Japan – Class action law suit for the Children of the Atom bombs
A national association representing the rights of children of atomic bomb victims will initiate a class action lawsuit against the central government in February 2017, in which it will demand financial compensation.
The association — which made the announcement on Dec. 20 — has decided to commence the lawsuit on the grounds that the current absence of support measures for children of A-bomb victims is essentially illegal.
The case will take place in district courts in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This will be the first time for children of A-bomb victims to take legal action as a group.
The association consists of 19 groups across Japan, and the number of plaintiffs is predicted to reach approximately 50 — with people in regions such as Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Yamaguchi and Osaka expected to take part in the lawsuit.
Under the Atomic Bomb Survivors’ Assistance Act, A-bomb victims receive various kinds of support from the government, such as financial aid for medical costs. However, the children of the victims are exempt from this law on the grounds that there is insufficient scientific knowledge about the genetic effects of the A-bombs. Nevertheless, the government carries out annual health checkups for second-generation victims, in an attempt to address health concerns.
Long time anti war and anti nuclear stalwart Birgitta Jonsdottir wrote this today;
“There’s been growing support for Snowden in the States,” she says, “but for some reason, not by the administration, and particularly Obama. We don’t yet know what Trump’s position will be. But really, why not just guarantee him a fair trial? It’s not an unreasonable request. He’s not a war criminal, he’s a whistleblower. There’s no proof, even after all this time, that what he did put anyone in harm’s way. There was a very professional vetting of the documents that were published. And he completely transformed the public awareness of privacy—or the absolute lack of it.” Birgitta Jonsdottir Dec 2016
Pirate Party MP Meets Edward Snowden In Moscow
Published December 21, 2016
Birgitta Jónsdóttir has been back on Icelandic soil for less than twelve hours when we meet. During the previous three days, the Pirate Party MP, privacy activist and former Wikileaks volunteer quietly travelled to Moscow, where she took part in a documentary with Dr. Lawrence Lessig, and the world’s most famous whistleblower: Edward Snowden. The three were brought together by French journalist and documentarian Flore Vasseur, who has previously interviewed Birgitta and Lessig for the French media in her ongoing coverage of the current troubled state of democracy.
“I’m still processing the experience,” says the tired but upbeat Birgitta, flashing her trademark mischievous smile. “Lessig has been very busy trying to inspire the electoral college to act in the US. Then, there’s Edward Snowden. People get caught up in the soap opera around Snowden, but everything he does is driven by his belief in democratic process. So it was amazing to sit and brainstorm with these two guys, and ask: “What can we do?” Because we’re at a critical juncture in saving democracy right now.”
Mosquito drones
It was Birgitta’s first time in Russia, but as a former Wikileaks volunteer who helped bring the “Collateral Murder” film to the public, she’s long been a person of interest to the NSA, making for some nerve-wracking experiences of international travel.
“People get caught up in the soap opera around Snowden, but everything he does is driven by his belief in democratic process.”
“Beforehand, you don’t really know what’s going to happen,” she explains. “I don’t let myself get paranoid, but of course you have to be careful. People who are much more tech-savvy than me say that it’s possible for hard drives to be compromised coming through airport security. I use an iPhone and MacBook, which I shouldn’t if I want to be very careful. I use Signal, which I highly recommend. But of course, for real security, you should meet in person, and leave your phone behind.”
But even in-person meetings aren’t safe from being monitored. “There are now ‘mosquito drones’, similar to the size of a fly,” says Birgitta, “and listening devices can be directed at houses. The idea of privacy has been thrown away, as if it’s not a human right. Snowden helped to bring forward the idea that legislators are way too slow to protect citizens from these rapid advances in technology.”
Russian agents
After attaining a three-day visa, Birgitta entered Russia without incident, and was met at the airport by Lessig and the film crew. “I wasn’t worried about any trouble getting in,” she says. “I was more worried when I visited America. They didn’t have scanners and fingerprint technology in Moscow—they just stamped my passport. I was just careful to not make it public in advance, and I took some steps like leaving my laptop behind, and letting people know I’d only be communicating through secure email.”
The meeting took place in a central Moscow hotel. Organising it was a big operation. “There were lots and lots of FSB agents around the hotel,” says Birgitta, “and there were a lot of manoeuvres—the location was changed at the last minute, and there was a lot of security from the hotel side. The film crew were operating on a tight budget, and did amazing work.”
When Birgitta went in to meet Snowden “He was sitting doing a Rubik’s cube,” she says. “I sort of feel like I know him, because we’ve been communicating for a while. So when I finally met him, it was like meeting an old friend. It was a very good feeling. He seemed healthy and, you know—okay. That was the most important thing to witness. He was really calm and composed.”
Karl Grossman is a full professor of journalism at the State University of New York College at Old Westbury. For more than 45 years he has pioneered the combination of investigative reporting and environmental journalism in a variety of media. He is the host of the nationally aired television program Enviro Close-Up, the narrator and host of award-winning TV documentaries on environmental and energy issues, the author of six books and writer of numerous magazine, newspaper and Internet articles. Wiki page here
Proponents of medical radioisotopes, and the nuclear industry, continue to hide – through ignorance or malice – the fact that some so-called short-lived radioisotopes, such as Technetium 99m degrade to insanely long-lived radionuclides. Even many anti-nuclear activists fall into this trap. Technetium 99m becomes Technetium 99 which remains radioactive, and hence lethal, for over 3 million years!
Thus, there can be no legitimate justification for its use either in nuclear medicine or as discharges from nuclear reactors. Therefore, the US should emphatically not construct a facility for the production of this lethal crap, i.e. “Moly Cow”. And, they should cease to use and import it. Oppose here: “Construction Permit Application for the Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC, Medical Radioisotope Production Facility. A Notice by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on 11/09/2016 Comment against it before the 30th of December 2016. It’s easy and can be anonymous: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/11/09/2016-27058/construction-permit-application-for-the-northwest-medical-isotopes-llc-medical-radioisotope
“Technetium-99 (99Tc) is an isotope of technetium which decays with a half-life of 211,000 years to stable ruthenium-99, emitting beta particles[1], but no gamma rays. It is the most significant long-lived fission product of uranium fission, producing the largest fraction of the total long-lived radiation emissions of nuclear waste. Technetium-99 has a fission product yield of 6.0507% for thermal neutron fission of uranium-235. Technetium-99m (99mTc)is a short-lived (half-life about 6 hours) metastable nuclear isomer used in nuclear medicine, produced from molybdenum-99. It decays by isomeric transition to technetium-99,…” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technetium-99 ( Last accessed 27 Feb 2016, version 18 April 2015; Emphasis our own.)
Half-life chart. 15 times 211,000 is over 3 million years.
With increasingly sophisticated ultrasound, there is no good reason to continue to use these lethal radioisotopes: https://medlineplus.gov/ultrasound.htmlIn fact, even without ultrasound, there can be no true justification for medical tests which damage the environment for millions of years and thus causes more life-shortening illnesses in people and animals, long after the person is dead. Everyone is going to die.
And, contrary to popular opinion, people who didn’t die of infectious disease were living very old and healthy – into their 90s and 100s – prior to the usage of radioisotopes. In fact, there was much less cancer prior to the invention of x-rays, the radium craze, and the rise of the nuclear industry. Any increases in longevity have long been known to have to do with better nutrition, better hygiene – “Public Health”: i.e. Outhouses or septic tanks separated a certain distance from water wells in rural areas, plumbing in urban areas, garbage pick-up, zoning, reduction of crowding, hand washing and not spitting in public. It is important to understand the difference between arithmetic average (mean), which by including high infant mortality rates falses the average, and the median (half above, half below) or mode (most frequent), which would be more appropriate.
Beyond Nuclear’s Linda Pentz Gunter was a featured speaker at the recent Rachel Carson Jubilee and Civic Colloquium, hosted by the Rachel Carson Council. She joined Full Body Burden author, Kristen Iverson, and Council for a Livable World executive director, and former Congressman, John Tierney, on a panel about nuclear weapons and nuclear power. Watch their presentations here.
Video Published on 15 Dec 2016
Rachel Carson was opposed to nuclear weapons and testing and radioactive wastes as early as 1946 when she saw the results of biological studies done after two American atomic bomb blasts at Bikini Atoll. She campaigned for Adlai Stevenson and John F. Kennedy for President in part because of their opposition to open-air nuclear testing. Panelists present on the relevance of Carson’s anti-nuclear legacy for today.
Kristen Iversen, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of English and Comparative Literature, University of Cincinnati, author of Full Body Burden: Growing Up in the Nuclear Shadow of Rocky Flats
Linda Pentz Gunter
Co-founder, Beyond Nuclear, international expert on nuclear power
John Tierney, J.D.
Executive Director, the Council for a Livable World, former nine-term congressman from Massachusetts on House Oversight and Intelligence Committees.
Because of new information on the effects of low dose radiation concerning the genetic damage that has now come to light, a new campaign application has been made to the Radiological Depts. of the Environmental Protection Agency in Ireland, the UK and soon elsewhere in Europe.
If you wish to submit your own application for your organisation or for yourself personally, please check out the details of the applications that have been submitted already then please click on the template for the EU link at the bottom of the page pn the justification Campaign link below. the resources are free to use and distribute for this purpose.
HISTORY and ISSUES
“…Since the adoption of the Rome Treaty, the treaties have been regularly updated to meet the challenges of the day. EURATOM is unchanged since 1957. The situation could be somewhat improved if there was a coherent and up to date secondary legislation in the field of nuclear on the internal market. But there isn’t. In fact the situation is comparable to a city court basing its legal arguments on a day to day direct interpretation of the Constitution Indeed, here the interpretation depends on the Commission….”
Link to the Euratom Re-Justification Directive page with resources and explanation (Templates with instructions) for all European countries can be found here;
“…I think that the MOD is very concerned about his legal arguments against the ICRP dose model and the evidence he uncovered that shows the ICRP dose model was corrupted in 1973 when the control group from the Hiroshima study was replaced and caused the allowable dose limits to increase so that nuclear chemical process`s such as decommissioning and nuclear bomb manufacture could go ahead. It may also have implications to nuclear related medicine use etc. And of course it is not just the UK but the USA military that has much to lose….”
Statement of Fact by Shaun McGee aka arclight 3rd December 2016
I am writing this Statement of Fact partly because of the new UK Criminal Investigatory Bill that has been enacted in the UK.
The triggers for this statement are manifold but I wish to concentrate this statement on the situation concerning Dr Chris Busby because of recent attacks and doubts as to the veracity and honesty as to his character.
First to give some context I would like to go back to 2011 and the Fukushima nuclear disaster. I do this because a colleague @AAClearinghouse and I were discussing Dr Chris Busby via Twitter and I was asked to explain in greater detail the Wikileaks STRATFor files connection with Dr Busby.
In these released internal documents it was revealed that STRATfor internal security files were discussing the UK anti nuclear movement after the Fukushima nuclear disaster. In the email in question I found that they were worried about the strength of the UK anti nuclear movement and that they should keep a close eye on the activists involved with this movement. One could assume that this corporation was sharing information with the police and security services within the UK. I might also posit that some actions would result from this to defuse the reported strength of this movement and lessen the impact of anti nuclear activities.
Of course a posit is just a hypothesis and not a fact and so some evidence would need to be found to corroborate it.
So where is this evidence?
As a researcher and blogger to some of the bigger online anti nuclear platforms I had the benefit of an overview on this situation. Because of my overview and areas of research I drew the attention of the Police/security services sometime in 2011 and suspected that I was placed on a domestic extremist list. Over the following 2 years I had many incidents occur where eventually it got to the point that I had to leave the UK and go to my families home country of Ireland leaving behind my home, friends, family and work. This is just a summary of my situation.
After the revelations of Snowden and Assange it became clear to most that my experiences that I had documented over the years were less likely the ramblings of paranoia and more likely the truth. Adding this to the Wikileaks STRATFor email, in fact it was becoming clear that my experiences were part of a more comprehensive operation in the UK and actually beyond the UK also.
There were very high profile attacks on Dr Busby as well by George Monbiot and The guardian Newspaper (The same newspaper that was threatened by the UK Government with closure if it did not conform). The claims made by Mr Monbiot were rebuffed but the Guardian did not give Dr Busby a fair chance to rebuff this on their newspaper which left the wider public with the impression that he had not rebuffed Monbiots claims. And it did not stop there.
One of the ways I did research was to engage the many pro nuclear posters on the Guardian, Japan Times etc and it became clear fairly quickly that there was a co-ordinated social media campaign by highly specialised nuclear health technicians from both the UK and the USA (depending on the time zone and time of day). Indeed I even had personal correspondence with some of the more high profile ones and learnt a lot about nuclear energy and politics from them. The specialists also targeted journalists such as John Simpson who did a report on Depleted Uranium health effects in Fallujah but John Simpson was reported to have said in a later interview that even though these specialists had put alot of pressure on him trying to convince him that no such health effects could exist he reported it anyway, believing what he saw with his own eyes on the ground. George Monbiot may have had similar pressure put on him if he was not directly working for one of the myriad UK based security companies. In fact John Simpson said that that report was one of his finest achievements in his long and exemplary career.
The public attacks on Chris Busby are well documented over the past 5 years or so and have sidelined one of the greatest minds in the anti nuclear movement. Other great minds have been also targeted and the anti nuclear movement in the UK (Pre Corbyn) were unable to gather much more than a couple of hundred people for protests with no supporting media coverage to increase the damage done to the anti nuclear community.
So why did they target Dr Busby?
I think that the MOD is very concerned about his legal arguments against the ICRP dose model and the evidence he uncovered that shows the ICRP dose model was corrupted in 1973 when the control group from the Hiroshima study was replaced and caused the allowable dose limits to increase so that nuclear chemical process`s such as decommissioning and nuclear bomb manufacture could go ahead. It may also have implications to nuclear related medicine use etc. And of course it is not just the UK but the USA military that has much to lose
And how did they target Dr Busby?
I have listed some of that above but now i would like to make a personal statement concerning the short time I have spent with him and the experiences i have witnessed. My first interactions with Dr Busby began as a blogger after the Fukushima disaster. I noticed the attacks on Dr Busby and dug into the claims and heard his rebuff on the LLRC website. After assessing all the data I found Monbiots claim lacking veracity. I decided with a colleague called missmilkytheclown on YouTube to promote his videos. Quite quickly we released that sharing and promoting his videos were problematic. We had so many problems uploading his videos that it became quite clear to us that someone somewhere did not appreciate our efforts. We carried on and spent many hours on a project instead of minutes. Computer hacking , internet being switched off, email interception and as I explained many pro nuclear commenter’s connected to the specialist nuclear health group I wrote about earlier in this article (Google Roger Helbig as an example of such a specialist)
Also, I had a personal friend from this group that I helped transle articles from Japanese to English. I should mention that many Japanese who translated information into English were similarly targeted such as Tokyobrowntabby to name but one (based in Japan) and my co translator friend was also targeted in the UK using cyber attacks (deleting email accounts, blocking internet access and warned verbally by an ex MI5 employee to stop her research, which after many more cyber incidents she conceded to the request).
I might point out that during this time I was under heavy cyber attack with internet and mobile phone disconnections. When I was staying at Dr Busby`s home, after being made homeless by the Security Services I made the decision to leave the UK as my position there was untenable.
Dr Busby kindly offered to give me some money to aid my move and the he was waiting for some money to hit his account from the sale of part of his home (to pay his debts because of the drop in income due to the campaign against him). He had a little money left and he was going to give some of this to me because he could see the situation I was in. The money transfer was interrupted within the banking system (that was supposed to be secure I thought) and there is a Bank Manager and solicitor in Wales that witnessed this unique incident as did I). The money eventually reappeared after many queries were made.
I could go on, but for the sake of brevity i will finish with this brief statement of fact;
Earlier his year (2016) I went to help Dr Busby move from his home for a week whilst he was preparing for the British Nuclear Test Veterans case.
I witnessed the disruption of evidence that was destined for the High court (2 attempts at sending an email from different people were blocked and never reached the High Court) and at the same time my Irish mobile phone was disconnected at the UK end but was reconnected just before I returned to Ireland.
Other people that I suspect or know were targeted to some degree or other with were UK based independent nuclear experts working for NGO`s, Richard Bramhall (Of the Bradwell governmental steering committee who was still in talks on behalf of the group with DECC even though they had already released its final findings quietly on the UK government public website), NETPOL who was working on the Pitchford Inquiry here, Naomi Wolf (Author) on her Facebook account and Mari Takenouchi (email interfered with) Independent Japanese Journalist.
Written by Shaun McGee aka Arclight
“…..I would like to bring to the attention of the kind reader some issues that we often take for granted. The real industrial profit for the military industrial complex, working hand in glove with Wall Street and London, stems from the preparation for war: spending on research, development, manufacture, stretching costs, inflating them and extorting as much money as possible from the government and the American taxpayers. This is the basic guideline for American military spending doctrine. Do you think that Raytheon and Boeing would derive higher profits from a nuclear exchange with tens of millions of deaths? Unlikely, least of all because those who finance them (common citizens paying taxes) would themselves be reduced to ashes.
If a nuclear exchange is not convenient for anyone, and if MAD cannot be altered willy-nilly, then why does NATO continue to fan the flames, raising the scenario of thermonuclear conflict?
Three main reasons:
1. To intimidate Russia with the ridiculous hope that Moscow will step back from the global arena in which it has been playing the leading role in the last months and years.
2. The constant state of pre-alert as a harbinger of war for billion-dollar contracts for the US arms industry.
3. Placing troops and weapons in distant countries is a way to project power and at the same time make those nations feel important within the Atlantic alliance (with the added benefit that these governments will provide lucrative contracts for the US defense industry)
The second point is the essence of this analysis and continues in the wake of the previous questions. How does Moscow perceive NATO’s attitude, and what is a possible answer to this continuous aggression?
The answer for Russia is simple: tilt the table and take advantage from the deterioration of international relations. Sanctions are imposed? Implement countermeasures that, while painful, are necessary and in the long term will be positive and decisive. Import and export products looking towards the east. Encourage local production with reduced imports. And, especially, decrease the importing and exporting of goods using the US dollar.
A military doctrine does not differ much from the following basic principle: develop weapons and tactics to counter the existential dangers effectively. It is obvious that when Putin recently pointed out the danger that Romania will face, having decided to accept elements of the missile shield in their country, he was addressing the issue pointed out above in (a), which carries a lot of historical weight and significance.
There are of course two other issues to be addressed:
Many analysts note how the West has a really hard time understanding the Russian mindset in a scenario of existential crisis. They are not wrong to say so, but the conclusion they reach is excessive in my view, especially when they claim that a Russian preemptive strike on the European missile shield is possible in order to prevent (what seems to them) an inevitable US nuclear first strike.
The problem with this thesis is that according to the information at our disposal, there simply are not enough elements to this scenario to make it probable or even possible, especially in relation to a Russian preemptive strike. We observe Russia’s behavior in Libya, Ukraine and now Syria and are left in little doubt that Moscow’s involvement in international affairs has increased exponentially in recent years. But it is always carried out in a proportionate way, accompanied by unceasing diplomatic overtures to Europe and the United States. The carrot and stick always feature prominently in Putin’s global vision of the foreign affairs for the Russian Federation.
Realistically, Moscow is well aware that the military build-up on its borders is not a significant threat and nor is the missile shield. Does this mean that Moscow, or even Beijing, are happy to be surrounded by the Atlantic Alliance’s bases? Of course not. But this does not automatically mean that the time has come for a final showdown of nuclear Armageddon.
Major analysts of Russians think-tanks have reached the same conclusions as set out above, namely, nuclear war is not convenient for anybody, especially NATO. The negative effects of such a conflict would not be limited to Russia. We must remember that the best deterrent, along with MAD, is a nuclear arsenal that is intact, functional, and is ready and deadly. This is exactly the thinking that the Russians have employed over the last 10 years concerning their nuclear stockpile, thanks in large part to NATO’s aggressiveness.
In short, the beating of the war drums by the neo conservative and neoliberals in relation to Russia is only another way to increase military spending and fatten their own pockets……” More on link
“….Even though the lawyers knew or should have known that there was absolutely no chance of most of those cases succeeding…… they nevertheless took the small, developing state’s money to bring them. They didn’t use that money to hire real experts …… this looks like a case of exploitation of a small, developing country and its tragic history by a small group of lawyers for their own personal and professional gain. ….. I have to say that I am ultimately glad that the RMI’s cases against the U.K., India, and Pakistan were dismissed today. ….. my biggest fear about these cases was that they would in fact proceed to the merits and that the bad lawyering of the legal team would lead the court to adopt a judgment on the merits that provided a weak interpretation of the Article VI disarmament obligations …..” Dan Joyner 2016
Well, as I’ve been predicting for some time now, the ICJ has today dismissed the Marshall Islands’ cases against the United Kingdom, India and Pakistan. These were the only states left in the dock from the RMI’s initial announcement of cases against all nine nuclear weapons possessing states. Readers of this blog will know that I’ve been writing about these cases occasionally since their announcement in April 2014.
And particularly when, in March of 2016, we finally got a look at the written pleadings of both the RMI and the three remaining respondents in the ICJ cases for the jurisdictional phase of the proceedings, my concerns about the quality of the RMI’s legal team began to be borne out in earnest. You can read my thoughts on those written pleadings here and here.
So to be clear, what happened today is that the ICJ decided that in all three of the remaining cases – those against the U.K., India, and Pakistan – the court lacked jurisdiction to proceed to the merits of the case. In all three judgments the court found that the RMI had failed to establish that there was a legal dispute between the parties that gave rise to a case over which the court could exercise jurisdiction. In none of the three judgments announced today did the court actually proceed to consider the merits of the cases, i.e. the court did not consider or pass any judgment about the NPT law questions raised by the RMI’s complaints, focusing on NPT Article VI. Because each of the cases was dismissed purely on jurisdictional grounds, these cases tell us nothing about the correct legal interpretation or application of NPT Article VI.
Well, as I’ve been predicting for some time now, the ICJ has today dismissed the Marshall Islands’ cases against the United Kingdom, India and Pakistan. These were the only states left in the dock from the RMI’s initial announcement of cases against all nine nuclear weapons possessing states. Readers of this blog will know that I’ve been writing about these cases occasionally since their announcement in April 2014.
And particularly when, in March of 2016, we finally got a look at the written pleadings of both the RMI and the three remaining respondents in the ICJ cases for the jurisdictional phase of the proceedings, my concerns about the quality of the RMI’s legal team began to be borne out in earnest. You can read my thoughts on those written pleadings here and here.
So to be clear, what happened today is that the ICJ decided that in all three of the remaining cases – those against the U.K., India, and Pakistan – the court lacked jurisdiction to proceed to the merits of the case. In all three judgments the court found that the RMI had failed to establish that there was a legal dispute between the parties that gave rise to a case over which the court could exercise jurisdiction. In none of the three judgments announced today did the court actually proceed to consider the merits of the cases, i.e. the court did not consider or pass any judgment about the NPT law questions raised by the RMI’s complaints, focusing on NPT Article VI. Because each of the cases was dismissed purely on jurisdictional grounds, these cases tell us nothing about the correct legal interpretation or application of NPT Article VI.
I’m still reading through the various separate opinions lodged by individual judges, both concurring with and dissenting to the court’s judgments in the three cases. But I would like to go ahead offer a few points of commentary on the these cases generally and on their ultimate disposition, which we now know.
1. First, these cases, as well as the other six that were dismissed even earlier in the process, should never have been brought to the ICJ on a contentious basis. The RMI’s legal team should have known better. They should have known from the beginning that six of the nine cases filed would never see the inside of a courtroom because of an undisputed lack of jurisdiction in the ICJ to hear them. These cases included the ones against the U.S. and Russia, which are of course by far and away the countries that matter most when considering the issue of nuclear disarmament, and which are the best examples of parties to the NPT that have not acted in compliance with Article VI. So from the very beginning, the RMI team must have known, or at least should have, that they were not going to have their “day in court” with the states against whom the RMI should have been most interested in bringing these cases. This is particularly true of the U.S., whose March 1954 Bravo nuclear test at the Bikini Atoll was witnessed first hand by the country’s foreign minister, Tony de Brum – an experience which he has poignantly shared as a formative one in his desire to bring these cases. I hope that the lawyers who ended up representing the RMI told him early on that there was zero chance of his country’s suit against the U.S. even proceeding to trial. One wonders if that was made sufficiently clear to him.
So going down the contentious route meant that six of the nine original cases were dead on arrival for clear and undisputed jurisdictional reasons, leaving as a meaningful possibility only the cases against the U.K., India, and Pakistan, all of which had accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ. Knowing this as they must have done, or at least should have done if they were adequately counseled by their lawyers, one wonders what the RMI thought the point was of lodging the six D.O.A. cases? It makes me wonder if perhaps their legal counsel wasn’t as forthcoming as they should have been about the likelihood of success of those cases.
With regard to the three remaining respondents, while the U.K. is a party to the NPT, India and Pakistan are not, so from the very beginning the RMI’s legal team knew or should have known that trying to establish that these countries were in violation of the principles contained in NPT Article VI would require an additional uphill battle to convince the court that those principles had also passed into customary law. This is an argument that I happen to agree with, but that I know would take a good deal of convincing for the court. This is not to mention the various reservations which India and Pakistan both attached to their statement of accession to the ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction – reservations that would take a very high level of professionalism and legal expertise to counter. The same was true of the U.K. and its reservations to the ICJ’s jurisdiction. These jurisdictional hurdles made the success of even these three remaining cases unlikely from the beginning. Again, I hope the RMI was made aware of this.
At the time the RMI’s cases were filed I was certainly not opposed to the idea of going back to the ICJ to get a judgment specifically about NPT Article VI and the compliance of the NPT NWS therewith particularly. Far from it. But from as far back as my first book in 2009, I have argued that such a case should be brought on the basis of the court’s advisory jurisdiction, presenting the court with a much more clearly justiciable question than the one which led to its infamous 1996 advisory opinion. Were I to have been asked early on to advise the RMI, I would have advised them against going down the contentious jurisdiction route in these cases, and would have advised them rather to work within the U.N. General Assembly to fashion the right question on Article VI to send to the court for its advisory jurisdiction. This would have removed all of the jurisdictional hurdles that ultimately were the doom of its contentious cases, and would have allowed the court to give its opinion on the merits of the case with regard to all of the nine nuclear weapons possessing states, including the U.S.
And just for the sake of full disclosure, I was never approached by the RMI or by their legal team for my advice or participation in the cases. I was completely blindsided by the announcement of the cases in April 2014. I subsequently did, however, reach out to Phon van den Biessen who was acting as agent for the RMI, and offered to advise the RMI on a pro bono basis as the cases progressed from that point. However, my offer was summarily declined. To this day I still don’t know why my assistance was declined, when on an objective basis I have written more on the interpretation of the NPT than any of the lawyers involved, and have taken positions in those writings sympathetic to the substantive arguments the RMI wanted to make in these cases. My only sense is that I was not in the little clique of friends that had decided to convince the RMI to bring these cases, and who now wanted to handle all of the legal arguments themselves. I guess we now know how that turned out.
2. This brings me to my next point of commentary. As you can read in my previous blog posts on these cases, my review of the written work of the RMI’s lawyers, both in their case against the U.S. in federal court and in the cases before the ICJ, produced the conclusion that the clique of friends was simply not professionally up to the task of making the required legal arguments at the level of quality that was necessary in the uphill procedural and substantive battle that they had chosen to fight by themselves. Others can view the documents and make up their own minds, but in my opinion the lawyering by the RMI’s legal team in these cases was of poor quality. Just looking, as I did in one of my posts, at the juxtaposition between the RMI’s brief and the U.K.’s brief on the issues of jurisdiction, it’s easy to see the difference in the quality of lawyering between the sides.
I think the fact that the RMI cases were ultimately dismissed because the RMI’s lawyers failed to establish the most basic, necessary legal fact – i.e. the existence of a dispute between the parties – is evidence supporting my conclusion about the quality of their work. Having decided to go down the contentious case route, how hard would it have been to counsel the RMI to take some time, prior to the filing of the cases, to clearly and directly communicate the existence of a dispute to the three respondents, and then engage in attempts to resolve the dispute directly with the respondents for a reasonable time before filing, so that once the cases had been filed the knowledge of the dispute could not be denied by the respondents? Pretty basic stuff.
3. I am not privy to the communications or the details of the relationship between the RMI and its legal team. So all I can say is what the narrative of these cases appears to me to be from the outside, and I give the following as my opinion and not as a statement of fact. What the overall narrative of these cases suggests to me is that a small group of NGO-based lawyers who are passionate about nuclear disarmament law convinced a small, developing country to leverage its tragic history with nuclear weapons testing in order to bring cases against nine states, in addition to a case in the domestic courts of one of those states, so that this small group of lawyers and a few of their close friends could live out their dream of standing in front of the ICJ making legal arguments against the evil nuclear weapons possessing states. Even though the lawyers knew or should have known that there was absolutely no chance of most of those cases succeeding, and only a slim chance of a few of those cases succeeding, they nevertheless took the small, developing state’s money to bring them. They didn’t use that money to hire real experts in both procedure and substance of the issues that they would be arguing. Instead, they decided they could handle all the issues all by themselves. I have no idea what they told their client about the likelihood of success of these various cases, or whether they built themselves up as being more capable lawyers than they actually were. But just from what I can see from the outside, this looks like a case of exploitation of a small, developing country and its tragic history by a small group of lawyers for their own personal and professional gain.
4. I have to say that I am ultimately glad that the RMI’s cases against the U.K., India, and Pakistan were dismissed today. From the moment I began to be concerned about the quality of the RMI’s legal team, my biggest fear about these cases was that they would in fact proceed to the merits and that the bad lawyering of the legal team would lead the court to adopt a judgment on the merits that provided a weak interpretation of the Article VI disarmament obligations. This would have been a real blow to the ongoing diplomatic effort to force the nuclear weapon states to take their Article VI obligation seriously. This effort has now been added to by the humanitarian initiative, but Article VI is of course still important as the only multilateral treaty obligation in existence relative to nuclear disarmament. So I am glad that we have avoided that result with today’s rulings.
Censored! This article is generally off topic for this blog but this article and nuclear-news.net post have been blocked from Google Search in Europe (and possibly further afield). Ireland based blogs and nuclear-news.net based in Australia are affected as far as I can ascertain. Also, Shannonwatch.org (An Irish peace group) have tried to get out a press release stating problems they are having in the Limerick area and this too has been banned! Could you share directly to any Irish people you know these banned articles.
Sellafield are having a meeting with Irish Stakeholders who have doubts as to the safety and transparency of the UK nuclear industry. This meeting is in the next week or so and it is vital that people are aware of alleged criminality to Parliament by Sellafield representatives. Many thanks for your support –
Evidence for the blocking and hacking over a few days can be found here;
Irish Security Services leak truths to the UK Press.
A recent article by The Sunday Times UK edition stated that the Irish Security Services (Likely the Irish Defense Force) have claimed that Gardai (Police ) in Athlone had been facilitating the distribution of heroin to local towns.
Due to Irish Laws the name of the whistle-blower has not been reported in Ireland but was on the Sunday Times UK edition on Sunday the 2nd of October 2016.
Why are the Irish “Security Services” leaking this fact to the UK Press? So, as to allow Irish readers the option of reading this article we will not name the brave whistle-blower who leaked the criminality in 2014 but it can be found on the Sunday Times article link ..
This is what the “Security Services were quoted as saying in the article;
“…Security sources say collusion between gardai and heroin dealers in the midlands town has been a significant factor in the area’s worsening drugs problem. The region has a growing population of heroin users and the town is now considered to be a pivotal point in the distribution of opiates to addicts in Longford, Westmeath, Offaly and Laois…..”
Earlier in the article the Times quotes also the “Security Sources” thus;
“…..According to security sources, the internal inquiry concluded that one Garda was in a relationship with a female heroin dealer in the town, which resulted in him compromising planned searches and raids. One witness told investigators he was present when this Garda alerted local criminals to a planned Gardai search the following day, ensuring they had time to dispose of incriminating evidence, including mobile phones. The witness refused to make a statement under caution or agree to testify, however…..”
It might be noted that a government report said that in 2014 the Irish Defense Force did not apply for any orders for surveillance on criminals. We here at Euroupeannewsweekly have been asking the question;
Who is doing surveillance now in Ireland? In 2014 a Gardai and Security Services operation against a dissident IRA group ended with a successful arrest of the whole group at a remote farmhouse, to name but one crime that was widely reported and would have required constant surveillance tactics.
Is there a connection between the ending of the use of the Security Services (or end any of transparency in Government reports) and the evidence that they were holding for the investigation?
We can not claim these last points to be fact, they are only questions posed because of the Irish Security Services leak to the UK. We can present the basic facts to you and let you make up your own minds though.
So what is at stake here? We know for a fact that the Irish Security Services are not happy and have released this information to the nearly 10 million Irish Diaspora in the UK but no publication has reported any of this in Ireland. Yet it is important for the real victims of this criminality that these facts become known and that some in the Government are not happy with this current situation. The security services were tapping all the phones and know all the connections of these criminal gangs and their enablers.
Here is a statement from a local ex Heroin user from Longford on the desperate situation that exists in this region and what funding opportunities for the proven victims of this criminality;
“We are part of the transition generation [for climate changes]”
In an meeting held by Friends of the Earth Ireland Cara Augustenborg began by bringing up the issue of cost.
Will the costs ignoring climate change be worse than engaging with it?
The costs the last few years to the Irish exchequer was 500 million Euro lost because of delayed Spring Fodder crisis in 2013 and over last two years wettest winters with 150 million Euro`s in Flood defenses. Cara also said in her TED talk last year that lives could become more comfortable, warmer homes, lower energy bills, cleaner air, quieter streets, more connected communities and more innovation creating more jobs.
Focusing on homes and energy.
The Energy White Paper has hopes for 100 percent renewable by 2050
The deadline for new standards in all homes concerning the energy economy is 2021.
Future developments will have nearly 20 percent approx on the bills that we see today in comparable older homes. A new build efficient energy estate in Ireland has been built and has confirmed these savings.
Electric vehicles are a major hope but Ireland has some of the highest sales for diesel in Europe.
The bus system needs to be improved and waste/seaweed fuel options are being looked at. There is so far a lack of political will but she has hopes for the future by asking questions and building awareness.
Communities and High Streets would benefit by having the combustion engine removed and centralisation back to the high streets supporting the local community better.
The food sector
Reduction of absolute emission is necessary and Agriculture needs to adapt accordingly.
Farmers have reported problems with fields being flooded beyond use. She recommends that flood defenses could be done upstream utilising these farmlands whilst reimbursing the farmers to build natural flood defenses. Dairy Farming will also needs to adapt. Jobs benefits?
Ireland currently imports 70 percent of fossil fuels. Saving this expense and creating new localised industry will create some 100,000 new jobs in the new energy economy alone. Also, 150 buses can be run using the waste from just the Irish whiskey industry. Waste from bottles and cups being recycled creates industry and again more jobs.
Cara did note that Ireland needs a refined waste system that does not include incineration (that works diametrically against the targets in the white paper).
Ireland is already missing out on this lucrative industry and Cara gave an example of a company that recently moved to the UK because the support from government is better in the UK than in Ireland (biomass).
Feed in tariffs, Government support or Waiting for Godot?
Feed in Tariffs are not available for communities and individuals that wish to invest in Wind Solar and biomass. She pointed out the need for greater engagement with civil society and that local communities stand to benefit greatly.
On the 1 sept last year, head of the Irish Government, Enda Kenny said that he would support the UN sustainability Summit resolution. Yet as 62,000 people a day are being made homeless directly by climate change (As an example 500,000 people have been relocated from only Bangladesh because of the flooding and ruined farmlands.), Ireland is one of only two countries in Europe that will fail its targets by by a staggering 70 percent. For the next two years there is no incentive to lower fossil fuel use, in fact, Cara said that it is an incentive to up the total national use and make the agreement in two years less painful.
“This is a clarifying moment for Ireland” She said
There is no evidence that the government wants to make any changes. Countering forces to the status quo, in the renewable energy side, can be found in business and local communities but not the government or media.
Friends of the Earth, 9 Upper Mount Street, Dublin 2, Ireland • 353 1 6394652 • info@foe.ie • www.foe.ie
This year, special chapters on Chernobyl and Fukushima confirm that nuclear accidents bear not only significant human and environmental but also economic risks. These, however, are risks the nuclear industry has been sheltered from by political decisions limiting their liability.
The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2016 (HTML)
Foreword
by Tomas Kåberger [1]
The World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR) is the best compilation of data, trends and facts about the nuclear industry available. This is all the more impressive considering the competition from resource-rich commercial or intergovernmental institutions. It is free from the political constraints, e. g. those leading the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to the false claim there are more than 40 reactors operating in Japan. Nor does it suffer from the anti-nuclear exaggerations or pro-nuclear enthusiasm so often tainting descriptions of this industry’s status.
This year, special chapters on Chernobyl and Fukushima confirm that nuclear accidents bear not only significant human and environmental but also economic risks. These, however, are risks the nuclear industry has been sheltered from by political decisions limiting their liability.
The WNISR this year is more about a risk the industry will not easily be protected from: The economic and financial risks from nuclear power being irreversibly out-competed by renewable power.
The year 2015 seems to be the best year for the nuclear industry in the last quarter of a century. A record 10 new reactors with a total capacity of over 9 GW were put into operation. This was less than new solar and less than wind capacity, which increased five and six times as much respectively. In actual electricity produced, nuclear increased by 31 TWh, while fossil fuels based electricity generation decreased. The main reason why fossil fuels decreased was the expansion in renewable power generation, an increase of more than 250 TWh compared to 2014, seven times more than the modest nuclear increase.
The development of installations and generation is a result of renewable energy cost reductions. As we may also read in this report, nuclear construction is not only costly, it is often more costly, and requires more time, than envisioned when investment decisions were taken. Solar and wind, on the other hand, have come down in price to an extent that new wind and solar are often providing new generation that is clearly cheaper than new nuclear power.
Even more challenging to the nuclear industry is the way renewables are bringing down electricity prices in mature industrial countries to the extent that an increasing number of reactors operate with economic losses despite producing electricity as planned.
But a foreword is not meant to be another summary. My appreciation of the report is already clearly stated. Let me use the final paragraphs on what implications may follow from the facts laid out in this report:
First: A nuclear industry under economic stress may become an even more dangerous industry. Owners do what they can to reduce operating costs to avoid making economic loss. Reduce staff, reduce maintenance, and reduce any monitoring and inspection that may be avoided. While a stated ambition of “safety first” and demands of safety authorities will be heard, the conflict is always there and reduced margins of safety may prove to be mistakes.
Secondly: The economic losses of nuclear come as fossil fuel based electricity generation is also suffering under climate protection policies and competition from less costly renewable power. The incumbent power companies are often loosing net cash-flow as well as asset values. As a result, many power companies are downgraded by credit-rating agencies and their very existence threatened. Electric power companies’ ability to actually manage the back-end cost of the nuclear industry is increasingly uncertain. As the estimates of these costs become more important, and receive attention they tend to grow.
Reading the WNISR2016, a premonition appears of what may lay ahead of this industry and the 31 governments hosting it.
Let us hope WNISR will help many people understand the situation and contribute to responsible regulation and management of the industry in the critical period ahead of us.
The nuclear industry supported press, in rebuffing the BBC Panorama teams claims of safety issues and lies to Parliament, we see some counters to the safety concerns but no response to the well documented evidence of the head of the Sellafield consortium lying to the Parliamentary committee and covering up the grave incident of plutonium release (and its cost) in November 2014.
Tony Price lies to Parliament (from Panorama Documentary)
The Spokesperson for Sellafield can be seen on the video acting a bit surprised at the questioning and revelations the Panorama reporter revealed. He just denied that any “spin” (ie.. lies) were said during the Parliamentary committee and that is the last word we have on this explosive revelation of criminality from the nuclear industry.
It is most surprising that the BBC News office did not pick this up as we see on the BBC web site they are fully aware of the issue of contempt of parliamentary procedure;
“….Examples of contempt include giving false evidence to a parliamentary committee, ….The Commons has the power to order anyone who has committed a contempt of Parliament to appear at the Bar of the House and to punish the offender…..” 2008 BBC
Since that report was uncovered, the nuclear industry and their PR and government connections have swayed the public and eased their fears. The BBC and Science Media Centre (SMC UK) (Also called Sense About Science) was crucial to doing this and at the same time minimising the environmental and health impacts of the 2011 Fukushima disaster that had caused a huge drop in investor interest in nuclear projects.
So in the last 5 years the BBC has produced many supportive documentaries and educational materials favouring nuclear energy (Since the SMC UK started to receive large corporate funding) . In fact at the end of last year, the BBC science department was involved with promoting Sellafield and largely ignoring the many problems that existed there.
That was followed up by the BBC Science teams involvement in a shocking display of bad science during the commemorations of the 2011 disaster in 2016 March this year. Even though there was outrage in the scientific community at the Fukushima video, it was some months before the BBC quietly took down the video. Thereby, much of the public that saw the biased Fukushima video were unaware of the wrong and dangerous information that was given. Then just a couple of months ago a high profile visit to Sellafield by dignitaries was to underline the improvements and give Sellafield the all clear. Still other experts tried to combat the BBC and SMC UK PR management of all media regarding nuclear;
“The Ecologist, 12th August 2015 Dr David Lowry
Professor ‘Jim’ Al’Khalili’s ‘Inside Sellafield’ programme was a tour de force of pro-nuclear propaganda, writes David Lowry – understating the severity of accidents, concealing the role of the UK’s nuclear power stations in breeding military plutonium, and giving false reassurance over the unsolved problems of high level nuclear waste…”
The main thing for the BBC, government and nuclear industry was that the nuclear industry was still being perceived as above board and transparent. We saw a similar maneuver after the release of the Panorama Documentary on its You Tube site (Under BBC management orders?). The video was removed after just a few hours of being uploaded and after the link had been shared to an international social media audience. The video was put back up sometime later but after the interest had passed.
Although the media has largely ignored this story many experts have been commenting on the situation in Sellafield and there is a lot of well sourced data that bears the whistleblowers observations and claims (See source links below) . But it is the criminal manipulation of politicians during the Parliamentary committee process that demands our immediate attention. It undermines our Democracy.
Whilst discussing the issue of coverage, by the BBC, of the nuclear industry (with the exception of the excellent undercover investigative abilities of the BBC Panorama team) , I asked an experienced Science Media journalist and Author on how he viewed the BBC`s general coverage of nuclear matters over recent years and he had this to say;
“The BBC is guilty of a journalistic disgrace.” Karl Grossman, Professor of Journalism, State University of New York/College at Old Westbury, USA. [11th September 2016]
Meanwhile in the UK Paul Dorfman (Energy analyst spokesman for main stream UK media) said to me;
”Recent events reveal the ongoing national disgrace that is Sellafield, including the truly appalling state of the historic spent fuel ponds’….”
And Paul Dorfman was able to qualify his point through the excellent investigative work of the Panorama team. [11th September 2016]
In France an Energy systems engineer, well versed in La Hague (The French equivalent to Sellafield) and its impacts said this in response to a discussion on the Panorama revelations;
“….those plants, Sellafield and La Hague, would exterminate the whole world population in under 40 years, because there are tons of plutonium in Sellafield and tons in La Hague adding thousand times more that necessary to exterminate all animals through the world. The biggest aberration of history, the timing bomb for the global extinction, a potential aschimothusia .[“sacrifices” committed by force of a state ] …” Xavier Nast 11 September 2016
Marianne Birkby confirmed to me the ongoing “legacy” of dangerous safety practices at Sellafield;
“…The state of the Sellafield ponds is described by the BBC as an “historic legacy” but the “legacy” is ongoing with every reactor that continues to burn nuclear fuel whose waste is sent to Sellafield for reprocessing. . The now infamous photographs of the shocking state of the Sellafield ponds that were given to Radiation Free Lakeland by a brave whistleblower are not “historic.” Those shocking photographs are a graphic illustration of the continuing madness of nuclear power….” Marianne Birkby, Founder of Radiation Free Lakeland 11 September 2016
Sources for this article (Not already linked above)
Critical scientific analysis of the BBC Science departments dangerous and insulting attempts of reporting on Fukushima (And the reason that the BBC had to take down the video, some months later. The comments on this video are enlightening and you can see both pro nuclear and anti nuclear people actually agreeing and making known their complaints to the BBC) – March 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrgdAA5oiIA
Note from writer; There are many other articles out there that show the BBC defending Geraldine Thomas (BBC Expert) after the complaints came in and rebuffs for that on fissionline magazine and this was also added pressure that forced the BBC to take the Fukushima video down.. The whole story of BBC bias in Energy matters is too vast to cover here but I leave you with the above Key words and links (for the researcher) . The truth will out!! – Shaun McGee
Highly radioactive waste, dangerous for as long as 200,000 years, has to be isolated and guarded in every country that has dabbled in nuclear energy. Cartoon credit: www.sanonofresafety.org/nuclear-waste/
Japan is a place where not two, not three, but four plates meet with no geographical stability. Volcanoes are erupting all the time, new islands pop up in the sea and there are daily earthquakes. Forty thousand years ago, the coast line was totally different and nuclear waste storage is supposed to be safe there?
The issue of transparency
there seems to be a lack of information on the Japanese plans to bury their nuclear High Level waste. Very little has been discussed on this latest OECD report from May, However, on the JAIF website it has been given a brief mention in a very recent report from JAIF (10 August, 2016)
It would appear that the Japanese Government is trying to play down the adverse comments from the OECD/NEA report from May 2016. Awkwardly enough, The NUMO report came out in March 2016 and seemed to rely on earlier findings in an older OECD/NEA report.
Well, moving on, The main issue found was with the definition and clarity of the Japanese experts terminology in making points within the report. This issue was brought up in the earlier OECD/NEA report and the March 2016 NUMO report had it had tackled the problem. This was not true as the May 2016 OECD/NEA report still mentions issues of clarity in definition.
The issue of democracy
Another issue includes allowing the public to have a say (in the NUMO, JAIF and the OECD/NEA reports) whilst at the same time, denying the public choice and instead allowing scientists to make the decisions to choose a suitable site for the geological repository. The option to self determination of local communities is being sidelined because the most of the Prefectures have resoundingly declared that they do not want to have a nuclear waste dump near their homes. But that hasnt stopped NUMO;
Nestled some 500 meters underground are Japans existing deep Underground research Laboratories;
Mizunami Underground Research Laboratory Granite opened in 2004- Run by Jaea JAEA
Horonobe Underground Research Center opened in 2005- Run by JAEA
It might be worth noting that these two deep research labs will be initially used for research and then later will be kept open because they can do things in the underground research laboratories that they will not be able to do in the final disposal facilities. So will there be an ongoing hidden cost (to the tax payer) when the repositories are being priced for costs, perhaps?
Compared to this years measly 50 page report on Geological nuclear waste disposal in Japan written by the OECD/NEA, we can compare it with this years Swedish report (Some 170 pages long) for the same thing;
“In other words, the reactor company itself does not have the long-term capability to fulfil the obligations defined by the Nuclear Activities Act regarding safe decommissioning and dismantling of the facilities and management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste” http://www.karnavfallsradet.se/sites/default/files/sou_2016_16_eng_webb.pdf
It is worth noting, that unlike the lengthy and inclusive Swedish report, that there are many areas that have seemingly not been addressed in the latest OECD/NEA report and we shall have to wait for JAIF to make public the full report in the near or distant future. So far as this article is showing that even the limited remit of the OECD/NEA report is showing signs of cracks appearing in the plan.
The issue of spontaneous volcano creation and Magma intrusion
Japan had to act after the Fukushima Prefecture suffered the nuclear catastrophe. The worlds best minds were brought to bare on this disaster and a newly formed Nuclear Regulation Association (NRA) was born. However, the only expert on geology was soon ejected from the committee because of differences in opinion. He was not replaced by another Geologist as it as found that Geologists did not know enough about Nuclear Physics. Then the worry of Pyroplastic flows blew away and Japan was able to restart a couple of reactors (but both have since been re-shut down ).
Hidden deep in the OECD/NEA report though, is this slightly worrying sentence;
“The Interim Summary acknowledges that the current understanding of magmatic processes indicates that future volcanic hazards to a repository may be present even in areas with no known Quaternary eruptive centres “
Meaning that Magma could move through previously safe areas. Surely, like Japans Tsunamis, however rare, this should be taken into account? As an example we can see the arrogance of Japans Nuclear Regulatory Association (NRA) in relation to volcanic threats as seen here;
“The NRA ruled out a major eruption over the next 30 years until the reactors reach the end of their usable life span. The surprise eruption of Mount Ontake on the border of Gifu and Nagano prefectures on Sept. 27 has renewed concerns about the volcanoes in the region. “It is simply impossible to predict an eruption over the next 30 to 40 years,” Fujii said. “The level of predictability is extremely limited.” https://nuclear-news.net/2014/10/19/sendai-reactors-vulnerable-to-eruptions-state-picked-volcanologist-warns/
And apart from the nuclear lobby and groups getting the science wrong we see basic data not being added to the report and we can only wait to see if this issue is addressed in any later JAIF reports.
“ It would be informative to provide more explanation of the data uncertainty regarding the geothermal gradients, given that relevant maps appear to be available for Japan, such as the cited Geothermal Gradient and Heat Flow Datareport (AIST, 2004). This would help explain the lack of a prescribed value to assess the thermal “areas to be avoided”.”
The issue of practicality
The definitions are important and will lay down the exact routes that need to be decided. And after Fukushima we would think that the “best” sites would be the safest sites but this is not exactly the case.
“The intent to select a site that meets Japan’s current safety standards, but not necessarily selecting the “most suitable (best) site”, is considered practical and consistent with international best practices and recommendations.”
Cost before Safety perhaps? Or are there any “best” sites in Japan?
The issue of belief in the atom
In the OECD/NEA report it talks of the need for long term protection of the deep vault by generations of specialists that could look after the vault and stop human intrusion and deal with any pollution threats. The best comparison is from Planet of the Apes that showed people worshipping a nuclear bomb many generations after a nuclear war.
It might be worth noting that because of a shortage of nuclear engineers that it would be very difficult to maintain a work force in a fixed location for some 200,00 years. However, the reports generally talk about the vague term “Mid-term” storage (maybe some hundreds/thousands of years?) concerning the expected time needed for manning the location. Without a doubt there are huge fences to hurdle in how Japan deals with its High level nuclear waste and of course the so called “lesser” contaminated waste as well, but, well… thats a whole other story.
The First male Daichi nuclear site worker had an official total dose of 50mSv.
“I suffered damages to kidneys, heart, etc. — all important organs in my body.”
The second male Daichi nuclear site worker had an official total dose of 56mSv. He said
“I went to such a severe accident site and worked at the risk of my life, but all I’ve got was this cruel reality and treatment!”
I suffered thyroid damage, and had all my stomach removed.
The third male Daichi nuclear site worker had an official total dose of just 19.2mSv.
He was diagnosed as having acute myelogenous leukemia.
My doctor said that “70% of the cells in your bone marrow were occupied by cancer. Without any treatment, you will die for sure.”
I am Sharing information from a TV Program from the Yomiuri which looked at the issue of Health Hazards of Radioactivity from Mr. Kitagawa because it was so amazing. The contents of which, so far , have been shared widely on the internet. Alot of Government funded Scientists criticised the conclusions of it but the opposite is of this criticism are also being claimed. A program ends by the words to which Mr. Nishio says “It’s just plain murder.” – Saeko Uno
《速報》NNN(日テレ)が、王道に切り込む。
日テレ（ヨミウリ系）が、驚異のどんでん返し。
The following are the shared comments of Mr Kitagawa..
The NNN (Nippon Television Network) presses the government for honest answers.
The Nippon Television Network (YOMIURI http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/ ) show was an unexpected surprise.
Within the documentary were testimonies of 3 Labour force workers from the Fukushima Daichi Power Plant workers and some collected data concerning the supposed “safe” Low Dose allowable personal exposure limits of 10 to 50 mSv.
The health Hazards of these Low Dose limits were not negligible. The The Yomiuri team saw the reality when they asked the workers questions and they became concerned
In the documentary the three workers can be seen talking about their experiences and giving their official Doses
The First male Daichi nuclear site worker had an official total dose of 50mSv. He said; “I suffered damages to kidneys, heart, etc. — all important organs in my body.”
The second male Daichi nuclear site worker had an official total dose of 56mSv. He said “I went to such a severe accident site and worked at the risk of my life, but all I’ve got was this cruel reality and treatment!” “I suffered thyroid damage, and had all my stomach removed.”
The third male Daichi nuclear site worker had an official total dose of just 19.2mSv.
He was diagnosed as having acute myelogenous leukemia. He said “My doctor said that “70% of the cells in your bone marrow were occupied by cancer. Without any treatment, you will die for sure.”
Before the United States admitted it`s health hazard responsibility because of the human testing from the nuclear bombs were some 40 years.
Before thyroid cancer damage of Chernobyl children got fully admitted was some 20 years.
I checked the Yomiuri report carefully and it contradicts the official position on radiation and health within the first minutes of the show. There is a health hazard and the 3 above mentioned nuclear clean up workers are now taking actions based on advice from the doctors health checks,
A broadcast was at midnight, but 2 other rebroadcast are here.
Broadcast March 14 Monday 0:55-1:50 of date and time ()
* Rebroadcast:
March 20 Sunday 11:00- BS Nippon Television Network
March 20 Sunday 5:00-/24:00- CS “Nippon Television Network NEWS24”
And of course you can see the documentary (In Japanese) here immediately.
THE Radioactivity. (documentary just shown on NNN, Japanese only)) http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3xkpox
おおよそ７万人の作業員が、このリスクに晒されている。
これは、あらゆるテレビ放映の中で、
最も強烈なものだ。
１００mSv以下は安全など、瞬時に吹っ飛ぶ。
それほど、福島の原発作業員の供述、生の声は強烈だ。
ともあれ、他のキー局が決して出さなかった、
小出 裕章氏、
西尾 正道氏、
津田 俊秀氏、
このスリートップを、堂々と出し、語らせている。
津田氏も、「子供の甲状腺癌」＝放射能影響の指標
であることを、はっきりと言っている。
このことを、はっきりと言った人を、初めて聞いた。
Approximately 70,000 workers are exposed to this risk.
This has been televised.
This challenges the official statements that radiation doses below 100mSv are insignificant.
The Testimonies of the Fukushima’s nuclear power plant workers and voices are very powerful.
And no other Major media stations took up the full story.
I’m talking out about these three top experts openly and squarely and am allowing their voices and findings to get out to the public. Mr. Hiroaki Koide. Mr. Masamichi Nishio, Mr. Toshihide Tsuda.
The fact that Mr. Tsuda`s “child’s thyroid cancer ” report shows that radioactivity influence is a causation (of radiation exposure)
It’s being talked about and it is clearly true.
The people who said these things were being heard heard for the first time on national television.
(They say at the present probability is low and that don’t occur frequently they ignore their own common sense that is known around the world.)
It’s usually say;
“The only non- stochastically (not using formula to find a problem) leading indicator is the one that the IAEA admits too” (Thyroid cancer).
Which means;
Of all health problems, there is the only the “leading indicator”.
“Leading indicator”.
Since putting it in the Japanese broadcasting circles, will it remain the leading indicator? The fact that Nippon Television Network (Yomiuri) does such a broadcast (but not the Asashi National Broadcasting, than TBS and NHK) shows that the obvious truth is actually stunning.
It is surprising that Mr. Hiroaki Koide appeared on Nippon Television Network.
Mr. Koide out of whom Asahi National Broadcasting and TBS will not allow him on air and NHK of course.
Nippon Television Network used to not allow Mr. Nishio and Mr. Tsuda either but they are in the documentary (Astounding).
This Translation is not completely accurate and some small parts are likely not an exact translation but the comments from the Nuclear clean up workers from the Fukushima Daichi plant have been carefully translated as it was important to show the illness and dose levels that were reported on the documentary and I thanks Saeko Uno for her time and effort making sure that that part is correct and detailed. I also want to thank Satsuki Goto for heads up and also Mr Kitagawa San for his comments describing the issues and summary concerning the Documentary. – Shaun McGee
Some other links here to some recent push back from the western community concerning the official nuclear position of “no health effects”
BBC Wrong on Fukushima, Again – GoddardsJournal
Stunning breakdown of the nuclear industry lying and ignoring even their own best practice (the comments section and description under this You Tube Channel page is most informative)
It’s not just cancer! Radiation, genomic instability and heritable genetic damage
Chris Busby – 17th March 2016 Cancer is just one of of the outcomes of the genetic damage inflicted by nuclear radiation, writes Chris Busby, and perhaps one of the least important. Of far greater long term significance is the broad-scale mutation of the human genome, and those of other species, and the resulting genomic instability that causes cascades of heritable mutations through the generations. [ 2065 more words. ]
Life after Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear disasters with Prof. T. Mousseau
Discussing the lack of funding being given by this multi billion dollar industry and the actual health effects and environmental effects that have been found and peer reviewed
Image source
Image source; 
nuclear-news 