago-with-summary
Below are some extracts from the recent report responding to the report that Anand grover compiled in November 2012. The extracts describe The Japanese Governments responses and requests for amendments. As i read through the document and especially the section at the end of the document, highlighting all the changes that were requested and acted on, it became apparent that the ICRP, WHO and UNSCEAR were quoted.
Doses were not including internal doses of released radionuclide’s. The Japanese Government also noted that they had no interest in specific isotopes such s Strontium 90 .
The normal background level in Japan is said to be 2.1 mSv/y and the USA and Europe are quoted as being nearly as bad at approx 3 mSv/y, making an extra 1 mSv/y from the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan seem normal.
Oddly enough, as i sit here typing i am getting a steady 0.11 mcSv/hr after rain in London (one of the worst polluted cities in Europe because of nuclear MOX processing and waste – NO2 and associated radon Daughters), that gives me a normal background of just under 1 mSv/y. So how do the Japanese (supported by the ICRP and UNSCEAR) work the annual doses out to 3 mSv/y?
Also, according to Safecast citizen radiation monitoring, the levels are more in line with my London reading in many parts of Japan presently. The Japanese officials would have us believe a 3 mSv/y is only 1mSv/y more than background??
So, the citizens of Fukushima and Myagi have three times normal (not including hot spots – A term banned on the Japanese critique) than measured in the “real world” and added to that locals are also more likely to accumulate isotopes through their environment (food, air and water).
It is likely that these areas have statistically higher than the nationally estimated 50 percent of contaminated food (the reason for the lower allowable levels of Cesium in Japan at 100 bq/kg as opposed to the standard 1000 bq/kg elsewhere)
The blood tests that were mentioned may have included the recent chromosome based blood test for damage from ionising radiation that the Japanese government has recently rejected for the People of Fukushima on ethical grounds (It might find illegitimate children) . In this reports response the Japanese representatives do not want any blood tests at all it would seem.
I hope this helps to stimulate some discussion. The children of Fukushima need us to discuss this health issue as the nuclear lobby is having a lot of meetings and not telling anyone. They are changing the rules to suit the nuclear industry and mitigate any future legal claims made against them. No media are challenging this or even reporting it.
The rest of the report s here..
Japanese Governments pro nuclear agenda explained!
“…for the transport of plutonium which the United States requires of Japan..”
Published on May 30, 2013
The real reason is about attempting to expand Japanese Capital market while denying many material conditions surrounding Japan`s nuclear technology.
Image source ; http://edufire.com/forums/9-classes/topics/4530-nuclear-fuel-cycle-u-238
Australia-Euratom Nuclear Safeguards: Plutonium Retransfers
Published by nuclear-news.net
by Arclight2011
31 May 2013
The Agreement stipulates that retransfers of Australian obligated plutonium can only take place if it is transported with plutonium which is subject to the United States-Japan Agreement on nuclear cooperation
[…]
bringing into force an Agreement under which Australia will – subject to certain conditions – broaden its consent for the return from the European Union to Japan of Australian following the reprocessing of Japanese spent fuel in Europe. The European Union is an important provider of nuclear fuel cycle services for countries purchasing Australian uranium and Japan is a major market for Australian uranium exports.
[…]
In September 1993, Australia gave Euratom its consent for the retransfer from the European Union to Japan of plutonium bearing both Australian and United States safeguards ; the latter obligation acquired as a result of Australian nuclear material undergoing processing at some stage of the fuel cycle in the United States Under the new treaty-level Agreement Australia will give consent for the retransfer from the European Union to Japan of the small proportion of Australian obligated plutonium
[…]
The refinement of prior consent rights under the Australia-Euratom Agreement is seen as desirable by both Euratom and Japan, and is consistent with the practice of their other major uranium suppliers; Canada and the United States.
for the transport of plutonium which the United States requires of Japan. The Agreement also provides for direct assurances from Euratom to Australia concerning the security arrangements being applied to transfers involving Australian obligated plutonium
https://nuclear-news.net/2013/05/30/australia-euratom-nuclear-safeguards-plutonium-retransfers/
H/t Jan Caron for these links
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-30/japan-pre-open-equities-green-bonds-red-abenomics-blue
Upsurge of phytoplankton observed near the Japan deep
Posted by Mochizuki on May 30th, 2013
According to Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, Cs-134 was detected from 7300m deep in the Pacific only 4 months after the Fukushima nuclear accident.
The location is in approximately 115km east from the epicenter, 4.9km east from the trench axis of the Japan Deep.
From their press release of 5/29/2013, 20 Bq/Kg of Cs-134 was measured from the the sea ground sediment (0~1cm depth) in July of 2011. It proves the Fukushima contamination reached 7300m deep in the Pacific detecting Cs-134.
They observed the upsurge of phytoplankton around the Japan deep from late March to early April in 2011. They assume Cs-134 fell down with the mass of marine snow.
Also, at the point of 110km east from the epicenter, they observed the local strong current with a certain direction. Due to this strong current, dead bodies of sea creatures and the sorts of fish that can’t fix themselves at one location were carried to the deeper area. Almost no living benthos was found.
At both of the 110km area and 115km area, they observed mineral particles causing seawater extraordinary unclear. The thickness of the unclear layers were 30m and 50m in each.
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/j/about/press_release/20130529/
Iori Mochizuki
The real problem behind Fukushima accident was “Everyone wanted a LIE.”
Fukushima accident was physically an end. However, it was socially nothing but a check point. As time passes, it’s becoming clear.
By taking advantage of their old brand as “hardworking and honest”, they were depraved to blind themselves from reality.
Media blackout can’t stand without the demand.
By sacrificing the long-term benefit, they will increasingly seek short-term benefit. We don’t have a long way to convergent point.
Not to mention, Fukushima Diary says No to it, anytime, anywhere.
Update and clarification on Japanese deep sea waste dumps
Op-Ed by Arclight2011
7 March 2013
https://nuclear-news.net/2013/04/07/update-and-clarification-on-japanese-deep-sea-waste-dumps/
One of the overlooked subjects concerns the undersea waste dumps located approximately 200 Km off the Japanese coast. These dumps need monitoring for more than just cesium.
Recent evidence shows us the approximate position of these dumps and I have been collecting the data together to find out if these dumps were affected by the great earthquake of March 2011 that caused 3 meltdowns at Fukushima Daichi.
The first evidence to look at is from Ian Fairlies presentation from the Helen Caldicott Symposium in New York. Below is a diagram of the area most impacted by the initial Large earthquake.
(It might be worth noting that the area of extreme shaking stops at the coast, leaving the nuclear power stations seemingly unaffected. I am only suspicious as Ian Fairlie also used data from Richard Wakeford (a Professor and ex BNFL sellafield) as evidence for the dose measurements. So, the dose measurements found on this PDF are likely an underestimate. There are many reasons to distrust Richard Wakeford to go into here. Please google his name for details in alternate news blogs, LLRC and Green Audit etc. Also, google his name with Chris Busby for interesting information.)
Next is the diagram of the dumps themselves. You will notice that area A3 and A2 seem to be possible targets from the heavy shaking area.
Next is the deposition of Cs 134 and 137 found by the recent released evidence from this report
Horizontal distribution of Fukushima-derived radiocesium in
zooplankton in the northwestern Pacific Ocean
Medvedev issues bold first by stumping for more renewable energy in Russia
Additional reporting by .
http://www.bellona.org/articles/articles_2013/medvedev_renewables
MURMANSK – Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev has signed a resolution aimed at stimulating more use of alternative energies and government compensation for the high cost of renewables – the first sign ever from the prime minister that he believes in an alternative energy future for Russia.
 |
| Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev speaks in favor of preserving a Moscow forest from a highway project in his videoblog in 2008. |
| Still from Medvedev’s blog on Kremlin.ru |
Analysts have suggested that Medvedev is often the hardline Kremlin’s mouthpiece for soft issues that Putin’s inner circle is neither concerned about, nor intends to honor.
But Medvedev, with his record of attendance at United Nations climate negotiations and recent domestic efforts to lead modernization campaigns that openly admit to Russia’s ecological shortcomings make him, if only in title, Russia’s highest-level governmental advocate for the environment.
“At the moment, the use of renewable energy sources and green energy is far from what we would like it to be. We probably use only an inconsiderable part of our potential,” said Medvedev, addressing the Startup Village international investor conference at the Skolkovo hi-tech hub outside Moscow, hosted by the Skolkovo Foundation, according to RIA Novosti.
“But now that attitude has changed, for various reasons. I see various countries and their leaders changing their approach to the issue of green energy, green growth and renewable energy sources,” he said, adding, “These changes are happening before our eyes. In Russia, the attitude toward renewable energies is changing, and we think a serious future stands behind them.”
Medvedev said “the abundance of hydrocarbons” in Russia was a reason for the low use of renewable energy sources, according to the news agency.
The development of the resolution
At a mid April meeting on renewable energy with Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich, he presented an accounting to Medvedev that each year some 100 million rubles ($3.1 million) is earmarked to compensate for the costs associated with plugging renewable technologies into Russia power grid. The resolution to allow for manifold increases in investment in the solar, wind, and small hydroelectric sectors was prepared at Medvedev’s behest.
Russian Baltic nuclear power plant debacle- Shut down for good?
….Rosatom’s search in the past three years for partners in Europe has failed to deliver either future energy buyers or potential shareholders willing to pledge funds to the project – a first in which the Russian nuclear industry has made 49% equity available to a foreign investor….
Baltic NPP debacle: Construction reported halted, possibly mothballed
| A KLT-40C reactor plant. Afrikantov OKBM has developed these 40-megawatt reactors for use on board of floating nuclear power plants. Rosatom now considers operating one at the site of the beleaguered Baltic NPP project – a baffling idea that will likely relegate the currently 2,300-megawatt design, and possibly the entire construction, to the annals of failed projects of the nuclear industry |
| Source: okbm.nnov.ru |
http://www.bellona.org/articles/articles_2013/baltic_npp_debacle
MOSCOW – Two subcontractors for Kaliningrad Region’s Baltic Nuclear Power Plant (Baltic NPP) say works at the site are being stopped and a two-year freeze is expected on the construction. Hitting a wall of uniform rejection after years of courting energy importers and investors in Europe, the project has Moscow attempting a last-ditch look at a limited pool of smaller reactor designs – but reeks of a prompt demise
Representatives of two companies subcontracted at the site of the Baltic NPP – a nuclear power plant that Russia is building in the town of Neman in the westernmost exclave of Kaliningrad Region, near the border with the European member nation of Lithuania – have told Kaliningrad-based news outlet RUGRAD.EU (in Russian) that works at the station have been halted and, one of the sources said,
“the station will be mothballed, the many workers will be put on leave.”
The other source told RUGRAD.EU that “construction is being frozen for two years, no idea what to do with the migrant workers.”
This sparks doubt that the station as the Russian State Atomic Energy Corporation Rosatom planned it – a two-unit plant built to a latest Rosatom design known as AES-2006 (NPP-2006), based on the VVER-1200 reactor – may be completed at all.
On May 24, reports were carried by the Russian media saying Rosatom was considering reducing reactor capacity for the Baltic NPP. A story on the Novy Kaliningrad website (in Russian) said an instruction was issued by Rosatom head Sergei Kiriyenko to explore the option of using reactors of smaller capacity than was earlier planned at the site. Instead of two units of 1,150 megawatts each, 640- and 40-megawatt reactors may be under discussion, the story said, citing a report by the Russian news agency Interfax, which relied on information from industry sources.
The total capacity of the Baltic NPP, where construction has already started, may thus be cut by more than three times – from 2,300 to 680 megawatts.
Novy Kaliningrad cited Interfax and its source as saying that the issue is that of looking into the possibility of building at the Baltic NPP site “firstly” units of smaller capacity, and putting online the large-capacity reactors “upon the availability of contracts for consumption and a power delivery scheme.”
This means, in effect, that five years forward since a construction agreement was signed with the government of Kaliningrad Region in August 2008, there are still no power purchasing contracts for the future station’s output, nor any clarity as to how this power would be delivered to the grid.
However, according to one of Interfax’s sources, Novy Kaliningrad said, equipment is still being produced for the 1,150-megawatt units.
Export hopes spurned
Kaliningrad Region – Russia’s territory wedged between the Baltic Sea to the west, Lithuania to the north, Poland to the south, and Belarus to the east – is currently energy sufficient: Kaliningradskaya Thermal Power Plant 2 was built there just two years ago. But it lacks the necessary modern transmission and distribution lines needed to accommodate a 2,300-megawatt nuclear power plant with either export or internal power consumption as the intended goal of future production.
Australia-Euratom Nuclear Safeguards: Plutonium Retransfers
…..The Agreement will enter into force when Australia notifies the Delegation to the European Commission that all domestic requirements necessary to give effect to the Agreement have been satisfied….
Image source ; http://antinuclear.net/2012/07/10/peaceful-anti-nuclear-protest-in-south-australia-might-be-met-with-police-violence-as-in-the-past/
Published by nuclear-news.net
by Arclight2011
31 May 2013
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade – Australian Government
01/06/2013 | Press release
distributed by noodls on 30/05/2013 22:48
http://www.noodls.com/view/2FBAFE516E5E78B9F15B62CBEB136F9A32994CC7
Australia and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) exchanged diplomatic notes in Canberra on 28 May 1998 as the first step towards bringing into force an Agreement under which Australia will – subject to certain conditions – broaden its consent for the return from the European Union to Japan of Australian obligated plutonium following the reprocessing of Japanese spent fuel in Europe. The European Union is an important provider of nuclear fuel cycle services for countries purchasing Australian uranium and Japan is a major market for Australian uranium exports.
Image source ; http://www.peaceboat.org/english/?page=view&nr=70&type=21&menu=62
The new Agreement will represent a further refinement of Australia’s advance consent to plutonium retransfers under the 1981 Australia-Euratom Agreement concerning Transfers of Nuclear Material. In September 1993, Australia gave Euratom its consent for the retransfer from the European Union to Japan of plutonium bearing both Australian and United States safeguards obligations; the latter obligation acquired as a result of Australian nuclear material undergoing processing at some stage of the fuel cycle in the United States Under the new treaty-level Agreement Australia will give consent for the retransfer from the European Union to Japan of the small proportion of Australian obligated plutonium which does not also carry a United States safeguards obligation and is thus not covered by the 1993 agreement.
The refinement of prior consent rights under the Australia-Euratom Agreement is seen as desirable by both Euratom and Japan, and is consistent with the practice of their other major uranium suppliers; Canada and the United States. The Agreement is consistent with Australia’s non-proliferation and security objectives. Plutonium covered by the Agreement will continue to be accounted for by the Australian Safeguards Office.
Image source ; http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/rock-art-riches-the-devastating-cost-of-australias-mining-boom/570/
The Agreement stipulates that retransfers of Australian obligated plutonium can only take place if it is transported with plutonium which is subject to the United States-Japan Agreement on nuclear cooperation – i.e. which also carries a United States safeguards obligation – and is thereby subject to the stringent and very detailed security arrangements for the transport of plutonium which the United States requires of Japan. The Agreement also provides for direct assurances from Euratom to Australia concerning the security arrangements being applied to transfers involving Australian obligated plutonium. Any retransfers of Australian obligated plutonium not conforming to the agreed conditions would continue to require case-by-case consideration by Australia.
In accordance with Australia’s treaty-making procedures, the exchanged diplomatic notes constituting the Agreement will be tabled in Parliament for fifteen sitting days and considered by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties.
The Agreement will enter into force when Australia notifies the Delegation to the European Commission that all domestic requirements necessary to give effect to the Agreement have been satisfied.
Harris shutdown could cost Duke Energy $1.5 million a day
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/52050412/#.UafcyNdx0xA
The Nuclear Energy Institute says Harris Nuclear Plant’s shutdown could be costing Duke Energy as much as $1.5 million per day to replace power generated by the plant.
David Bradish, NEI’s manager of energy and economic analysis, says when a nuclear plant shuts down, it usually costs between $1 million and $1.5 million per day to replace power generated by the plant.
Bradish added that the cost estimate is based on the spot price of electricity in the area where the plant is shut down.
He says the cost to the power company increases depending on the time of the year as well. Most outages occur during the spring and fall seasons, but an unplanned outage during the summer will cost the company more.
5/30/2013 — Volcano Sakurajima Erupts — Large eruption of lava/ash in South Japan
More images here ; http://www.picsfrom.com/oneadmin/photogallery/Sakurajima-Kagoshima/34/34/711/0/Yes.html
Published on May 30, 2013
This volcano never ceases to amaze! Its been a very long time since the last video the Japanese agency put out in regards to this volcano.
At one point during 2011 , this volcano erupted 10 times in one day !
Things have quieted down a bit there, but now we see this… reminiscent of 2011’s activity. Large static discharge lightning flashes, along with several lava bombs, and a LOT of ash fallout.
mirrored with permissions from:
http://www.youtube.com/cubhf137
Kyoto University Web Cams
Kagoshima
There are instructions, but click on the button on the right and you get a 20 second countdown.. then you can toggle the view live..
・ Sakurajima Volcanological Observatory（No.1 (Main Bldg.)）
・ Sakurajima Volcanological Observatory（No.2 (Kurokami Bldg.)）
〔Disaster Prevention Research Institute〕
Staff at French Tricastin nuclear plant on strike because of safety cuts!
The entrance to Tricastin Nuclear Power Plant is blocked with union flags as workers stage a strike over planned reductions in the numbers of safety staff.
Members of the UPMS (Unité de protection de la matière et du site d’Areva) at Tricastin Nuclear Power Plant continue to hold strike action over a planned reduction in the number of safety staff.
More pictures here
http://www.demotix.com/node/2100352
The ongoing Fukushima nuclear disaster: Eyewitness Report
Published on May 28, 2013
Host Margaret Harrington speaks with Arnie Gundersen of Fairewinds Energy Education, and Chiho Kaneka, Artist and Journalist, who has been to Fukishima several times after the disaster and Chikako Nishiyama who lives near Fukushima-Daiichi who gives an eyewitness report on the current status.
1.This Month
Zoom webinar – “Nuclear Winter: The Environmental Consequences of a Nuclear Exchange.”
April 7th at 11:30 am PST / 2:30 pm EST
“Nuclear Winter: The Environmental Consequences of a Nuclear Exchange”
Join us for an informative webinar with renowned atmospheric scientist, Professor Brian Toon, as he discusses the environmental risks and global impacts of a nuclear war. Despite the potential damage caused by the blast from even small nuclear weapons, many countries continue to invest in and expand nuclear arsenals. Professor Toon will provide a scientific assessment of civilian fatalities, agricultural failures, climate concerns, and complications with food supply that would follow any international nuclear conflict. We need to plan how to prevent nuclear conflict and avoid catastrophe. Politicians and military planners must be made aware of global climate and agricultural complications that would ensue. Don’t miss this opportunity to learn from, and engage in, this vital conversation
EVENTS.
-
Archives
- April 2023 (12)
- March 2023 (308)
- February 2023 (379)
- January 2023 (388)
- December 2022 (277)
- November 2022 (335)
- October 2022 (363)
- September 2022 (259)
- August 2022 (367)
- July 2022 (368)
- June 2022 (277)
- May 2022 (375)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 