nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry

A new report on Sellafield highlights the likely nuclear damage to Ireland. Exclusive to nuclear-news.net

Conclusion to #Sellafield accident report 2017

The EPA 2016 report is unsafe and cannot be relied upon by the public, the media or administrators. The anonymous authors have shown extraordinary bias in every aspect of the report. They made elementary mistakes in their source term listing of isotopes, by including those which had short half-lives and will clearly not have been present in any significant concentration. They omitted a whole series of nuclides which are present in the tanks and the fuel pools. They choose a source term which is demonstrably too low based on available data, they choose a worst-case accident which involves only one HAST tank and only Caesium-137. They omit mentioning the spent fuel pools which are a highly likely site of a major coolant loss and subsequent fire or explosion. Their air modelling results are extremely unusual with implausibly narrow plumes, whilst a NOAA HYSPLIT model for the same day shows a completely different dispersion covering most of highly populated Ireland. Their surface contamination levels are 200 times lower than a previous computer model by Dr Taylor, which they must have had access to, and they fail to calculate the increased levels of cancer in the exposed population. This has been rectified here.

Historic releases from Sellafield to the Irish Sea have caused measurable increases in cancer and leukemia in coastal populations of Ireland. There is no doubt that the existence of Sellafield represents a potential catastrophic danger to the Irish Republic. A serious accident there could destroy the country and also most of Britain. As the Chernobyl accident effects showed, and the Fukushima accident effects will reveal (and in the case of Thyroid cancer have revealed) the ICRP risk model is unsafe for explaining or predicting health effects from such contamination. The Authors of the EPA 2016 report should be sanctioned in some way for producing such a travesty of the real picture, especially since they will have had access to the earlier study and modelling by Peter Taylor and the details of the COSYMA model employed by him.

Christopher Busby

August 17th 2017

nuclear-news

Introduction by Shaun McGee (aka arclight2011)

Published exclusive to nuclear-news.net (Creative Commons applies)

2 February 2018

The Irish Sellafield nuclear accident fallout projection report has some issues, in my opinion.
In December 2016 the Irish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in Irish Media Sources a report on radioactive fallout from a “worse case” scenario.
At the time, I was in contact with the Irish EPA concerning new evidence that shows a larger health effect from radiation sources and I was trying to challenge the pro nuclear bias that underestimated the health and environmental problems using mechanisms from the EURATOM nuclear treaty in Europe. I have to say that the Irish EPA were forthcoming in their many responses to my inquiries but eventually we reached a stale mate as the EPA claimed that the specific Isotopes relevant to the Euratom Treaty are not to be found in Ireland with the exception…

View original post 6,123 more words

Advertisements

February 12, 2018 Posted by | Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Cross-border nuclear cooperation must improve, Dutch watchdog warns

By Sam Morgan |

6 Feb 2019

Cross-border cooperation on nuclear safety between the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany leaves a lot to be desired, the Dutch Safety Board has concluded in a new report.

Although the report says that the chances of a serious incident are “small”, it warns that cross-border nuclear accident cooperation would “not run smoothly” and urges the authorities to improve contingency planning.

Belgium’s nuclear reactors have long courted controversy due to their age, well-documented safety concerns and their close proximity to the country’s borders with Germany and the Netherlands.

The Dutch Safety Board report looked into how well the three countries are working together on aspects like evacuation strategies, plant maintenance and contingency planning.

Its report highlighted that radiation treatment measures vary between the three countries. For example, Germany has issued iodine tablets to some border communities while towns on the other side of the borders go without. Evacuation plans also differ.

That is why the safety experts warned that without further measures, a potential nuclear accident “will not run smoothly” and could risk causing “confusion and unrest”.

The watchdog warned that public safety concerns must be addressed properly and more efforts should be made to communicate nuclear incident reports when they happen.

In its conclusions, the report also warns that the three countries have not taken linguistic and cultural differences fully into account, and urges the Netherlands to join a Belgo-German agreement on joint decision-making that was set up in December 2016.

German Environment Minister Barbara Hendricks has failed in her bid to get the ageing Belgian nuclear reactors of Doel 3 and Tihange 2 shut down permanently. Instead, Berlin and Brussels have agreed to a better exchange of information on all things atomic. EURACTIV Germany reports.

But the Safety Board did praise the efforts that have been made in some areas. All three countries now notify each other of an imminent emergency “as quickly as possible” and have access to each other’s radiation measurements.

The report did not examine the technical safety aspects of the nuclear plants involved, including Belgium’s Tihange and Doel facilities, as well as Germany and the Netherlands’ Borssele and Emsland power plants.

Both Tihange and Doel have given the authorities cause for concern after micro-fissures were found in some of the reactors. Reactors 2 and 3, respectively, of the power plants were shut down in 2013 to address the situation and were restarted in 2015.

Belgium’s government has been accused by anti-nuclear activists of endangering the safety of its citizens by extending the life of the reactors, which were only designed to have a shelf life of 30 years. That is because the country’s energy mix depends heavily on atom-smashing (40% of total energy needs and 55% of electricity comes from nuclear).

Interior Minister Jan Jambon insisted last June that the security of the power plants is not in doubt and they will continue to operate until their extended deadlines end in the mid-2020s.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/cross-border-nuclear-cooperation-must-improve-dutch-watchdog-warns/

February 6, 2018 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Meeting of the International Independent Scientific Commission for investigation of Ru-106 case

work-idioms-2-mb-6-638

INSTITUTE NEWS

01.02.2018

Meeting of the International Independent Scientific Commission for investigation of Ru-106 case

Upon the initiative put forward by Academician Leonid Bolshov, Scientific Leader of the Nuclear Safety Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences Viktor Ivanov, Head of the Russian Scientific Commission on Radiation Protection, an International Independent Scientific Commission for investigation of Ru-106 case in Europe in September-October 2017 (Ru-Commission) was established in December 2017.

The Commission represents an independent group of scientists and specialists from France, Finland, Sweden, Germany, Norway, Great Britain and Russia, whose members are professionals in the area of nuclear safety, transport modelling and emergency response.

The Federal Environmental, Industrial and Nuclear Supervision Service (Rostechnadzor) of Russia and the State Corporation “Rosatom” agreed to render an informational support for the Commission work.

The main objective of the Commission is to define the origin of the Ru-106 release and its possible effect on the population health.

The first meeting of the Commission was held on 31st of January, 2018, in Moscow, at IBRAE RAN premises.

In accordance with the agreed agenda, representatives of France (Mr. Jean-Luc Lachaume), Finland (Dr. Aleksi Mattila), Sweden (Ms. Katarina Danestig Sjögren and Ms. Anna Maria Blixt Buhr), Norway (Ms. Astrid Liland), Germany (Dr. Florian Gering), Russia (Mr. Alexey Kiselev, Dr. Konstantin Rubinstein and Dr. Viktor Ivanov) presented the results of measurements and findings related to the Ru-106 case in September- October 2017 to the Commission.

The Commission members discussed the presented information and agreed on the plans of the further Commission activity and communication of its results to the public.

The Commission members drew the following conclusions of the 1st Meeting:

  1.  Based on the measurements in different European countries and Russia, the entire activity of Ru-106 found in the air in between the end of September to the beginning of October, 2017, is estimated as ~ 100 TBq.
  2. Based upon the available data, no health effects are expected for the population.
  3. Modelling calculations performed in different countries are consistent with each other, though there are too many uncertainties to make conclusions about the location of the Ru source at the moment.
  4. In some countries, measurements of Ru-103 were made. The ratio of Ru-106/Ru-103 was the same and corresponds to a fresh spent fuel.
  5. The Commission needs to collect and verify all available data, to form a unified Database and assess the quality of the data. There is a need to request Roshydromet on the local weather conditions data and additional data on precipitation measurements.
  6. There is a need in additional measurements upward the wind direction from localities where Ru-106 was found in the Chelyabinsk Region. The Commission considers helpful to get measurements from Romania on deposition of Ru-106 due to the highest values of Ru-106 activity detected.
  7. The hypothesis on the “medical” origin of Ru-106 (as a source for medical therapy) can be excluded.
  8. According to Roshydromet data, a specific atmospheric phenomenon of descending air flow circulation was observed in the Chelyabinsk Region around the end of September. These data  shall be taken into account for further consideration.
  9. The Commission noted that the Rostechnadzor inspections were conducted at the PO “Mayak” and NIIAR (Dimitrovgrad) facilities covering the operations during the period August – November 2017, and no deviations from normal technological processes were found.
  10. The Commission agrees to work transparently and communicate the outcomes and conclusions to the public.
  11. The next meeting of the Commission is scheduled for April 11, 2018 in Moscow.

 

http://en.ibrae.ac.ru/newstext/883/

February 3, 2018 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Ruthenium 106 investigation update 12 Dec 2017. Who is lying and why?

Jan Haverkamp
Yesterday at 08:30 · 2 Feb 2018
Twitter
#Russia expert claims #Mayak excluded as source of #Ruthenium emission. Questions:
1. Why is this only published in Russian?
2. Why is there no reaction from the @iaeaorg?
3. Can we get overview of measurement data of Ru-106 and Ru103?
Still not convinced.
Эксперт пояснил, почему исключается гипотеза о выбросе рутения с “Маяка”
РИА Новости
https://ria.ru/atomtec/20180201/1513814257.html

nuclear-news

Screenshot from 2017-12-12 05:23:28

Exclusive to nuclear-news.net

Europe blames Russia and Russia blames Europe but could the release have come from somewhere else?

The story behind Ru 106 that is given little attention is the fact that it is quite an aggressive isotope that is used mainly in the manufacture of medical isotopes. Its nature is to become very volatile when heated and exposed to air. Then Ru 106 becomes both oxidized which deposits on surfaces and also is lofted into the air in a pure gaseous version. The deposited oxidized version then over time becomes gaseous (which might explain the weeks that the Ru 106 was being sampled in the air.

The main areas of interest to most people is where did it come from? What is a likely source?

After some research I was drawn to the Hungarian nuclear Ruthenium 106 experiments which have run since 2002 (and possibly before) that were…

View original post 1,487 more words

February 3, 2018 Posted by | Uncategorized | 1 Comment

1,500 Children likely to develop heart problems on a yearly basis- Effects of the Fukushima nuclear disaster – banned by Face Book?

Op Ed Arlight2011part2

Posted to nuclear-news.net

15th April 2012

In an attempt to work out the possible figures of children that will be born annually in Japan with birth defects, I have used the figures below to make an estimation of the likely impact. Based on figures from Chernobyl from Yablakov (2010) of 8, 300, 000 against a similar area in Fukushima Prefecture and the NW Myiagi prefecture (ACRO France) with a population living in contaminated areas of under 2, 500, 000. The figures seem to point to 1,500 children a year are likely to be born in future years with birth defects.

There is obviously some dispute as to the figures and areas of contamination. Also, the contamination in the mountains is likely to hit cities like Koriyama that are downhill of this unknown and untested for contamination. there are also some small issues with the population statistics though they seem about right to me.

nuclear-news

 This is a defect in the heart of children caused by radiation from Chernobyl, and it causes physical holes in the heart of the child, along with a host of other issues.

Screenshot from 2014-04-15 20:32:09

Image and quote source; http://www.chernobyl-international.com/programmes/medical-programmes-projects/cardiac-mission

Op Ed Arlight2011part2

Posted to nuclear-news.net

15th April 2012

In an attempt to work out the possible figures of children that will be born annually in Japan with birth defects,  I have used the figures below to make an estimation of the likely impact. Based on figures from Chernobyl from Yablakov (2010) of 8, 300, 000 against a similar area in Fukushima Prefecture and the NW Myiagi prefecture (ACRO France) with a population living in contaminated areas of under 2, 500, 000.  The figures seem to point to 1,500 children a year are likely to be born in future years with birth defects.

There is obviously some dispute as to the figures and…

View original post 929 more words

February 3, 2018 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

#Sellafield workers vote to strike

inde567h7x

Workers at the Sellafield nuclear site have voted to go on strike in a dispute over pay.Unions representing staff at the British Nuclear Fuels plant will meet to discuss whether to set strike dates.

Members of the GMB and Amicus overwhelmingly backed industrial action over a long running grievance relating to pay differentials.

The workers claimed they were promised that a gap of £2,000 between industrial workers and staff would be closed by next April.

Unions have accused the company of reneging on the agreement.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-200823/Sellafield-workers-vote-strike.html#ixzz563lsREZk
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

February 3, 2018 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A new report on Sellafield highlights the likely nuclear damage to Ireland. Exclusive to nuclear-news.net

Introduction by Shaun McGee (aka arclight2011)

Published exclusive to nuclear-news.net (Creative Commons applies)

2 February 2018

The Irish Sellafield nuclear accident fallout projection report has some issues, in my opinion.
In December 2016 the Irish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in Irish Media Sources a report on radioactive fallout from a “worse case” scenario.
At the time, I was in contact with the Irish EPA concerning new evidence that shows a larger health effect from radiation sources and I was trying to challenge the pro nuclear bias that underestimated the health and environmental problems using mechanisms from the EURATOM nuclear treaty in Europe. I have to say that the Irish EPA were forthcoming in their many responses to my inquiries but eventually we reached a stale mate as the EPA claimed that the specific Isotopes relevant to the Euratom Treaty are not to be found in Ireland with the exception of Iodine 131 which they claimed was unlikely to be a health problem. They said that other fission (from a nuclear reactor) isotopes were not found on the island of Ireland.
The 2016 report from the Irish EPA (link) shows, what I think, is a minimal dispersion of radioactive fallout with little impact to health or the environment. However, there are other reports of fallout plumes from the Sellafield site that show much worse contamination than the 2016 EPA report posits and I requested Prof Chris Busby (who had been involved with Irish activists and government groups concerning Sellafield) to do a report (Full report below) on the problems that seemed to be highlighted with the Irish EPA report.
Prof Chris Busby first consulted the online NOAA Hy-Split atmospheric projection software with the same date as the EPA report and got a completely different scenario showing most of Ireland being covered with meandering waves of highly radioactive particles and gases. He then consulted 2 other reports, one of which the Irish Government commissioned that was completed by 2014 using the European gold standard software fallout projection model that showed a large plume covering large sways of Ireland (reaching the south west coast).
It would seem that the 2016 report completely runs counter to the 2014 and earlier report as well as the Hy-Split projection whilst using the same date as the 2016 Irish report.
So the issue of the types of accident that the Irish EPA thought to be worse case scenario. A direct hit by a Meteorite was seen to be plausible but if a meteorite hit sellafield then much of the nuclear site would be lofted high into the atmosphere and more evenly spread around the globe. This would fudge the numbers for plumes that are moving nearer the ground.
No where in the report was the more likely and and more dangerous scenario of terrorists attacking the spent fuel pools causing low altitude fallout over many weeks that would cause a larger pollution incident that would effect local countries to the UK border such as Ireland, Norway etc.In fact such concerns have been reported in main stream media sources as well as government/private think tanks.

Thanks to Prof Chris Busby for taking the time off his busy schedule to compile a response to the Irish EPA report on Sellafields projected damage to Ireland.

Please feel free to leave a comment belowif you agree or disagree with any of the points raised, a discussion about this issue needs to be had.

Shaun McGee (aka arclight2011)

………………………………………………………………………………..

Conclusion to report

The EPA 2016 report is unsafe and cannot be relied upon by the public, the media or administrators. The anonymous authors have shown extraordinary bias in every aspect of the report. They made elementary mistakes in their source term listing of isotopes, by including those which had short half-lives and will clearly not have been present in any significant concentration. They omitted a whole series of nuclides which are present in the tanks and the fuel pools. They choose a source term which is demonstrably too low based on available data, they choose a worst-case accident which involves only one HAST tank and only Caesium-137. They omit mentioning the spent fuel pools which are a highly likely site of a major coolant loss and subsequent fire or explosion. Their air modelling results are extremely unusual with implausibly narrow plumes, whilst a NOAA HYSPLIT model for the same day shows a completely different dispersion covering most of highly populated Ireland. Their surface contamination levels are 200 times lower than a previous computer model by Dr Taylor, which they must have had access to, and they fail to calculate the increased levels of cancer in the exposed population. This has been rectified here.

Historic releases from Sellafield to the Irish Sea have caused measurable increases in cancer and leukemia in coastal populations of Ireland. There is no doubt that the existence of Sellafield represents a potential catastrophic danger to the Irish Republic. A serious accident there could destroy the country and also most of Britain. As the Chernobyl accident effects showed, and the Fukushima accident effects will reveal (and in the case of Thyroid cancer have revealed) the ICRP risk model is unsafe for explaining or predicting health effects from such contamination. The Authors of the EPA 2016 report should be sanctioned in some way for producing such a travesty of the real picture, especially since they will have had access to the earlier study and modelling by Peter Taylor and the details of the COSYMA model employed by him.

Christopher Busby

August 17th 2017

Screenshot from 2018-02-03 14:55:08

…………………………………………………………………….

The health impact on Ireland of a severe accident at Sellafield.

A criticism of the report “Potential radiological impact on Ireland of postulated severe accidents at Sellafield” Anon. (Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland: September 2016) with a re-assessment of the range of health outcomes.

Christopher Busby PhD

There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don’t know.

Donald Rumsfeld

Murphy’s Law is an adage or epigram that is typically stated as:

Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy%27s_law]

Introduction

The nuclear complex at Sellafield in Cumbria, UK, has always represented a real danger to the Republic of Ireland. There has been and remains a chronic danger to the people of the East Coast of Ireland. First, radioactivity released from Sellafield under licence to the Irish Sea, particularly in the 1970s did not, as had been hoped, dilute and disperse in the sea, but instead became attached to sediment particles along the coasts and inlets of Ireland (e.g. Carlingford Lough, Drogheda) and the particles represented a cause of cancer and illnesses in coastal populations and those exposed through eating fish and shellfish. A court case (Herr and Ors. Vs BNFL) was supported by the Irish State and my organisation was funded by the Irish State for 3 years from 1998 to examine the contamination and health issue. Green Audit examined the cancer rates in small areas in North and mid Wales, and also in Ireland by distance from the contaminated coasts. Results were published in Busby 2006 and showed that there had been a significant 30% increase in cancer and leukemia in coastal populations of the Irish Sea [1]. The second issue of continuing interest is the danger of a serious accident at Sellafield at a time when the wind direction is from the East and airborne material passes across Ireland. This issue became more urgent and of interest to the Irish public after the Fukushima Daiichi reactor explosions and melt-downs in Japan in 2011. However, the potential outcome of such an accident had been part of a report by Peter Taylor [2] written in 1999 for McGuill and Company, the solicitors representing the Herr and Ors vs. BNFL case which was abandoned by the Irish State for reasons which remain unclear.

In September 2016, a report was produced by the EPA Office of Radiological Protection entitled Potential radiological impact on Ireland of postulated severe accidents at Sellafield. [3]. This anonymous report has serious shortcomings and errors which will be addressed here. A more realistic assessment of the potential impact of a serious accident at Sellafield on the Republic of Ireland will be presented here using the radiological risk models both of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP, [4]) and also the Model of the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR [5]).

 

2. The baseline assumptions of maximum release.

2.1 The EPA worst case.

The EPA report discussed some possible accidents involving releases of radionuclides. It examined some potential sources of radionuclides but not others. It chose a number of possible scenarios, but excluded others. In general terms (and referring to Murphy’s Law, appropriately in this case of Ireland) it could not assess accidents which are totally unforeseen. Therefore, also in general, we should consider a worst case-scenario in which most of the radioactivity inventory of the Sellafield site becomes airborne at a time when the weather patterns were most unfavourable for Ireland.

For example, in Busby 2007 [1] the Windscale reactor fire was examined in some detail. At the time of the fire, which continued for some days, the main releases were initially offshore towards Ireland. This is contrary to the discourse promoted by the British Radiological Protection Board in 1974. It is, however confirmed by Air Ministry historical data. But the point is that at the time a cold front laying North East to South West was moving from Ireland towards England across the Irish Sea. This meant the releases from the fire and heavy radioactive rain fell along the front. This rain fell on the Isle of Man, and historical mortality data show a large increase in the death rate after this event. There have also been reports of significant birth effects (Downs Syndrome cluster) in County Louth reported by the Irish GP Patricia Sheehan, who died in an automobile accident shortly after beginning to follow this up.

In order to estimate the effects of a worst case, initially there must be a choice of the source term, that is, the quantity and radionuclide identity of the material released to the atmosphere.

The EPA report decided that this could be modelled as the contents of one of the 21 High Active Storage Tanks (HAST). The true content of one of these is unknown, probably also to the operators BNFL. The estimate for the contents was taken from a report by Turvey and Hone [6]. This is shown in Table 1 below where I note a number of concerns. In Table 2 I provide examples of some hazardous radionuclides not listed in the EPA source term table. In Table 3 I copy the source terms used by the British 1976 Royal Commission (the Flowers Report) [7]. Note that all these estimates are for a single or multiple HAST tanks on the tank farm and exclude explosions of the spent fuel ponds which could dry up and suffer prompt criticality. This could result from a domino scenario (see below).

Table 1 EPA assumed release source term. (E-notation, thus 1 x 1014 is written 1 E+14_

Radio

nuclide

Total activity Bq

Half Life

Comment

Zr-95

1.4 E+15

64days

All decayed away; almost none there

Nb-95

5.8 E+14

35 days

Daughter of Zr-95; all decayed away; none there

Ru-106

1.33 E+16

366 days

All decayed away; almost none there

Sb-125

1.6 E+15

2.7 years

All decayed away; almost none there

Cs-134

1.04 E+16

2.0 years

All decayed away; almost none there

Cs-137

5.26 E+17

30 years

Significant

Ce-144

9.65 E+15

284 days

All decayed away; almost none there

Eu-154

4.41 E+15

8.5years

Minor significance now

Eu-155

3.39 E+15

5 years

Minor significance now

Sr-90

3.6 E+17

28.8 years

Highly Significant; DNA seeker

Am-241

2.72 E+15

432 years

Highly Significant alpha; decays to Np-237 alpha; daughter of Plutonium-241

Cm-242

4.57 E+13

162 days

All decayed away; almost none there

Cm-243

1.92 E+14

32 years

Highly Significant alpha; decays to Plutonium-239, so there must be approximately the same or more Plutonium-239 (fissionable) in the mix

2.2 Concerns about the source term table of the EPA 2016 report

Table 1 gives the source terms employed by the EPA report. It lists 13 isotopes. The table is an astonishing example of bad science, produced either through bias or ignorance. Since the table is apparently taken from another report by Turvey and Hone 2000, we can perhaps blame them for the original mistakes. I have included a column showing the half-lives of their isotopes. The main concerns are as follows:
It is perfectly clear than all but four of the thirteen will have physically decayed away by 2016. For example, a half life of Zr-95 of 65 days, at 1980 would by now have had 36 x 365 days to decay. This is 202 half-lives. There would be virtually none left of the listed quantity.
A significant number of seriously hazardous radionuclides which must be in the tanks are not listed. In particular we have Plutonium-239, Plutonium- 238, Plutonium-241, Uranium and other actinide alpha emitters including Neptunium-237, Radium-226, Carbon-14 and Tritium.
The overall total activity tabulated the EPA report is about 4 times less than the quantity in a HAST tank given in the report of the UK Royal Commission 1976 (Flowers) and the 1977 Windscale Enquiry which totalled 1.8 x 1018 Becquerels of Caesium-137 plus 1.4 x 1018 Bq of Strontium-90 plus 1.1 x 1018 Bq of Ruthenium-106 [8].
Why did the EPA report reduce the quantities assumed by the earlier reports? Why did it omit the dangerous actinides Uranium, Plutonium and Neptunium with the exception of Americium-241? Why did it omit a whole range of other radionuclides like Tritium and Carbon-14?

Table 2 Some Missing isotopes from the EPA Source term with longer half-lives or present as daughters

Isotope

Half Life

U-238

4.5 E+9y

Alpha

U-235

7.1 E+8y

Alpha

U-234

2.4 E+5y

Alpha

Th-230

8 E+4y

Alpha

Ra-226

1599y

Alpha

Pu-238

86.4y

Alpha

Pu-239

2.4 E+4y

Alpha

Pu-241

14.4y

Decays to Am-241 listed by EPA

Np-237

2.1 E+6y

Am-241 daughter

Mn-54

312d

Activation

Co-60

5.27y

Activation

Y-90

64h

In equilibrium with Sr-90

H-3

12.3y

Life component; radioactive water

C-14

5730y

Life component

Table 3 HAST tank content according to Windscale Enquiry 1977 and Royal Commission 1976

Isotope
Quantity(Bq)
Cs-137
1.8 E+18
Sr-90 + Y-90
2.8 E+18
Ru-106
1.1 E+18

2.3 The more accurate source terms for HAST tanks

Taylor 1999 [2] based his calculations on only Cs-137 and assumed a source term of 1 x 1018 Bq. Therefore, his results (which I will review below) should be adjusted by a factor of 1.8 on the basis of the Table 3 results, but particularly also modified upwards by the presence of the Sr-90/Y-90 and the actinides, the Plutonium, Uranium, Radium and Americium, which, though they are present in smaller quantities each carry a weighting of 20 due to their alpha biological effectiveness. Thus the quantity of 2.72 E+15 listed by EPA in Table 1 has the effect (in Sieverts) of 5.44 E+16 due to its alpha emission.

2.4 The spent fuel pools

In addition to HAST tank scenarios, there has been reported the existence [ 9: http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2611216/leaked_sellafield_photos_reveal_massive_radioactive_release_threat.html%5D in a very dangerous state, a series of concrete spent fuel pools containing hundreds of tons of spent fuel. Loss of integrity of these tanks (drying up) would result in meltdown and prompt criticality with explosive distribution and burning of the spent fuel elements.

The approximate activity inventory of a spent fuel assembly for a Boiling Water Reactor is available from Alvarez 2014 [10] and the EIA for a Pressurized Water reactor fuel assembly from the Swedish Forsmark High Level Waste repository documents [11]. Therefore these are not exactly the same as the assemblies in the Sellafield pools. However, they will not be very different. The radioactive elements and their activity is given in Table 5 [Ref 5,6] .

Table 5 Approximate activity of an estimated 800 spent fuel assemblies in the Sellafield

per assy

per 1000

nuclide

halflife

curies

Bq

Bq

Am242m

150y

2.88

1.0656E+11

1.0656E+14

Am241

430y

373

1.3801E+13

1.3801E+16

Am243

7400y

8.63

3.1931E+11

3.1931E+14

Cs134

2.1y

1310

4.847E+13

4.847E+16

Cs137

30y

24100

8.917E+14

8.917E+17

C14

5700y

0.21

7770000000

7.77E+12

Cd113m

14y

22700

8.399E+14

8.399E+17

Ce144

284d

17.3

6.401E+11

6.401E+14

Cm243

29y

5.55

2.0535E+11

2.0535E+14

Cm244

18y

923

3.4151E+13

3.4151E+16

Cm245

8500y

923

3.4151E+13

3.4151E+16

Cm246

4700y

0.04

1480000000

1.48E+12

Eu154

8.8y

192

7.104E+12

7.104E+15

H3

12.3y

105

3.885E+12

3.885E+15

Kr85

11y

1170

4.329E+13

4.329E+16

Np239

400d

8.63

3.1931E+11

3.1931E+14

Pm147

2.62y

2110

7.807E+13

7.807E+16

Pu238

88y

1020

3.774E+13

3.774E+16

Pu239

24000y

54.1

2.0017E+12

2.0017E+15

Pu241

14y

15700

5.809E+14

5.809E+17

Ru106

376d

90

3.33E+12

3.33E+15

Sb125

2.77y

120

4.44E+12

4.44E+15

Sm151

90y

67

2.479E+12

2.479E+15

Sr90

29.1y

16600

6.142E+14

6.142E+17

U238

4.4Bny

0.06

2220000000

2.22E+12

U236

23My

0.07

2590000000

2.59E+12

U234

244000y

0.24

8880000000

8.88E+12

U232

72y

0.01

370000000

3.7E+11

Y90

64h

16600

6.142E+14

6.142E+17

Zr93

1530000

0.35

1.295E+10

1.295E+13

104201

3.8554E+15

3.8554E+18

Comparisons with releases from Chernobyl and Fukushima

Since all these numbers are meaningless without comparisons, Table 6 gives comparisons in terms of Cs-137, which has become a yardstick for releases, discharges and ground contamination in the last 50 years with three contamination events, Chernobyl, Fukushima and the 1950-1980 atmospheric nuclear tests. These are useful comparisons since in the cases of Chernobyl and the nuclear tests, we have evidence for the effects on human health, an issue which is discussed later.

Continue reading

February 3, 2018 Posted by | Uncategorized | 4 Comments

I Visited the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone with an Infrared Camera

Jan 30, 2018

Vladimir Migutin

A few years ago, I visited the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone with an infrared camera. We always hear praises of the might of Mother Nature, how it renders useless mans’ creations and bears life above the ruins. Well, it’s something that is always felt, but never on such a huge scale. This place IS the place for these contrasts.

It’s pretty hard to describe the overall atmosphere I experienced during this trip. Despite the events of 1986, the ruins, and the rust, I didn’t have grim feelings while traveling there. On the contrary, it felt like I was in a “kind of” paradise on a different planet.

Thirty years after the fallout, while men still stay away, the forests, the animals, the plants, everything is thriving, revived by nature.

These photos were shot during a 2-day trip in Chernobyl’s exclusion zone with a full spectrum camera and a 590nm infrared filter from Kolari Vision.

Pripyat Sports hall, Chernobyl Exclusion Zone.

14-1-800x416

Butterflies and flowers in the forest, Chernobyl Exclusion Zone.

13-1-800x534

Simon – a human-friendly fox, whom often approaches groups in the exclusion zone, asking for food.

2-5-800x534.jpg

The monumental trail with the evacuated villages’ names on either side.

4-1-800x534.jpg

About the author: Vladimir Migutin is a photographer who explores the world with an infrared camera. This article was also published at Kolari Vision

Original source for this article which has many more great pictures of landscapes etc, worth a click! Arclight2011 ; https://petapixel.com/2018/01/30/visited-chernobyl-exclusion-zone-infrared-camera/

Note from Arclight2011 – It might be worth balancing the issue of a “thriving” ecology etc with these 4 quotes and links;

1/   Chernobyl London meeting (27 April 2013) Speech by Tamara Krasitskava from Zemlyaki

Tamara Krasitskava is a chairperson of Zemlyaki, Ukraine NGO in Kiev to represent those who had to collectively evacuate from Pripyat
* Speech was done by Russian, and interpreted into English.
* Chernobyl Day London Public Meeting was organized by “JAN UK” on Sat 27 April 2013.

“….On Sunday the 27 April 2013 in a little room somewhere off Grays Inn road London, a meeting took place. In this meeting was Ms Tamara Krasitskava of the Ukrainian NGO “Zemlyaki”.

In this meeting she quoted that only 40 percent of the evacuees that moved to Kiev after the disaster are alive today! And lets leave the statistics out of it for a moment and we find out of 44,000 evacuated to Kiev only 19,000 are left alive. None made it much passed 40 years old

“…..3.2 million with health effects and this includes 1 million children…”

T .Kraisitskava

“….I was told to not talk of the results from Belarus as the UK public were not allowed to know the results we were finding!….”

A.Cameron (Belarus health worker from UK)…..”

2/   Fukushima Consequences of Radiation on Wildlife

“….The birds

The feathers of birds take radioactive dust released into the atmosphere continuously by the wind. They therefore suffer permanent external irradiation.

We can see this dust by placing a contaminated bird on a radio-sensitive paper for a month. Here is an example with a bird picked in Iitate in December 2011.

Autoradiography also allows to highlight that the birds also undergo internal contamination…..”

3/   Genetic radiation risks: a neglected topic in the low dose debate.

“…..Taken together with other evidence from sex-ratio (discussed below) these studies indicate that hereditary effects exist in the children of exposed mothers…..”

4/   Life after Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear disasters with Prof. T. Mousseau

“….Chernobyl, new mice study
Last week Tim said he produced a study showing heightened prevalence of cataracts in the eyes of mice.
and that this was corroborated with an earlier study on birds…..”

 

February 2, 2018 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

What Happened In Japan After The Tsunami? Miyagi Prefecture report.

Screenshot from 2018-02-02 16:51:47
Published on 1 Feb 2018
Abroad in Japan

In March 2011 a devastating tsunami destroyed the coastline of north Japan. These are the stories of five people living in the shadow of the recovery and how they’re breathing new life into the Miyagi Prefecture on the Tohuku coastline (North of the Fukushima Prefecture).

 

 

February 2, 2018 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Why should you care about ‘specks’ of plutonium? Hanford health challenge

 

12951_2004_Article_18_Fig4_HTML
Figure 4

Translocation of inhaled ultrafine particles. Time-activity curve over liver and bladder expressed as percent of initial lung radioactivity. Insert, Whole body gamma camera image of 1 representative volunteer recorded at 60 minutes. The radioactivity over the organs is expressed as counts per minute (CPM) per pixel within each region of interest (ROI). The values recorded over the stomach were not included because this radioactivity may also come partly from swallowing of particles deposited in the mouth. Reproduced with permission from Nemmar et al, “Passage of inhaled particles into the blood circulation in humans”, Circulation 2002;105(4):411-41.

 

Hanford Challenge

Why should you care about ‘specks’ of plutonium?

Even Hanford’s internal reports challenge DOE’s assumption that specks stay in the body for one year. According to one report, high-fired oxide plutonium that PFP handled stays in the body for 10,000 days (i.e. over 27 years).

Why does 10,000 days matter?

Well, the longer the ‘speck’ stays in the human body, the more time it has to cause harm. If a worker was exposed to the high-fired plutonium oxides, the doses to these workers could be 27 times higher than DOE has assumed. (i.e. not good).

So, we must ask: Has DOE measured these particles from PFP and determined whether they are high-fired oxides? Or are they simply assuming? If assuming, what justifies this assumption?

Report excerpt: “retention half-lives for the transport from the lung to the blood have been adjusted from 500 days to 10,000 days [ 27.4 years], representing the highly insoluble (i.e., very slow dissolution rate) of the super class Y material. The precise nature of super class Y material is not known, although it appears to have been associated with processes involving high-fired plutonium oxides … Super class Y is not routinely used as a default program design form.”

Source: https://goo.gl/5QCA25

More here;

Nanoparticles for drug delivery to the brain is a method for transporting drug molecules across the blood–brain barrier (BBB) using nanoparticles. … Other biological factors influence how drugs are transported throughout the body and how they target specific locations for action.

Blood-brain_barrier_transport_en

This diagram shows several ways in which transport across the BBB works. For nanoparticle delivery across the BBB, the most common mechanisms are receptor-mediated transcytosis and adsorptive transcytosis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanoparticles_for_drug_delivery_to_the_brain

And this;

These fibres are often described as being in the “interstitial” where they may lie between or within the cells making up the alveolar walls. Bio-persistent solid materials, certainly those particles containing mutagenic substances or asbestos fibres or silica, which remain for years in the lungs, increase the risk of developing cancer.

https://jnanobiotechnology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1477-3155-2-12

February 2, 2018 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

US nuclear waste POURING into Pacific Ocean as radioactive remains LEAK from giant dome

A CONCRETE dome holding the radioactive waste of 43 nuclear explosions is leaking into the ocean, veterans have warned. The Enewetak Atoll was used by the US government to test 30 megatons of weapons – equivalent to 2,000 Hiroshima blasts – between 1948 and 1958.

More than 8,000 people would later work to clean up these Pacific islands, shifting 110,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil and debris into a blast crater.

Screenshot from 2018-02-02 00:53:11

This 30-feet-deep crater on Runit Island would then be entombed in a concrete dome, 350 feet across and 16 inches thick.

But now, with the dome weathered by decades of exposure, it’s feared that rising seas and storms could see radiation leaking into the ocean.

Screenshot from 2018-02-02 00:54:11.png

Paul Griego, who took part in the cleanup and blames the radiation for a host of health problems, said the dome was never fit for purpose.

He said: “We were given an impossible task – cleaning up the radioactive fallout from 43 nuclear bombs.

“When I first arrived, the dome’s blast crater was open to the ocean – it continued to be full of sea water even after it was sealed off from the ocean.

“During my 10-hour work day I witnessed the water level in the crater rise and lower as the tide came in and out.”

He continued: “No attempt was made to drain the crater or line it before the radioactive waste was dumped into it.

“The coral that created the island is porous and the shock from numerous nuclear weapon tests had also fractured the coral.

“From the first day forward, the water has flowed out of the lagoon with the tide, creating a gigantic radioactive toilet that is flushed about twice each day into the Pacific Ocean.”

The storms were only making matters worse, he said.

“I experienced the power of a typhoon while I was on Enewetak,” he added.

“I believe the dome could be just one typhoon away from a breach.”

From the first day forward, the water has flowed out of the lagoon with the tide, creating a gigantic radioactive toilet that is flushed about twice each day into the Pacific Ocean.

Paul Griego

 

Rama Schneider, who drove radioactive waste from island to island in an amphibious vehicle during the cleanup, said it was no surprise that the dome was failing.

He said: “Standing on any island at that atoll is akin to standing inches above sea level – and that was in 1979.

“The sea level and ground level are becoming more and more to be the same, and it doesn’t matter if we’re talking sea level rise, land subsidence or both.

“Water will always win out over man-made objects.”

Girard Frank Bolton III, who worked as a draughtsman during his 14 months on the atoll and drew the construction documents for the dome, insisted the damage to the structure was minimal.

Yet he agreed that radiation was nonetheless being washed out of the crater, into the lagoon and ultimately, into the ocean.

“The dome was designed to slow the migration of radiation not to completely stop it,” he said.

“Also, since concrete is porous, the wave action and tides are continuously pumping radioactive water in and out of the structure.”

Now the veterans are pushing the US government to help with their radiation-related health woes.

It’s clear that workers were given inadequate protection from photos of the cleanup, which show them labouring shirtless and with basic tools.

Mr Griego, from Albuquerque, New Mexico, says chronic intestinal disease, beryllium poisoning, weak bones and fertility issues are among the legacies of his service.

“The entire time I was there I never saw anyone wearing a hazmat suit,” he said.

“We were not provided any radiation safety gear – not even a pair of ordinary garden gloves – and we collected the toxic soil samples mostly with our bare hands.”

He continued: “With reasonable certainty we believe the failed mission has already taken the lives of thousands of the atomic cleanup workers.

“Within our survivor group we lose six to eight men each year to cancer and other radiation-related illnesses.”

Mr Bolton, from Mobile, Alabama, blames the radiation for his arthritis, calcium bone loss, Barrett’s oesophagus, diverticular disease, high blood pressure, and neuropathy.

He added: “Of our 8,033 mission participants, only 600 have been accounted for.

“35 of those are deceased, 11 died after our group was founded and about half of our group believe we have health challenges from our mission at Enewetak Atoll.”

Experts agree that the degree of danger posed by the Enewetak radiation is dependent on how much escapes and is ingested.

Professor Francis Livens of the University of Manchester’s Dalton Nuclear Institute said that a number of factors, such as the radiation being dispersed, could mean the hazard is low.

“But if radioactivity is efficiently released and transported into food or water, or gives rise to exposure by some other means, then the hazard is relatively high,” he continued.

Professor Patrick Regan, a radiation expert with the University of Surrey, said the main health risk was likely to be stochastic – meaning an increase in one’s lifetime risk of developing a cancer.

Screenshot from 2018-02-02 01:15:39.png

“The units we used for radiation exposure are called sieverts,” he said.

“One sievert across the whole body won’t kill you but it will give you radiation syndrome.

It’s supposed to increase your biological risk of getting cancer by about 5 per cent.”

However, he added, it would be impossible to tell whose cancer developed because of their exposure and whose would have developed anyway.

“The problem is that you cannot differentiate those people from the rest of the population,” he said.

“You cannot say that there are this many people, that many of them would get cancer anyway and one additional one would get cancer because of their exposure – because you couldn’t tell which one it was.”

 

Videos and more pictures on link; https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/913221/nuclear-waste-USA-pacific-ocean-radioactive-public-health-Enewetak-Atoll

Note; Prof. Patrick (Paddy) Reagan quoted in this article is used by the BBC and recommended by the corporate biased Science Media Centre UK that all UK media has to use post Leveson Inquiry. He is an nuclear industry supporter and doesnt take into account internal doses from Particulates and gases from nuclear waste etc. Here is a critique of his BBC interview where he tries to explain the Fukushima nuclear disaster and completely ignores the risk to Fukushima residents from the plumes from the Daichi nuclear disaster site. – Arclight2011

 

February 2, 2018 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

North Korea accuses US of undermining inter-Korean reconciliation process

 

Ri Yong Ho, Foreign Minister of North Korea, has accused the US of undermining the inter-Korean reconciliation process and aggravating the situation in the Korean Peninsula.

In a letter sent to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on Wednesday, Ri said “good results are borne in the inter-Korean dialogue” and the easing of tension on the Korean peninsula was welcomed by the international society, Xinhua reported citing Korean Central News Agency (KCNA).

The US authorities, however, are “seeking to intentionally aggravate the situation by introducing the strategic assets including nuclear powered aircraft carrier strike groups into the vicinity of the Korean peninsula at a time when north and south of Korea are charting a course of peace together,” Ri said.

“In view of its nature and contents, scope of troop and war equipment being introduced, the US current moves of military reinforcements are designed to make preemptive strike against North Korea,” Ri said.

The US is also openly stating that it will conduct a large-scale aggressive joint military exercise against North Korea immediately after the Winter Olympic Games, he added.

Ri called on the UN not to “keep silent as to the US dangerous game of aggravating situation in and around the Korean peninsula and driving the whole world into a possible disaster of nuclear war.

Ri requested Guterres to take up at the UN Security Council “the issue of welcoming the process of improved inter-Korean relations and discouraging the neighbouring countries from disturbing the process.”

http://powerlinks.news/article/5c693c/north-korea-accuses-us-of-undermining?fieldname=industryids&t=Nuclear&query=&fieldvalue=68

 

February 2, 2018 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Removes nuclear premium rates and repeals BLRA

wpid-wp-1434931857869

Columbia, SC – Speaker Jay Lucas (District 65-Darlington) issued the following statement after the House passed H.4375, the Ratepayer Protection Bill, by a vote of 119-1. This legislation drops the over 18% nuclear surcharge on SCE&G customers’ bills to 0% while giving direction to the Public Service Commission to keep rates as low as possible while the SCANA merger is evaluated. It also repeals the Base Load Review Act and guarantees that no future projects can recover costs under the law abused by SCE&G.

“Since last August, the House has worked diligently to develop a responsible plan forward that protects ratepayers and prevents them from paying for a failed nuclear project. Today, our members followed through with our commitment to halt SCE&G from recouping more of its customers’ hard-earned dollars for the failed VC Summer nuclear project. 

 “Once today’s bill is signed into law, consumers can rest assured that utility companies will never take advantage of ratepayers’ trust under the Base Load Review Act again. Setting the nuclear premium rate to zero percent provides South Carolina ratepayers with immediate relief while private sector business negotiations continue before the Public Service Commission. As this innovative approach works its way through the legislative process, I am hopeful the Senate will act quickly in an effort to protect ratepayers from corporate greed.”

Provisions Included in the Ratepayer Protection Bill:

  • Repeals the Base Load Review Act
  • Defines the terms “prudent” and “imprudent”
  • Removes the nuclear premium and drops the rate from over 18% to 0%
  • Authorizes the PSC to set an interim rate
  • Suspends automatic stay
January 31, 2018
For immediate release
http://manninglive.com/2018/02/01/house-passes-ratepayer-protection-bill/

February 2, 2018 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

India-Clinton nuclear deal writer’s new book set to rock India-U.S. relation again

The Clinton Cash writer Peter Schweizer is out to rock the U.S.-Indian relationship with yet another controversial book which is taunted to be his next blockbuster.

The book, titled Secret Empires: How Our Politicians Hide Corruption and Enrich Their Families and Friends is said to be Washington forthcoming investigative blockbuster to be published not later than March 20.

It is already capturing a lot of attention owing to the book’s explosive contents and the reputation of the writer who sparked off an FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation with his first book “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.”

Breitbart, far-right American news, opinion and commentary website, said the forthcoming investigative Washington blockbuster Secret Empires soared to #60 on the Amazon bestsellers list less than 24-hours after publishing giant HarperCollins announced the book’s publication on Monday.

It is currently listed as #1 Best Seller in United States Local Government on Amazon. The hardcover edition is priced at US$22.86 and the kindle version at US$14.99.

Peter Schweizer is also Government Accountability Institute President and Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large.

“According to Axios’s Mike Allen, the book is already capturing the attention of members of Congress. Indeed, Schweizer is reportedly heading to Capitol Hill to brief lawmakers about the book’s explosive contents,” said Breitbart.

Schweizer’s last New York Times bestseller, Clinton Cash, sparked an FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation after it revealed that Hillary Clinton’s State Department, along with other agencies, approved the transfer of 20 percent of U.S. uranium to Russia and that nine foreign investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.

Little is known about the contents of Schweizer’s next book. A cover image released by the publisher on Monday features five images of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), former Vice President Joe Biden, former President Barack Obama, former Secretary of State John Kerry, and President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.

According to publishing sources, “The book will expose vast corruption by top Washington figures who leverage their political power to enrich their family members and friends, often by helping grease deals with foreign entities.”

Clinton Cash had a chapter titled  “Indian Nukes: How to Win a Medal by Changing Hillary’s Mind,” detailing a series of donations and overtures from Indians who supported the nuclear deal to the Clintons.

It pointed to one case of an Indian-American Clinton donor — who in April 2014 pleaded guilty in an illegal contribution scheme for Clinton’s 2008 run — receiving an award from the Indian government for his work in securing the agreement.

The book also revealed a donation of $5 million by an Indian politician to Clinton Foundation that “changed her position on the 2008 nuclear agreement between the United States and India.”

“In 1998 after the Indian government conducted nuclear tests, Bill Clinton imposed restrictions on the export of U.S. nuclear technology, because this violated the nonproliferation treaty — Hillary Clinton supported that position.

“In 2005, the Indian government wanted those restrictions lifted. Hillary Clinton at that time supported a killer amendment to stop that from happening,” wrote GGInews India.

http://www.theindependent.sg/india-clinton-nuclear-deal-writers-new-book-set-to-rock-india-u-s-relation-again/

February 2, 2018 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Report: Trump Nuclear Posture Review Overstates China’s Nuclear Arsenal Modernization Plans

exaggerate
February 1, 2018
Chinese Arsenal Significantly Smaller, Less Capable Than U.S. Arsenal

WASHINGTON (February 1, 2018)—A leaked draft of the Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) misrepresents the status of China’s nuclear forces, according to a white paper released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).

“China has made slow but steady incremental improvements to its nuclear arsenal,” says paper author Gregory Kulacki, China Project manager at the UCS Global Security Program. “But the gap between China and the United States is too wide to argue that the United States is lagging behind in any meaningful way. In fact, the exact opposite is true. By any measure, the U.S. arsenal is far superior.”

Regardless, the leaked NPR draft erroneously states that the United States needs new nuclear weapons because “China is expanding and modernizing its considerable nuclear forces” and is pursuing “entirely new nuclear capabilities.”

Among other things, the paper points out that:

  • the U.S. arsenal of 4,480 active and reserve nuclear warheads is more than 10 times the size of the Chinese arsenal;
  • the United States has 400 ground-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, at least four times more than China’s 75 to 100 ICBMs; and
  •  12 U.S. nuclear-capable submarines currently carry 900 warheads while China’s four ballistic missile submarines carry none.

“There is no evidence that nuclear weapons are becoming more prominent in China’s military strategy or that China has changed its longstanding no-first-use policy,” says Kulacki. “Chinese military sources emphatically state that China’s only security objective with its relatively small nuclear force is to retain the ability to retaliate in the event of a nuclear attack.

“If the Trump administration were truly concerned about limiting the size and capability of China’s nuclear forces,” he added, “it would ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which China signed in 1996, and negotiate a fissile material control treaty, which China supports. Doing so would cap the size of China’s nuclear arsenal.”

https://www.ucsusa.org/press/2018/report-trump-nuclear-posture-review-overstates-china-s-nuclear-arsenal-modernization#.WnOvoPZpFhE

February 2, 2018 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment