Part 2 – Exactlty a year ago I found a heavily censored story and did 3 posts that got little attention but is relevant to this months theme on nuclear weapons proliferation using low technology techniques that are being planned to be built by ISIS (or whatever their new re branding is) Part 3 to follow…
ISIS and nuclear Armageddon? – Exclusive to nuclear-news.net
“…However we look at it, as we hear the PR call for more and/or better nuclear weapons, the issue of nuclear weapons grade materials escaping from countries like the Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Pakistan etc and also the possibility of theft from large nuclear reprocessing complexes in the west like Sellafield, La Hague, Hanford, Negev Nuclear Research Center etc means that huge resources will have to be spent defending these places that will not be accounted for in costing nuclear power and reprocessing to the tax payer with no guarantee that corrupt practices now or in the future will not circumvent them…..”
Following the article (Link ref 1 below) I picked up from India and posted to nuclear-news.net, I shared it to Fukushima 311 Watchdogs (F311W) . As an Admin on F311 W I later checked the statistics and found a small number of…
Part 1 – Exactlty a year ago I found a heavily censored story and did 3 posts that got little attention but is relevant to this months theme on nuclear weapons proliferation using low technology techniques that are being planned to be built by ISIS (or whatever their new re branding is) Part 2 to follow…
New Delhi: Noting that possible use of weapons of mass destruction and related material by terrorists is no longer a theoretical concern, India will host a key meet on nuclear security here next week which will be attended by delegated from over 100 countries.
The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) in coordination with the Department of Atomic Energy is hosting the Implementation and Assessment Group Meeting of the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism (GICNT) on February 8-10.
Approximately 150 delegates from various GICNT partner countries and international organisations will participate in this event, a statement by the MEA said.
It said the development was pursuant to the announcement made by Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the Nuclear Security Summit last year.
It said the event highlights India’s commitment to global nuclear non-proliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear energy and is part of its overall engagement with…
Kiyomizu temple master Seihan Mori writing the kanji character for “north” at the temple in Kyoto on Dec 12, 2017. PHOTO: AFP/JIJI PRESS
TOKYO (AFP) – Japan on Tuesday (Dec 12) chose the Chinese character for “North” as its traditional “defining symbol of 2017” following a series of North Korean missile launches.
Japanese TV stations went live to broadcast the annual announcement, in which Seihan Mori, master of the ancient Kiyomizu temple in Kyoto, wrote the character on a huge white panel using an ink-soaked calligraphy brush.
“It was the year in which people felt threatened and anxious by North Korea following repeated ballistic missile launches and a nuclear test,” said the Japan Kanji Aptitude Testing Foundation, the event organiser.
At the end of every year, the general public votes for a Chinese character they think embodies the key news and events of the previous 12 months.
A total of 7,104 people out of 153,594 voted for the character “North.”
A 38-year-old woman from northern Fukushima prefecture who voted for the character said she was “constantly scared of North Korean missiles”.
“Our generation never experienced war … What if a missile actually falls on Japan? It is horrifying,” she said, according to the organiser.
Last year, Japan picked “gold” to celebrate the success of Japanese athletes winning gold medals at the Rio Olympics.
Chinese characters, or Kanji, are widely used in Japanese, along with other types of alphabets.
Japan’s greenhouse gas emissions fell 0.2 percent to a six-year low in the financial year that ended last March, government figures showed on Tuesday, amid growing use of renewable energy and the gradual return of nuclear power.
Emissions in the 2016 financial year fell for a third straight year to 1.322 billion metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent from 1.325 billion tonnes the year before, hitting their lowest since fiscal 2010, according to preliminary data from the environment ministry.
The world’s fifth-biggest carbon emitter, Japan has set a goal to cut its emissions by 26 percent from 2013 levels to 1.042 billion tonnes by 2030.
The nation’s emissions rose after the 2011 nuclear disaster at Fukushima that led to the closure of atomic power plants and an increased reliance on fossil fuel-fired energy.
Four of 42 commercial reactors are now generating power, although the pace of restarts has been slower than many expected as all units need to be relicensed.REUTERS CJ 0901
After protecting interests of nuclear vendors, Modi Govt which abstained in the UN General Assembly that adopted the treaty against nuclear weapons, now boycotts Nobel peace prize ceremony
This Sunday, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) will be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo. On behalf of the Campaign, Hiroshima-survivor, Setsuko Thurlow will receive the coveted prize, for ICAN’s relentless campaign over the past few years which made the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons a reality this September, when the United Nations General Assembly adopted it.
India, along with other nuclear weapons states, has chosen to boycott the Nobel Prize ceremony. While the western nuclear weapons powers have openly stayed away, ambassadors of India and Pakistan ‘will be travelling’ at the time of the ceremony, according to the Nobel Institute.
The nuclear ban treaty will commit its signatories “never under any circumstances to ‘develop, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
‘There are two things that make this new treaty distinct. Firstly, the initiative seeks to outlaw all atomic weapons, thus, going beyond the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which created categories of nuclear ‘haves’ and have-nots. Once ratified and signed by a majority in the UN General Assembly (UNGA), the proposed Nuclear Ban Treaty will make all nuclear weapons illegal.
Although a legal ban is not the same as physical dismantling of existing stockpiles, it will be an important step in stigmatising and discouraging atomic weapons. The treaty aims at filling the ‘legal gap’ in the international system concerning nuclear weapons. And secondly, this new initiative does not depend on bringing the Nuclear Weapons States to the table and convincing them to disarm. Institutionalising a legal prohibition requires a majority within the UNGA, and, encouragingly, an overwhelming majority of countries in the world have been supporting nuclear disarmament at various forums, including the NPT Review Conferences.
India’s conspicuous absence is a complete departure from the country’s principled diplomacy, since its independence, of championing nuclear disarmament globally. India provided moral and diplomatic leadership to the cause at the dawn, even at the height of the nuclear arms race during the Cold War. In 1988, the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, presented a disarmament action plan to the UN General Assembly – the most comprehensive, time-bound and concrete proposal for nuclear abolition since the advent of the nuclear age. The proponents of skewed ‘realism’ who seek to pursue diplomacy through calculation of power, fail to acknowledge that India’s diplomatic strength in the world, much larger than what a country like India could command after coming out of the yoke of colonialism, stemmed from its moral authority in the world.
It was in recognition of this diplomatic stature, built meticulously through decades of diplomacy, that the Vajpayee government adopted a peaceful nuclear posture, consisting of no-first-use declaration and the doctrine of minimum credible deterrence. The Indian government at the time at least maintained that it would promote a comprehensive and universal nuclear disarmament along with other nuclear weapons states, even as it possessed its own weapons.
Under the Manmohan Singh regime, the government promoted several disarmament initiatives and proposals, including informally supporting a new version of the Rajiv Gandhi Action Plan for Disarmament. This new proposal advocated a pro-active stance on nuclear abolition, whereby India would adopt a posture to claim that it would be the only country in possession of nuclear arms to use its diplomatic weight to urge other nuclear powers to disarm in a credible and legally-binding manner and promote security in a world free of nuclear weapons.
The U-turn under Modi
It was this posture that earned the Indian nuclear diplomacy, credibility, and enabled the government to use its image of a ‘responsible nuclear state’ to convince the member-states of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to not only end the embargo against India, but also not club it with any of the nuclear pariah states like Pakistan and North Korea.
However, after coming to power, Narendra Modi has severely weakened India’s nuclear posture which so far, had enjoyed consensus across the political spectrum. His party’s election manifesto raised concerns internationally, as it indicated the ruling party’s intent to revise the doctrines of ‘no-first-use’ and ‘minimum credible deterrence’.
Frivolous statements made by senior BJP leaders, particularly the utterings of the former Defence Minister, Manohar Parrikar and the former party president, Nitin Gadkari, have trivialised the nuclear weapons discourse at a time when the world is more concerned about them than ever before.
This year, the famous Doomsday Clock of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has moved the closest-ever to midnight. More importantly, for the first time since 1998 the doomsday clock statement mentioned the potential danger of the irresponsible and unprofessional handling of India-Pakistan tensions escalating into a full-blown nuclear war. If anything, India is now increasingly coming across as a nuclear adventurist on the global stage, even as the task of exercising nuclear restraint and taking gradual but concrete steps for weapons abolition has assumed greater importance than ever.
When the Nobel Peace Prize for ICAN was announced in September this year, the Modi government found itself in a corner as it had to grudgingly praise the international Coalition for its disarmament advocacy. India, under Modi, stayed away from the negotiations of the Nuclear Ban Treaty, even as it had participated in the ICAN-facilitated Conference on Humanitarian Impacts of Nuclear Weapons in Nayarit in February 2014 in Mexico under the previous Government.
This author had participated as an ICAN South Asia campaigner and was witness to India’s participation in the Conference, setting it apart from other nuclear weapons powers which were perceived as defending these inherently immoral weapons. From Rajiv Gandhi labelling nuclear arms as the “ultimate expression of the philosophy of terrorism” at the UN, India has trudged a long and dangerous path where it has begun to shed even the minimum moral consistency of being regarded as a reluctant nuclear state that would still lead from the front, towards global disarmament.
Interests of nuclear vendors
While the BJP had vociferously opposed the India-US Nuclear Deal in the Parliament, Modi has taken a complete U-turn – furthering agreements to procure nuclear technology, has been the promotion pitch of all his foreign tours since he assumed power. In fact, Narendra Modi has gone out of the way to accommodate the interests of nuclear vendors by diluting the nuclear liability law that the Indian Parliament passed in 2010 to protect Indian citizens in case of nuclear accidents.
When in opposition, the BJP strongly opposed any liability waiver to foreign suppliers. Senior BJP leader Yashwant Sinha had said at the time: “Clearly, the life of an Indian is only worth a dime compared to the life of an American.” His colleague Sushma Swaraj had then called for an India-specific liability law, while likening the Indo-US nuclear deal to Jehangir who allowed the British East India Company to do business in India.
Swaraj is now the External Affairs Minister in the Modi Government, which has brazenly undermined suppliers liability provisions of the Act under her nose during the visit of President Obama in 2016. Modi’s nuclear diplomacy therefore, actually makes India pay bigger costs even as it squanders whatever gains the country’s foreign policy establishment claims to have made.
While Modi government might think that joining other nuclear powers in boycotting the historic Nobel event would propel it to the super power club, it is actually stigmatising India’s nuclear posture internationally. BJP’s delusional politics of nuclear-jingoist rhetoric hides its collosal failures which would cost dearly to India.
The author is the Editor of DiaNuke.org, and has been associated with the International Coalition to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).
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 supported by the EU commission to find out how damaged fuel rods might react in different situations. In Hungary I discovered at least two possible sources for where this isotope may be created.
These test reports mention Fukushima and may be useful to the cleanup there. Also, High Burn up fuel rods (fuel rods used for longer) and MOX fuel rods (As used in unit 3 Daichi in Fukushima) hold much more Ruthenium than normal nuclear fuel rods. There is another possibility that a Spent fuel pool from a reactor/waste site that had a slow leak and that conditions created the Ru 106 isotope but this is not as likely as a research created source.
Presuming that it was from Hungary, why would both the EU and Russia want to cover it up? well the UN based IAEA nuclear regulator has been known to cover up contamination incidents from Hungary in the past. Read on for more!
September 2011 nuclear releases from Hungary, Fukushima or Pakistan?
The Pakistan nuclear industry was blamed by Poland and the IAEA either ignored the data from Europes radiation monitoring system EURDEP, or were lied to by the Hungarians (links below). However, by the 17th WNN had released a statement on the matter and linked the Hungary reactor to the incident with the caveat that the levels were too low for any health issues in Europe which was untrue. CRIIRAD and independent nuclear advisory group, set up after Chernobyl, actually went to Budapest and recommended locals to not eat leafy vegetables and avoid dairy products sourced locally because of the levels of Iodine 125 (which would not degrade from the environment for 2 years).
A recurring theme is to delay the announcement of the releases of radiation so that it would be hard to find the source of the pollution as isotopes breakdown and dissipate with weathering. Even though radiation is very easy to find (especially the isotopes reported), The nuclear industry and the IAEA put peoples lives at risk and this has been mentioned by CRIIRAD.org here concerning the February 2017 report of radioactive pollution and then in March 2017 a more robust critique of this nuclear industry delay strategy here . My personal feeling is that the February 2017 release was from Hungary.
So why would the nuclear industry be so protective of the Hungarian nuclear industries excess pollution problems?
Firstly a lot of money goes into research, secondly it is much easier to hide a pollution incident in a country that is very corrupt and autocratic and thirdly the pressures to manufacture high profit medical isotopes that are in short supply.
Russia works closely with all countries concerning nuclear issues, including covering up the health effects in Fukushima and Chernobyl. Russia also helps finance the Norways ancient Halden research reactor that had an accident in October 2016 and was blamed (unfairly) for a release in March 2017.
So there is some speculation on my part and it is possible that Mayak still might be the source as the Russians are not letting international reporters onto the site for another 2 months (to allow the cleanup of the contamination?) whilst allowing local reporters on site (who are less likely to turn up with sophisticated testing devices perhaps?). I am sure that the IAEA will not tell us nor will any nuclear industry groups, so much for the new “transparency” post Fukushima, just business as usual!
Posted by Shaun McGee on 12 Dec 2017
SOURCE NOTES FOR REPORT
Prevarication by the nuclear industry on the 2011 release of iodine 125
17 November 2011 – The cause of trace detection of radioactive iodine-131 in Europe has been identified as ‘most probably’ a release from a Hungarian factory making medical isotopes….. The Izotop facility is near to the Budapest Research Reactor. As well as iodine-131 it supplies radioisotopes for pharmaceutical, scientific and industrial use including yttrium-90, technetium-99m, iodine-125, samarium-153, holmium-166 and lutetium-177.
Nov. 12, 2011 – Authorities in that country today informed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of their theory that the release may have begun at a facility run by Institute of Isotopes Ltd (Izotop) on 8 September and continued until yesterday.
No KANUPP linkage to Radioactivity in Europe, PAEC clarifies, AP of Pakistan, Nov. 12, 2011 – The entire news item is based upon the statement attributed to the spokesman of the Polish atomic energy agency who only said: “Unconfirmed reports suggest there may have been an incident at a nuclear power station in Pakistan but this requires further confirmation”
11 November 2011 – THE IAEA PRESS RELEASE – “11 November 2011 | Vienna, Austria – The IAEA has received information from the State Office for Nuclear Safety of the Czech Republic that very low levels of iodine-131 have been measured in the atmosphere over the Czech Republic in recent days.
The IAEA has learned about similar measurements in other locations across Europe.
The IAEA believes the current trace levels of iodine-131 that have been measured do not pose a public health risk and are not caused by the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident in Japan.
Iodine-131 is a short-lived radioisotope that has a radioactive decay half-life of about eight days.
The IAEA is working with its counterparts to determine the cause and origin of the iodine-131.
The IAEA will provide further information via its website as it becomes available.
Sources for the technical aspects concerning Ru 106 mentioned in my report;
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) carried out some tests which consisted of heating pieces of irradiated fuel pellets, under different atmospheres. The fuel BU of the test called H02 was 10 GWd/tU. This test was performed under Ar/H 2 atmosphere, and next in air. The maximum temperature reached was 2163 K. Figure 2 shows that, as soon as an oxidizing atmosphere is present (transition from Ar/H 2 mixture to air atmosphere), ruthenium release increases drastically to reach a value close to that of 133 Xe, which is a very volatile compound, released at nearly 100%. It is worth noticing the presence of an induction time (approximately 5000 seconds) assumed to correspond to time necessary for oxidation of the UO 2 matrix by air, next Ru release is extremely quick [12]. 5In the frame of the PHEBUS–RUSET programme, in 2002 the Hungarian research organization (AEKI) studied the ruthenium release at high temperature in oxidising environment. These tests confirmed the presence of a gaseous type of ruthenium [13].
Air ingress and its contact with fuel can result in significant releases of some fission products. This is especially the case for ruthenium which has the same radiotoxicity as iodine in short term through caesium in medium term through 103 Ru isotope and as 106 Ru isotope. Globally, the ruthenium release from the core may be 10 to 50 times higher than with steam only and the ruthenium tetra-oxide might represent a problem comparable with that of iodine. The safety impacts of such air ingress was analysed in an AECL test [18] and most recently in an AEKI RUSET test [19] and also discussed at the PHEBUS Air Ingress Working Group.
………………………..
3.3.2 FUEL DEGRADATION PROCESS IN SPENT FUEL POOLS
At first sight, it seems reasonable to assume that air could be present when melting occurs in the open spent fuel pool, in contrast to the closed RPV where no air access is possible. The presence of air instead of steam would, in particular, change the chemistry of the degradation process: Zr would be oxidized by Oxygen from air instead of by Oxygen from water. The thermal output of Zr-air oxidation is higher, but on the other hand less or no hydrogen would be produced. Volatile Ruthenium oxide could be produced by air impact, which is very relevant in terms of radiological effect. However, analyses performed (see appendix 10.1) with MELCOR under various conditions show that the previous evaporation of the large amount of water from the SFP would almost
completely generate a steam atmosphere with little air having access to the degrading fuel. There are only two potential scenarios which may lead to significant oxidation by air: A rather fast loss of coolant from the SFP can be practically excluded in some SFP designs), or an extremely low evaporation from the SFP with most of the steam being condensed before fuel degradation. However, the latter sequence may last for weeks, and have such a low energetic level that even without water the SFP may not heat up to the threshold for chemical reaction.
During fuel degradation in the SFP (before Molten Corium Concrete Interaction (MCCI) begins) the temperatures in some of the sequences are lower than in RPV accidents during normal operation. Therefore less radionuclides are released from fuel. However, after MCCI has started the release fractions from fuel reach levels which are known from accidents in the RPV.
Energy Secretary Perry gives FERC more time, but repeats unsupported claims on grid security, as photo evidence of the coal industry’s influence on the DOE plan emerges.
Energy Secretary Rick Perry has agreed to give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 30 more days to make a decision on a controversial proposal to shore up coal and nuclear power plants in the name of grid resilience, extending a deadline that would otherwise have expired today.
In a Friday letter granting FERC’s request for a deadline extension, Perry repeated unsubstantiated claims that coal and nuclear plants need to be given more money “immediately” to deal with “serious threats to the nation’s electricity grid,” even as evidence of the coal industry’s influence on crafting DOE’s proposal continues to mount.
Perry’s move came a day after newly sworn-in FERC Chairman Kevin McIntyre asked to extend FERC’s review period for the Department of Energy’s notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR). McIntyre, a Republican and Trump appointee, last week replaced interim chairman Neil Chatterjee, who said in recent weeks that he supports creating an interim rule that could extend some financial support to coal and nuclear plants.
But McIntyre’s letter to Perry indicated that the new chairman was not interested in a rushed interim ruling. McIntyre noted the extreme difficulties for FERC to meet the Dec. 11 deadline, given that it has added two new commissioners, McIntyre and Democrat Richard Glick, in the past two weeks, and is facing more than 1,500 comments on the NOPR.
The NOPR, filed by DOE on Sept. 28 with a 60-day deadline for a decision, asked FERC to provide cost-recovery status for power plants that keep 90 days of fuel on-site — something only nuclear and some coal-fired power plants can do. It claimed this was needed to slow the retirement of these power plants, which it contended are uniquely capable of maintaining grid reliability and resilience against storms, terrorist attacks, and other major disruptions.
But the NOPR has been roundly criticized by trade groups representing every energy industry sector except coal and nuclear power, as well as by independent energy analysts and economists, a bipartisan group of 11 former FERC commissioners and every grid operator in the country.
These groups have pointed out that improving grid reliability would best be served by strengthening the country’s distribution and transmission grids, and maintaining an energy market that promotes a mix of resources, while driving down costs and fostering energy innovation. The NOPR’s cost-recovery plan, by contrast, would promote failing power plants and raise consumer energy prices by billions of dollars, without providing any provable benefits in grid reliability.
Perry’s letter granting the 30-day extension repeats many of the NOPR’s unsupported claims. For example, the letter claims that the record of more than 1,500 comments on the NOPR “provide substantial evidence of, and otherwise confirm, the threat to the nation’s electricity grid and the urgent need for Commission action to reform market rules to preserve fuel-secure generation resources.”
But many of the comments filed with FERC undermine this contention. For example, a study by U.S. power outage data over the past five years indicates that power plant fuel-supply disruptions have been responsible for 0.00007 percent of all power outages in the country.
Even the DOE staff report on grid reliability, ordered by Perry in April and delivered this summer, which has been used as justification for the NOPR, lacks the data to justify the NOPR, according to one of its authors, energy consultant Alison Silverstein.
Opponents have also pointed out the clear influence of coal industry lobbyists on the NOPR, including Murray Energy, the coal mining company owned by Trump supporter Robert Murray. The same is true of FirstEnergy, a Midwestern utility that’s facing severe financial challenges in managing a group of money-losing coal-fired power plants in the region served by grid operator PJM, where the NOPR’s rule change could provide the utility a massive new influx of cash.
Many opponents of the NOPR have said that these coal companies’ needs, rather than regulatory reason, are behind the unprecedented short deadline that DOE gave FERC to make a decision. This week brought more evidence of this link, as The Washington Post published photographs of Perry and Murray embracing during a March 29 meeting to discuss an “action plan” that called for the financial rescue of FirstEnergy’s struggling coal facilities.
Murray has denied any involvement in crafting the DOE NOPR. But he has acknowledged drafting recommendations to the Trump administration, telling The Post, “I think we’ve pointed out the urgency of the problem.”
In his Friday letter, Perry noted that failure to act as fast as possible by FERC would be “unjust, unreasonable and contrary to the public interest.” These phrases match up with the mandate FERC is under, to determine whether today’s market structures are “unjust and unreasonable,” before it considers replacing them with DOE’s alternative.
But the DOE’s NOPR has presented an unusually compressed timeline for crafting a new rule that would radically disrupt the way energy markets run today. It would also go against the principles that have guided the country’s interstate energy markets for more than two decades, as the former FERC commissioners who have come out against the rule have pointed out.
FERC now has a full commission for the first time since late last year, and it’s far from clear that its members will be supportive of DOE’s request for a major change to market rules. Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur, the sole remaining Obama appointee, has joined Trump appointee Rob Powelson in speaking out against the NOPR. McIntyre and newly sworn-in Democrat Richard Glick both expressed their preference for maintaining FERC’s neutrality in managing energy markets during their Senate confirmation hearings.
Victims of Fukushima nuclear power plant accident issue a complaint class action against US based General Electric
While a trial asking for the responsibility of the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident that occurred throughout the country, Japanese plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit in the US court pursuing the responsibility of US nuclear reactor manufacturers. At trial in the United States, the amount of compensation may exceed tens of billions to one trillion yen (upper costs are nearly 9 billion dollars) . Will it lead to relief of the victims? Journalist Tsutomu Kirishima investigated.
* * *
A complaint was filed in the United States District Court in Boston, Massachusetts in mid-November 2017. In the plaintiff column of the 49-page complaint written in English as “request for class action suit and jury trial”, three people living in Fukushima prefecture and Ibaraki prefecture and six corporations have names. The Defendant is General Electric Company (GE) headquartered in Boston.
GE is a manufacturer involved in the design, manufacturing and installation of nuclear reactors for TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. In the nuclear power plant accident on March 11, 2011, the nuclear reactor could not be cooled from the power loss due to the tsunami, and the 1,3 and 4 units exploded (NOTE unit 2 also exploded arclight2011) and led to meltdown. The Plaintiff argued that
“GE has been involved in the design, manufacture, and maintenance of nuclear reactors that caused meltdown, but has no responsibility for economic losses due to the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident.”
He is seeking compensation from the company for huge damage in the accident.
Although the claim amount is not written in the complaint, the local newspaper in Boston reported that “a class action suit of 56 billion yen against GE who designed the problematic destroyed reactors”.
Specific problems to mention are poor design of the nuclear reactor and negligence on installation.
In the 1960’s, which was the dawn of the nuclear industry, “GE designed a small, cheap reactor to set costs at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant to reduce costs”.
Initially, the nuclear reactor building that should be built 35 meters above sea level was
“grounded by GE’s seawater pump so that water can not be pumped up to this height, and it was set at 10 meters above sea level.This is the cause of the tsunami damage, It has been pointed out. “
In addition, GE said that it was the responsibility of the nuclear accident, saying “Failure to install a safety device such as an independent backup power supply resulted in meltdown and the release of radioactivity.”
In fact, it is known that the Mark I reactor set up at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant was of low safety.
Mr. Dale Bridenbaugh, who was involved in the design of the nuclear reactor as a former GE engineer, resigned GE with two colleagues in danger of safety in 1976 and was calling for the suspension of operations.
The plaintiff who filed the case this time are two doctors in Fukushima prefecture, four hospitals, small businesses and their managers.
Both were victims of the Fukushima Nuclear Power Damage Accident and said that they were suffering from operating damage from the impact of the accident, being forced to leave or face bankruptcy. One of the plaintiffs speaking with anger in his expression follows;
“The Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant accident took place six years ago and the town’s population has decreased and a major obstacle has been raised in work. Not only Tokyo Electric Power Company but also the desire to pursue the responsibilities of manufacturers who built the nuclear reactors I have sued for that. “
A class action lawsuit against the nuclear power plant maker has already been filed in Japan and is in progress.
Mr. Tsuyoshi Okubo who is co-director of caretaker at plaintiffs’ lawsuit plaintiff group explains.
“We filed a lawsuit against Hitachi, Toshiba and GE in January 2014. Although the Law on Nuclear Damage Compensation focuses our responsibility on electric companies, we believe manufacturers should pursue their responsibilities as well as electric companies Approximately 3700 current plaintiffs from 35 countries are in dispute with the Tokyo High Court of Appeal. “
Although the plaintiffs are different from this trial, why did you dare to sue a class action in the US this time? Ryan Goldstein, a lawyer familiar with the class action lawsuit in the United States of America, commented, “Because the mechanisms differ greatly in class actions between Japan and the United States.”
“In the class action (class action) in the United States, if a large number of people are suffering similar damage in the case or accident, some of the victims can make a lawsuit on behalf of the whole. The party increases by an order of magnitude as it automatically participates unless it indicates “intention to not participate in the lawsuit.” The judgment and the contents of the settlement apply to all people who participated in the case, so if the defendant is defeated We will incur huge damages. “
In the class action suits in Japan, each person forms a plaintiff group with the willingness to participate, so the scale of the US system is certainly more likely to expand.
According to a class action lawsuit on Takata’s defect airbags, major automakers have agreed to pay a settlement amount totaling 130 billion yen by September this year. Also in the past, class action suits appealed tobacco makers, astronomical settlement fee of 42 trillion yen also came out. As nuclear accident evacuees amount to more than 150,000 people, it is expected that the amount of compensation will be enormous.
Even if the jury does not proceed to trial, it is not unusual to settle with a settlement amount of tens of billions of yen. Because plaintiff lawyers are paid around 30% of settlement money and compensation as remuneration, there is a law firm specializing in class actions in the United States and we are constantly looking for plaintiffs that are likely to sue and matching plaintiffs It is said.
The first hurdle of the case is whether the court will certify that the plaintiffs of this case are composed of a certain range of people (classes) in common.
“To pose a class action,
[1] whether the class is sufficiently large,
[2] whether the members have a common problem point,
[3] the plaintiff’s representative is a typical class of the class It is necessary for the court to certify whether it is making a request etc. The time required for the work is about 1 to 2 years and it will not be half of the total complaints to be authenticated. “(Mr. Goldstin)
Once the class has been certified, the next step is to present a huge amount of document presentation, testimonial testimonials, expert testimonies, etc. in the US or Japan in the United States It is done at the embassy.
After that, it finally entered the trial by the jury and a judgment comes out, but it is about 3% of the total going so far. The defendant is afraid that it will issue a huge amount of compensation and that most cases will be settled. A lawyer who has worked on a class action lawsuit in the United States says:
“Where a person and a company intersect with plaintiffs’ representatives if they are caught, the contents of damage are also different between the two and judgment is made by the court that” they do not have a common problem “, and they are pre-paid at the stage of certification that is also a possibility. “
There are also indications as to whether they will not be in conflict with the “Convention on Compensatory Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC)” which was signed in April 2003 by six countries including Japan and the United States.
CSC concentrates on jurisdiction of lawsuits concerning nuclear damage in the accident originating country from the aspect of victims’ rapid and impartial relief. Regardless of whether there is negligence or not, liability is also concentrated on nuclear power companies. In other words, interpret literally, the trial for damages relating to the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident can only occur in Japan, and also against TEPCO. When I interviewed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, they answered “I would like to refrain from comment”.
Mr. Okubo said.
“Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant No. 1 was built in a way that GE takes full responsibility from construction to operation start, and the manufacturer should take responsibility for accidents as well.”
Legal scholar George Delf’s Humanizing Hell! The Law V. Nuclear Weapons is concise, bold, and direct. “[A]rmed forces are committed by military, domestic and international law not to attack non-combatants. Any government which adopts a defense policy implying such an attack is therefore inciting its own forces to commit war crimes on a gigantic and suicidal scale.”
US general says order to launch nuclear weapons can be refused if illegal
—Chicago Tribune, Nov. 18
US nuclear commander would balk at any “illegal” order
—MSNBC, Nov. 18
General heading Strategic Command says illegal nuclear launch order can be refused
—NBC News, Nov. 18
Top general says he would resist “illegal” nuke order from Trump
—CBS News, Nov. 18
Top US general says he would resist illegal nuclear strike order from Donald Trump
—The Independent, Nov. 18
All these headlines give the direct impression that a nuclear attack could be legal in some circumstances. But is this possible?
Air Force General John Hyten, commander of Strategic Command, told the Halifax International Security Forum Nov. 18, that an order from the president to launch nuclear weapons can be refused if that order is determined to be illegal. In the face of an unlawful order, Gen. Hyten said…
Construction of the main stadium for the Tokyo 2020 Olympics is underway in Japan, despite the fact that the final budget for the games still hasn’t been locked down. Recent estimates have put the total Tokyo Olympic bill at around $13 billion, but now it looks like that figure will soon be cut drastically.
CGTN’s Steve Ross reports.
“We were already able to reduce the venue cost by more than $2 billion,” Maya Takaya of the Tokyo Organizing Committee said.
The Tokyo 2020 Olympics and Paralympics originally unveiled an audacious main stadium design by renowned architect Zaha Hadid, but the design was ultimately rejected as too costly. Sustainability has also become a key issue for taxpayers, with the committee expanding the use of existing venues from 40 to 60 percent.
A key problem is that various costs, including anti-terrorism security and augmented transportation facilities, were not reflected in Tokyo’s original Olympic bid.
“The IOC requested Tokyo to show a budget of the Olympics on specific points, but not all. But, by their explanation, we thought the budget was for all Olympic costs,” University of Kokushikan University Law Professor Tomoyuki Suzuki said. “After the Fukushima March 11 disaster, building material costs and contractors’ fees have gone up and up. The Olympic budget requires more and more.”
The Tokyo 2020 Olympic Organizing Committee promises to announce revised costs by year’s end, when Japanese citizens are likely to be looking not only for a lower “bottom line,” but greater budget transparency, as well.
“To finish this summary of his talk it would seem that the recent drive for tourism in the nuclear damaged Fukushima prefecture would actually be impacted during and after the Olympics. As the deadline for the games approaches clean up from the tsunami and nuclear disaster would be diverted into the Olympic infrastructure program as the tough IOC deadline approaches for July 2020.” https://nuclear-news.net/2017/07/26/tokyo-2020-olympic-fukushima-fallacies-and-fallout/
2020 Tokyo Olympics to Be Held Amidst “Hot Particles”
Katsuta said that the Fukushima evacuees are “extremely worried” that their plight will be overshadowed by the Olympics. He believes the Japanese government is using the Olympics to demonstrate to the world that Japan is now a “safe” country and that the Fukushima disaster “has been solved.”
“In Japan, the people are really forgetting the Fukushima accident as … the news of the Olympics increases,” he said.
“And that plan called, in our first strike, for hitting every city—actually, every town over 25,000—in the USSR and every city in China. A war with Russia would inevitably involve immediate attacks on every city in China. In the course of doing this—pardon me—there were no reserves. Everything was to be thrown as soon as it was available—it was a vast trucking operation of thermonuclear weapons—over to the USSR, but not only the USSR. The captive nations, the East Europe satellites in the Warsaw Pact, were to be hit in their air defenses, which were all near cities, their transport points, their communications of any kind. So they were to be annihilated, as well.”
“To start with, even if it were only the president, no one man—really, no one nation—should have the ability—the ability even—to threaten or to carry out a hundred Holocausts at his will. That machinery should never have existed. And it does exist right now, and every president has had that power, and this president does have that power.”
“How many fingers are on buttons? Probably no president has ever really known the details of that. I knew, in ’61, for example, that Admiral Harry D. Felt in CINCPAC, commander-in-chief of Pacific, for whom I worked as a researcher, had delegated that to 7th Fleet, down to various commanders, and they, in turn, had delegated down to people. So when you say, “How many altogether feel authorized?””
“The other thing I learned was that in the course of these maneuvers, we came within a hair’s breadth of blowing the world up, of having the plans I’ve just described go into action. A nuclear submarine—I should say, a submarine that was armed with nuclear torpedoes had the two top commanders, who thought they were being—going to go down, actually, as a result of these mock depth charges that were actually meant to force them to the surface. The commander, Savitsky, ordered the nuclear torpedo armed and ready for action against the destroyers or the cruiser. The second-in-command, whose assent was needed, agreed with him. And they were ready to go.”
“Why are we hitting Moscow? How do you possibly ever get the war stopped? How can you possibly get it limited? How could they surrender or the war end in any way, if you’ve hit their central command?” And that seemed to make some sense, and there was a withhold option against that—never implemented. When Cheney came in, years later, he was amazed to discover how many weapons were still targeted on Moscow. And we’re talking about hundreds here, which seemed crazy to me.”
“And that is what both U.S. and Russia have still on hair triggers, with the delegation, with launch on warning, with ICBMs on both sides that are vulnerable to attack by the other, and therefore have the incentive to use them or lose them if there’s warning of an attack on the way.”
“I would say to people who are in her position or Ed Snowden’s position, especially in a high position right now, if you are aware of documents—and I am certain these documents exist, in the Pentagon, in CIA, in the White House—that show the true scale of the horrors, the damage, the devastation that would occur if President Trump were to carry out his threats of armed conflict, armed action against this nuclear state, against North Korea—I’m sure, by the way, that these estimates exist”
“OK, if you knew this, consider revealing that to Congress and the press, whatever the cost to you, even if the cost is what I faced, life in prison, what Chelsea Manning was charged with, actual possible life in prison. A world’s worth of lives are at stake here. And I would say, do what I wish I had done in ’61, which is put out those documents then, or in ’64, before the Pentagon war actually got started in a big way. Don’t wait. As Martin Luther King says, there is such a thing as too late. And he talked of the fierce urgency of now. This crisis right now may awaken people in the Pentagon and in the public to the dangers we’ve been living with secretly for so long”
Quotes from Interview on Democracy Now. Full interview here;
By Colin Perkel , The Canadian PressPosted: Dec 06, 2017 5:23 PM ET
Waste management authorities have ruled out one part of northern Ontario as a suitable site for a bunker to store used, but highly radioactive, nuclear-reactor fuel rods.
In a statement on Wednesday, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization said the Elliot Lake and Blind River area between the cities of Sudbury and Sault Ste. Marie are out of the running.
“Technical studies and engagement with people in the area identified a number of factors that would pose challenges in siting a repository,” the organization said.
“These include complexities associated with the geology, limited access and rugged terrain, and low potential to develop the breadth of partnerships needed to implement the project.”
5 communities left in the running
Three other communities in northern Ontario remain as potential sites: Ignace about 250 kilometres northwest of Thunder Bay, Manitouwadge, about 395 kilometres east of Thunder Bay, and Hornepayne, about 480 kilometres east of Thunder Bay.
The other two remaining potential sites — South Bruce and Huron-Kinloss — are close to the Bruce nuclear reactor on the Lake Huron shoreline near Kincardine, Ont., site of a long and ongoing battle by Ontario Power Generation to win approval for a deep geologic repository for low and intermediate level radioactive waste.
‘Huge loss’
Dan Marchisella, mayor of Elliot Lake, expressed disappointment at the exclusion of his community after five years, calling it a “huge potential loss” for the entire district.
The former mining town, once known as the uranium capital of the world, felt that putting itself forward was the responsible thing to do given the vexing question of how best to safely store waste that remains toxic for thousands of years, he said.
“The footprint of that geology they were looking for is not large enough,” Marchisella said in an interview. “It’s very
difficult to access that area.”
The hunt for a place to permanently store used nuclear fuel rods — about 2.7 million bundles currently exist — began in earnest in 2010, with 22 communities expressing interest.
The dangerous material is currently stored in pools of water or in vaults on site at reactors in Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Manitoba.
The envisaged repository would be about 500 metres underground.
Decision by 2023
“The decision to narrow our focus is part of an ongoing, rigorous process to identify a single, safe site in an area with an
informed and willing host and strong potential for the partnerships that will be required to implement the project,” said Mahrez Ben Belfadhel, a vice-president with the waste-management organization.
While the organization expects to be able to choose its preferred site by about 2023, winning any approval for an underground bunker is likely to go years beyond that date if Ontario Power Generation’s odyssey is anything to go by.
The utility took years to win tentative approval in 2015 to build a bunker at the Bruce site near Lake Huron for material that is far less toxic than nuclear fuel rods but has made little progress since.
Federal Environment Minister Catherine McKenna is now waiting for Indigenous communities in the area to weigh in — a process likely to take at least another year.
In addition, scores of communities around the Great Lakes have decried any suggestion the site so close to the lake is suitable — paving the way for what could be years of court battles.
In defence of its choice, Ontario Power Generation has said transporting radioactive material to long distances to a storage site would only add costs and increase the risk of toxic releases.
Marchisella, who said nuclear material already moves safely up and down Canada’s highways every day, did express concern at storing waste anywhere near a Great Lake, as OPG is proposing for its facility.
“As the planet gets warmer, we know that water levels continue to rise,” Marchisella said.
“So when you look at the northern communities further up north, we’re higher up in altitude.”
To ease the pain of rejection, the waste organization said it would make up to $600,000 available to Blind River, Elliot Lake and Sagamok Anishnawbek First Nation, and another $300,000 for Spanish and the North Shore for community projects.
THE INVESTOR] The head of Korea Electric Power Corp. has offered to quit, the company said on Dec. 7, after it was selected as the preferred bidder in a project to build a nuclear power plant in Britain.
Cho Hwan-eik said he thought that by stepping down he can “pave the way” for the younger generation and he is pleased to “leave the company in good spirits,” as KEPCO is one step closer to winning a deal to build two nuclear reactors in Moorside, northwest England.
Cho is set to leave the company in a ceremony scheduled on Dec. 8.
The former vice minister of trade, industry and energy took KEPCO‘s top post in December 2012 and won a second term that was set to end on March 27. In South Korea, it is not unusual for a leader of a public company to step down before his or her term ends.
Cho’s announcement came soon after KEPCO said it was selected as the preferred bidder by Toshiba.
The Japanese industrial giant has a 100 percent stake in the NuGen consortium in charge of building the nuclear power plant in Britain.
In a world where we find ourselves on the verge of nuclear catastrophe its good to know that someone in China is taking things seriously and getting the important information to its citizens! But what’s with the ear fetish?? 🙂
Quickly get to a shelter, and if not possible, stay inside and close doors and windows!
Wear masks and protective clothing if going outside!
Take iodine tablets.
Scrub boots, using water for rubber boots.
Shake contaminated clothing, using force as you swing it down, and holding only by collars and openings. Then put it on a tree.
Thoroughly clean ears.
Clean all exposed areas thoroughly with soap.
If you’ve eaten contaminated food, you can induce vomiting, or use gastric lavage or diuretics to purge.
nuclear-news 