nuclear-news

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

Some Types of Pollution Are More Equal than Others

There is a BIG taboo around Radioactive Pollution. We published a report last June into acid mine pollution alongside radioactive pollution in Whitehaven Harbour – so far ignored by mainstream media.

Marianne Birkby, Oct 20, 2024,  https://radiationfreelakeland.substack.com/p/some-types-of-pollution-are-more?fbclid=IwY2xjawHh0f1leHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHUnO_Vn81d2vI8K3TJv2FDpKMvMeozmDbga7z5mLwKNgZSE_7FT9wPa0pA_aem_5S_Vz4KQ2AgvtszsvnQJeQ

Whitehaven Mine Pollution

The Westmorland Gazette and other local press have today published a feel good article about beach cleans in Cumbria. So far so good but the beaches contain far more insidious and long lived pollution than plastic, in the form of radioactive wastes from decades of Sellafield’s operations.

In Whitehaven Harbour these radioactive wastes are literally magnified by the presence of the ongoing acid mine pollution pouring into the harbour. Instead of addressing this ongoing pollution event the local MP Josh MacAlister is greenwashing the ongoing devastation by bigging up Whitehaven as the West Coast Riviera and fizzingly pushing for a ferry service while boats are understandably leaving because of the visible acid mine pollution.

Less visible is the “historic” radioactive pollution still pouring out of Sellafield with more radioactive waste arriving almost daily.

………………………………….Dear Marine Conservation Society,

Thank you for highlighting pollution threats to our oceans.

We are a nuclear safety volunteer group in Cumbria increasingly worried about radioactive pollution alongside acid mine polllution flowing into Whitehaven harbour.

Our own investigations have found the highly radioactive isotope AM241 confirmed by a laboratory in the US at levels above 37 bq/kg.  This is alongside the acid mine pollution with the presence of heavy metals which magnifies the impacts of radioactivity.  Sellafield is funding a multi-million pound water sports centre encouraging people into the contaminated silt at Whitehaven and effectively greenwashing the ongoing pollution event.

Attached is our report and the report from Eberline Laboratory.  The regulators and nuclear industry are brushing this pollution aside but clearly there is an ongoing issue that no-one is addressing.

What is the MSC position on this?  

Marianne, Radiation Free Lakeland

January 2, 2025 Posted by | environment, UK | Leave a comment

High tide for Holtec

The study — Model-Based Study of Near-Surface Transport in and around Cape Cod Bay, Its Seasonal Variability, and Response to Wind — found that contrary to Holtec’s claims, the wastewater would not immediately disperse into the ocean, but would linger potentially for months, and wash up on the shores of area communities.

  by beyondnuclearinternational, Linda Pentz Gunter

Tritium dumped into Cape Cod Bay will wash back onto community shores, says a new report

Holtec, the company that has purchased a number of permanently closed nuclear reactors in order to decommission them, has encountered yet another obstacle to its “dilution is the solution to pollution” plans.

One of the reactor sites Holtec has taken over is Pilgrim in Plymouth, Massachusetts, on the Cape Cod Bay, which closed permanently in 2019. Holtec’s not-so-little problem there is what do with what started out as at least 1.1 million gallons of radioactively contaminated wastewater stored at the site. 

The company first suggested it would simply release the wastewater into Cape Cod Bay, assuring residents and the immediately alarmed fishing community not to worry because (a) the wastewater isn’t dangerous anyway (b) everyone does this all the time at reactor sites and no one has gotten sick so far and (c) it would quickly disperse into the wider ocean. Holtec chose this disposal method for one reason alone: it is the cheapest.

The proposal was vigorously fought by citizens, the state, and powerful Massachusetts Democrat, Senator Ed Markey. The state of Massachusetts effectively banned the discharge option, a decision Holtec is contesting. 

That Final Determination to Deny Application to Modify a Massachusetts Permit to Discharge Pollutants to Surface Waters was issued by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Division of Watershed Management on July 18, 2024. A month later, Holtec launched its appeal to reverse the decision, something that could take months or longer to find its way to court.

In the meantime, help has come from a new quarter in the form of an in-depth study by the prestigious Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, also, as it happens, based on the Massachusetts shoreline, near Falmouth.

The study — Model-Based Study of Near-Surface Transport in and around Cape Cod Bay, Its Seasonal Variability, and Response to Wind — found that contrary to Holtec’s claims, the wastewater would not immediately disperse into the ocean, but would linger potentially for months, and wash up on the shores of area communities.

“We found virtually no out-of-the-Bay transport in winter and fall and slightly larger, but still low, probability of some of the plume exiting the Bay in spring and summer,” said Woods Hole study leader and physical oceanographer, Irina Rypina.

The radioactively contaminated wastewater stored at Pilgrim is contaminated with what Holtec and the Massachusetts Department of Public Health have described as “four gamma emitters —Manganese-54, Cobalt-60, Zinc-65 and Cesium-137 along with Tritium, a beta radiation emitter”. 

While the Woods Hole Study did not look at the health outcomes of releasing the radioactive water into Cape Cod Bay — only at the plume pathway — there are plenty of data that demonstrate the harmful effects of these radioisotopes on human health, especially women and children…………………………………………………….. https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/12/29/high-tide-for-holtec/

December 30, 2024 Posted by | environment, radiation, USA | Leave a comment

Will the legacy of nuclear power ever disappear from our coasts?

 BANNG 17th Dec 2024,
https://www.banng.info/news/regional-life/nuclear-power-legacy/

Andrew Blowers tackles this ongoing question in the December 2024 issue of Regional Life magazine

Back in the last century a fleet of nuclear power stations emerged, their bulky and threatening presence dominating peaceful and often precious, protected coastal environments. Now most have been retired and are in the long process of decommissioning and waste management before all traces of their existence can be erased a century or more from now. Or not…. If plans for new nuclear fructify, then the nuclear presence on our coasts may never disappear.

It is a little difficult to recall Bradwell in past times, a sinister presence on the low shoreline, with its silent reactors and the turbines howling throughout the night; its garish lighting polluting the night sky. Today Bradwell power station is silent and in darkness, its turbines demolished and its reactors shrouded within a huge box clad in grey and blue.

The ecological impact of nuclear power stations is both visible and invisible. Within these structures dangerous radioactive wastes are stored for generations and the risks of radioactive releases, accidental or deliberate (cyber, warfare, terrorism) are incalculable. And, in the age of accelerating climate change, these plants are at risk from sea-level rise, storm surges, flooding and erosion which will inflict yet more grief on future populations.

For existing stations and those currently under construction, there are plans to adapt to changing conditions through massive sea defences and removal of the wastes to a deep repository – if a suitable host rock and willing community can be found. This will be a daunting challenge but greatly exacerbated if a fleet of new nuclear stations is built, leaving vast volumes of wastes to be managed indefinitely on vanishing shores into the far future.

Hinkley Point C

The gigantic Hinkley Point C on the Somerset coast is currently the largest construction site in Europe with a 12,000 workforce and drastic shortage of accommodation for local people. Once operating, it will kill millions of fish, sucked in through its cooling water intake pipes. EDF, the developer, is trying to avoid providing mitigating Acoustic Fish Deterrents (AFD), perversely hoping that by the creation of a saltwater marsh, fish and other marine life will automatically migrate there.

New nuclear is already impacting environments in Somerset and the Suffolk coast is afflicted by preparations for Sizewell C.

Sizewell C

The site lies within a designated National Landscape adjacent to the RSPB’s flagship sanctuary at Minsmere as well as to other designated sites. SZC has not yet got the finance to go ahead but the demolition of a treasured woodland and trashing of other areas has already scarred a wide area in preparation for roads, rail lines, transformer buildings. All in advance of a project that may never materialise. These are premature, wanton acts of vandalism.

Fortunately, the destruction already endured in Somerset and that beginning in Suffolk can be avoided in Essex where proposals for a giant, new nuclear power station which would have inflicted untold damage on the marine and terrestrial environments of the Blackwater region were pushed back by BANNG and other stakeholders.

Now nuclear’s moment may be passing and our energy future lies in other directions, far less dangerous and with far less damaging impacts on the environment for future generations to cope with.

December 24, 2024 Posted by | environment, UK | Leave a comment

Risky Revival: How Michigan’s Palisades nuclear plant could impact agriculture 

While state leaders champion the Palisades reopening as an energy solution, local farmers remain divided over the potential threats to their land and water.

by S. Nicole Lane, for Investigate Midwest, December 10, 2024

COVERT, Michigan — The Palisades Nuclear Generating Station, long synonymous with safety lapses and regulatory oversight, is poised for an unprecedented comeback under Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s plan to reopen the shuttered plant by 2025 — the first attempt of its kind in U.S. history.

However, in this robust agricultural region, there are fears about how reopening a problematic plant could impact area farmers and the food they produce.

Approximately 6,362 farms are within 50 miles of Palisades. In Van Buren County alone, where the plant is located, there are 838 farms. Michigan’s southwestern corner, home to 80% of the state’s farms, is often called the “blueberry capital of the world.” 

“A leak (and) this 150-year-old farm is done,” said Bill Adams, who runs Adams Blueberry Farms in Hartford, Michigan, 16 miles south of the plant. “Why would they restart something that old and sitting this long?”

Opened in 1971, Palisades, which is located along Lake Michigan, once generated 5% of Michigan’s electricity, enough to power 800,000 homes. But a litany of mechanical issues plagued its operations for decades.

In 2013, the plant leaked 79 gallons of diluted radioactive water into Lake Michigan, forcing a five-week shutdown — its ninth closure in just two years. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The NRC spokesperson also said that each nuclear power plant has a Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) that tracks radioactivity. 

But Kamps said that radioactive isotopes and waste products like cesium, strontium and tritium, which are byproducts of nuclear reactors, have been linked to cancer and have a lifespan of 300 years. “That’s how long you should worry about it in the food chain,” he said.  https://investigatemidwest.org/2024/12/10/risky-revival-how-michigans-palisades-nuclear-plant-could-impact-agriculture/

December 17, 2024 Posted by | environment, USA | Leave a comment

Nuclear waste to be dumped into Cape Cod and turn ocean radioactive

by Lauren Acton-Taylor For Dailymail.Com, 11 Dec 24,  https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/nuclear-waste-to-be-dumped-into-cape-cod-and-turn-ocean-radioactive/ar-AA1vG9iC?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=8b954ae3ae4e46e9868246df57f356c5&ei=13

he pristine waters off Cape Cod could become radioactive for as long as a month after a new study found that nuclear waste being dumped from the tony peninsula has a ‘high probability’ of lingering. 

The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution conducted the study to find out how likely it would be that discharged wastewater from the Pilgrim Nuclear PowerStation in Plymouth, Massachusetts would spread into Cape Cod Bay, whose surrounding communities include multimillion-dollar mansions.

‘Our numerical simulations suggest it is unlikely that the bulk of plume waters will leave the Bay in less than a month,’ said the study’s leader Irina Rypina. 

The dumping comes as part of the power station’s decommissioning, and the study found that its wastewaters could drift near the shores and coastal waters of Dennis, Wellfleet, and Provincetown. Expand article logo  Continue reading

‘If the release were to happen in the spring and summer, a small portion of a plume might leave the bay in less than a month, passing north of Provincetown and then flowing southward along the outer Cape,’ the study said.

‘We found virtually no out-of-the-Bay transport in winter and fall and slightly larger, but still low, probability of some of the plume exiting the Bay in spring and summer,’ Rypina said. 

In response to the study, Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey, who chairs the Senate‘s Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate, and Nuclear Safety, said that the findings confirm concerns expressed by the residents of the Cape. 

According to Markey, residents have been questioning the wisdom of dumping plant wastewater into the Bay ‘for years.’ 

Nuclear wastewater discharge is a normal occurrence during both the operation and decommissioning of power plants, according to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

‘The controlled release of liquid effluents at nuclear power plants, within specified regulatory limits, is an activity that occurs throughout the operation and decommissioning of a facility,’ said the NRC. 

While the study did not explore the health risks that such a dump could pose to marine life or local fishing or recreation, a 2023 analysis by Florida-based Holtec International, the plant’s owner, and the Massachusetts Department of Public Health included alarming findings. 

It determined that the roughly 900,000 gallons of wastewater stored at Pilgrim is contaminated with ‘four gamma emitters (Maganese-54, Cobalt-60, Zinc-65 and Cesium-137) and Tritium (H-3 a beta radiation emitter).’ 

A spokesperson for Holtec told the Boston Herald that Pilgrim had ‘safely’ discharged millions of gallons of water over the decades with little environmental impact. 

‘Those discharges were done within the safe federal and state limits and reported to the NRC and publicly available on their website. 

‘This includes studies to determine any potential impact to sea life and the Bay which showed that safety has always remained, and plant impact has been negligible,’ the spokesperson told the outlet. 

The Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station shut down in May 2019 after 47 years of operation and was then owned by Louisiana-based Entergy Corporation. The plant was purchased by a subsidiary of Holtec in 2019 with an aim toward cleaning up the 1,700-acre site for industrial and commercial development, according to the Herald.

When the plant was bought, Holtec President and CEO Kris Singh assured residents that the project would ‘replicate the superb record of public health and safety and environmental protection that typified the plant’s 47 years of operations.’

In a statement, Markey said that Singh had promised both the senator and impacted communities that the process of decommissioning would be ‘open and transparent.’ 

‘In the years since, Holtec has fallen woefully short on this commitment. In light of these recent findings, I urge Holtec to develop a wastewater discharge plan that is informed and guided by scientific fact and community input,’ Markey said. 

Local residents have continued to show concern for the wastewater dumping into Cape Cod Bay – identified as a’ protected ocean sanctuary’, according to the Massachusetts Government website. 

The state Department of Environmental Protection determined on July 18 that Holtec was prohibited from ‘the dumping or discharge of industrial wastes into protected state waters’, the Cape Cod Times reported. 

Holtec is reportedly hoping to discharge up to 1.1 million gallons of industrial wastewater and filed an appeal to the agency’s prohibition on August 16. 

In a statement, the company said: ‘The appeal explains that the permits granting liquid discharge were issued prior to the Ocean Sanctuary Act legislation, which grandfathers these types of liquid discharges.’ 

December 13, 2024 Posted by | oceans, wastes | Leave a comment

‘Shambolic’ plans for Severn saltmarshes blasted

EDF’s “shambolic” attempt to “wriggle out of” installing a key
eco-saving measure at Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant has been blasted
by a wildlife charity amid fears it could lead to an ecological disaster in
the Severn Estuary. In a series of shambolic engagement events with local
communities, EDF has failed to make a clear case for the removal of the AFD
or provide evidence for why the proposals would adequately compensate for
the types of fish that will be killed, according to the Gloucestershire
Wildlife Trust.

The trust says the energy firm has effectively destroyed
community support for these alternative measures through a ham-fisted
approach to landowners that threatened compulsory purchase to acquire the
land to enable habitat restoration.

 Gloucestershire Gazette 10th Dec 2024 https://www.gazetteseries.co.uk/news/24782581.shambolic-plans-severn-saltmarshes-blasted/

December 13, 2024 Posted by | environment | Leave a comment

World War II airplanes to blame for radiation halting work on SSEN cable near Dounreay

The radioactive contamination that has suspended work on a
high voltage cable between Orkney and Caithness is being linked to wartime
aircraft. Work on part of the mainland link of SSEN Transmission’s new
cable was halted because of the presence of radioactive contamination.

 John O’Groat Journal 9th Dec 2024
https://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/news/world-war-ii-airplanes-to-blame-for-radiation-halting-work-o-368483/

December 13, 2024 Posted by | environment, UK | Leave a comment

Radioactive sea spray is dosing communities

   by beyondnuclearinternational, By Tim Deere-Jones  https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2019/02/17/radioactive-sea-spray-is-dosing-communities/

Governments want to cover it up

I am taking a walk along the path at Manorbier on the south Pembrokeshire coast in Wales. The tomb of King’s Quoit is still in its midwinter shadow. It gets no direct sunlight for 28 days either side of the solstice. And yet the first daffodils and pink campions are already in bloom.

A visit to the tomb on the first day when light returns is a truly amazing sight. It is perched by fresh running water, on the edge of cliffs, just above the sea. You can smell the salt in the air, and feel the mist of sea spray blown in by the prevailing onshore winds.

And yet in some coastal areas such a moment may not be as idyllic as it seems.

It is clear from the available empirical data that coastal populations impacted by prevailing onshore winds and living next to sea areas contaminated with liquid radioactive effluents from nuclear sites, are annually exposed to dietary and inhalation doses of man-made marine radioactivity.

Effluents discharged to the sea by nuclear power stations, fuel fabrication sites and reprocessing facilities are transferred from sea to land in airborne sea spray and marine aerosols (micro-droplets). They come in also during episodes of coastal flooding.

This problem has been particularly pronounced around the UK Sellafield reprocessing and plutonium production site in Cumbria. In 1988, independent empirical research commissioned by a west Wales local authority reported that Sellafield-derived, sea-discharged cesium had been found in pasture grass up to 10 miles inland of the Ceredigion coast.

Clearly, this contributes to human dietary doses via the dairy and beef food chain. The research also implies the inevitability of further dietary doses via arable and horticultural crops. Given that airborne radioactivity is driven at least 10 miles inland, it should be assumed that coastal populations are exposed, on a repeated annual basis, to inhalation doses.


Independent, empirical field research by a team of doctors (general practitioners) in the Hebrides off the Scottish coast, has shown broadly similar, but more detailed results and demonstrated that island and coastal environments are saturated with sea-borne cesium from distant sources.

The GP’s research demonstrated that those who ate more “local” terrestrial produce had higher doses of Sellafield sea discharged cesium-137 than those who ate “non-local” produce.

Some island residents received higher doses of Sellafield derived, sea discharged cesium, from their locally grown terrestrial produce, than from sea foods. The same residents received higher doses from their terrestrial produce than some sea food-eating populations living adjacent to nuclear pipelines discharging liquid waste to the sea.

Given the available evidence of the West Wales study, it is logical to propose that the same would apply in that case.

Early research on this in the UK was initiated by the nuclear industry and pro-nuclear governments, acting through the UK Atomic Energy Agency (UKAEA). In the late 1970s and early ‘80s the agency researched the sea to land transfer of the alpha emitting plutoniums (Pu) 238, 239, and 240 and americium (Am) 241, and the beta emitting cesiums (Cs) 134 and 137, across the Cumbrian coast near Sellafield.

The UKAEA work confirmed that all five radionuclides studied transferred readily from the sea to the land in onshore winds. In wind speeds of less than 10 metres per sec (22 mph) cesium was enriched in spray and marine aerosols with enrichment factors (EFs) of around 2.

However, the alpha emitting plutonium and americium were shown to have EFs, relative to filtered ambient seawater, of up to 800. The alpha emitters were found to be associated (by Ad-sorbtion) with micro particles of sedimentary and organic material suspended in the marine water column and ejected into the atmosphere, as aerosols, by bursting bubbles at sea and at the surf line.

However, once the sea to land transfer of alpha emitters with massive enrichments was confirmed, such studies were rapidly abandoned and virtually no empirical field work on the extent of the inland penetration of spray and aerosols and human doses and exposure pathways has been completed by “official” sources.

Furthermore, of the 70 + radionuclides known to be discharged to sea from UK nuclear sites, only the five named radionuclides have ever been researched for their sea to land transfer potential.

I have no doubt that this is a global phenomenon and that the various mechanisms of sea to land transfer are not unique to the UK. However, I have observed that the scientific literature on the subject appears to be restricted to the output of UK official (pro-nuclear) and independent (non-aligned) researchers and that, to date, no other sources of such research have been identified.

The UK Government and a number of its departments and its environmental regulatory agencies are aware of the concerns discussed above, but appear to prefer a cover-up rather than an open discussion. The UK research itself was terminated within a few years of its inception and, coupled with the absence of any similar research in other “nuclear states”, it is my assumption that the international nuclear community has no interest in promoting such work and is happy to see the whole issue sidelined and downplayed.


Tim Deere-Jones was educated at the Cardiff University (Wales): Department of Maritime Studies, where his research dissertation was on the Sea to Land Transfer of Marine Pollutants. He has been working as a “non-aligned” marine pollution researcher and consultant since 1983 and has worked with major NGOs and campaign groups in the UK, Europe, the US and Australia. Tim has a particular field and research interest in the behavior and fate of anthropogenic radioactivity released/spilled into marine environments.

Read Tim’s full report with citations here.

December 10, 2024 Posted by | environment, radiation, Reference | Leave a comment

Radioactive contamination halts work on SSEN subsea link near Dounreay

 By Iain Grant,  John O’Groat Journal 6th Dec 2024

Work on part of the mainland link of SSEN Transmission’s new high voltage cable between Orkney and Caithness has been suspended because of the presence of radioactive contamination.

The company has been required to have extra monitoring carried out before it resumes work on its new substation near the Dounreay nuclear plant.

A spokesperson said: “We have identified the need for monitoring for radioactivity to be undertaken at the site where the substation will be constructed.

“The monitoring is needed due to the proximity of the site to Dounreay.

“Following the identification of radium contamination at the site, SSEN has stopped work while it acquires an Environmental Scotland authorisation permit. “A permit is needed due to the presence of radium contamination at depths as the planned excavation work is beyond these depths.”……………………..https://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/news/radioactive-contamination-halts-work-on-ssen-subsea-link-nea-368353/

December 10, 2024 Posted by | environment, UK | Leave a comment

‘The process is broken’: Major oil producing countries kill UN plastics treaty over cap on production

Bulletin, By Joseph Winters | December 5, 2024

What was supposed to be the final round of United Nations negotiations for a global plastics treaty ended without an agreement on Sunday, as delegates failed to reconcile opposing views on whether to impose a cap on plastic production.

Another negotiating session — dubbed INC-5.2 after this week’s INC-5 — will be held in 2025, but it’s unclear how countries will make further progress without a change in the treaty’s consensus-based decision-making process. As it stands, any delegation can essentially veto a proposal they don’t like, even if they’re opposed by most of the rest of the world.

“If it wasn’t for Saudi and Russia we would have reached an agreement here,” one European negotiator told the Financial Times. Those two countries, along with other oil producers like Iran and Kuwait, want the plastics treaty to leave production untouched and focus only on downstream measures: boosting the plastics recycling rate, for example, and cleaning up existing plastic pollution.

Kuwait’s delegation said on Sunday that “we are not here to end plastic itself … but plastic pollution.” That’s the position the plastic industry is taking, as well: Chris Jahn, council secretary for a petrochemical industry consortium called the International Council of Chemical Associations, said it’s “crucial” for the treaty to focus on plastic pollution alone. “With 2.7 billion people globally lacking access to waste collection systems, solutions must prioritize addressing this gap,” he said in a statement.

Dozens of countries — supported by scientists and environmental groups — say that approach is futile while the plastics industry plans to dramatically increase plastic production. “You can talk about waste management all you want, but this is not the silver bullet,” one of the European Union’s delegates said last week. “Mopping the floor when the tap is open is useless.”

Christina Dixon, oceans campaign leader for the nonprofit Environmental Investigation Agency, attended INC-5 and told Grist the conference made it clear that “consensus isn’t working.” She said countries seem to be recognizing this too, in light of INC-5’s shortcomings and the low probability of finding unanimity on the treaty’s most critical issues.

Last week, one French minister accused a coalition of oil-exporting countries of “continuing obstruction.” Fiji’s negotiator said a “very minority group” was “blocking the process,” and at a press conference over the weekend told delegations holding back the treaty to “please get out.”

Technically, the treaty could move forward without Saudi Arabia, Russia, and their allies, either continuing under the U.N. framework or — a more radical scenario — in a new forum led by a breakaway alliance of countries. ……………………………………………… ……………………………….. more https://thebulletin.org/2024/12/the-process-is-broken-major-oil-producing-countries-kill-un-plastics-treaty-over-cap-on-production/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=ThursdayNewsletter12052024&utm_content=ClimateChange_UNPlasticsTreaty_12052024

December 8, 2024 Posted by | environment | Leave a comment

International talks on curbing plastic pollution fail to reach agreement

Chair of talks in Busan says progress has been made but ‘a few critical issues’ are unresolved

Guardian, Agence France-Presse, 2 Dec 24

Negotiators have failed to reach agreement on a landmark treaty to curb plastic pollution, the diplomat chairing the talks has said.

Nearly 200 nations are taking part in a meeting in Busan, South Korea, which is intended to result in a landmark agreement after two years of discussions. A week of talks has failed to resolve deep divisions between “high-ambition” countries seeking a globally binding agreement to limit production and phase out harmful chemicals, and “like-minded” nations who want to focus on waste.

A draft text released on Sunday afternoon after multiple delays included a wide range of options, making clear the ongoing level of disagreement.

When an open plenary session finally convened late on Sunday night, the chair, Luis Vayas Valdivieso, said progress had been made but “we must also recognise that a few critical issues still prevent us from reaching a comprehensive agreement”………………………………………………………

While countries have declined to directly name those preventing a deal, public statements and submissions have shown that mostly oil-producing nations including Saudi Arabia and Russia have sought to block production cuts and other ambitious goals………………….. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/dec/01/international-talks-on-curbing-plastic-pollution-fail-to-reach-agreement-busan

December 3, 2024 Posted by | environment | Leave a comment

EDF’s controversial River Severn saltmarshes plan should cease, says County Council leader

By Carmelo Garcia – Local Democracy Reporter,,  Gloucester News Centre 30th Nov 2024

EDF’s controversial plans for saltmarshes linked to Hinkley C nuclear power plant should cease immediately.

That is the view of Gloucestershire County Council’s Conservative leader Stephen Davies (Hardwicke and Severn) who has written to energy, security and net zero secretary Ed Miliband expressing his opposition to the schemes.

Bosses at the French-government owned energy firm have been severely criticised for their environmental improvement plans by residents in Rodley near Westbury-on-Severn and Arlingham on the other side of the river.

Their original plan for Hinkley Point in Somerset was to install an acoustic fish deterrent system to scare fish away from the site as the Bristol Channel is home to numerous species such as eels, herring, salmon and sprats.

However, EDF feel this will no longer be viable and have instead drawn up alternative plans to create salt marshes along the River Severn.

They have identified the two Gloucestershire sites along with Kingston Seymour in Somerset, Littleton Upon Severn in South Gloucestershire as areas for salt marshes.

And they have been in touch with landowners. But villagers strongly oppose the proposals which they fear will destroy the Severn Vale.

Cllr Davies says in the letter, which has not been signed by the other group leaders at GCC, that the authority welcomes the Government’s commitment to delivering net zero.

But he expressed significant concerns regarding the scale of the impact the nuclear power station will have on the migratory fish population in the Severn Estuary special area of conservation which will result from the massive water abstraction at Hickley Point C of 120,000 litres of seawater a second from the Severn for 60 years.

He believes this will be made significantly worse by their intention to remove the required acoustic fish deterrent system at the plant.

And is concerned over the significant impact the emerging salt marsh proposals would have as it would see hundreds of acres of farmland lost.

“This would not only include farmland, but also farms, houses, businesses, roads, footpaths, heritage assets, etc.

“EDF representatives have already confirmed to local residents that they would use compulsory purchase orders in future if need be as well as currently attempting to access privately-owned land for ecological surveys.”

Cllr Davies calls for the acoustic fish deterrent to be installed as originally planned and for appropriate ecological compensation be delivered to address the impact on the Severn Estuary. He is also calling for EDF to be instructed to immediately cease plans to create the new salt marshes along the Severn.

Campaign group Save our Severn Vale do not believe that the proposed location of a saltmarsh in either Rodley or Arlingham is viable from a salinity perspective or compensatory habitat when looking at the species EDF say they want to save………………………….. https://gloucesternewscentre.co.uk/edfs-controversial-river-severn-saltmarshes-plan-should-cease-says-county-council-leader/

December 3, 2024 Posted by | environment, UK | Leave a comment

Just Don’t Mention (or Measure) the Pu (Plutonium)

Cs-134 usually appears (at first) in similar amounts as Cs-137, as both are fission wastes………. With regard impact on human health cesium–134 (Cs-134) is extremely serious along with cesium-137 (Cs-137) the longer lived isotope which also present on Cumbrian beaches

 By mariannewildart, Radiation Free Lakeland 30th Nov 2024, https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2024/11/30/just-dont-mention-or-measure-the-pu-plutonium/
Josh MacAlister MP for Sellafield (sorry Whitehaven and Workington) bigs up the “Good” status of Seascale and “Excellent” status of St Bees bathing water sites.

The bad news is that the criteria for bathing water quality in the UK does not include radioactive pollution – a bad case of the three wise monkeys “see no evil..”

Our own citizen science findings indicate radioactive wastes are a now an insidious and homogeneous part of West Cumbria’s beaches courtesy of the nuclear industry’s routine and accidental discharges to the Irish Sea.

Our own surveys and testing has shown that Caesium 134 is present along with Americium 241. Cs-134 has a short half life of only 2 years which is counter to the already disingenuous claims that the discharges (some very long lived) are “historic..” Cs-134 usually appears (at first) in similar amounts as Cs-137, as both are fission wastes. This implies that this Cs-134 was produced in a nuclear reactor about eight years ago. With regard impact on human health cesium–134 (Cs-134) is extremely serious along with cesium-137 (Cs-137) the longer lived isotope which also present on Cumbrian beaches. In nature, caesium exists only as a non-radioactive (or stable) isotope known as cesium-133. Americium 241 does not exist in nature and is a decay product of Plutonium.

The UK Health Security Agency have stated the risk of the public encountering a radioactive particle is “very low” but this is contested . In reality the ongoing risks are unacceptable and set to increase with new development plans such as proposed new nuclear and a Geological Disposal Facility for heat generating nuclear wastes both of which would cause likely disruption to the fragile Cumbrian Mud Patch through subsidence and induced earthquakes.

Campaigners point out that children and young women of childbearing age are most at risk of health impacts from encountering a radioactive particle. “Inadvertent ingestion of a particle will result in the absorption to blood of a small proportion of the radionuclide content of the particle. The subsequent retention of radionuclides in body organs and tissues presents a potential risk of the development of cancer.” Health risks from radioactive particles on Cumbrian beaches near the Sellafield nuclear site by John D Harrison et al 2023.

December 2, 2024 Posted by | environment, UK | Leave a comment

  Plans to turn land in Somerset into a saltmarsh should be scrapped.

Plans to flood 1500 acres of farmland along the Severn Estuary to create
saltmarsh won’t be effective in saving fish affected by a nuclear power
station – that’s according to ecosystems expert Dr Mark Everard of the
University of the West of England. EDF is building the station at Hinkley
Point in Somerset and had agreed to install and maintain an acoustic fish
deterrent to prevent fish being sucked into the site’s cooling systems. But
they now say it’s dangerous to build and the technology is untested, and
want to flood farmland instead to create saltmarsh habitats. Dr Everard
says most fish – including migrating salmon – won’t benefit from this, and
the deterrent system is already used effectively worldwide.

 BBC Farming Today 25th Nov 2024, https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0025cyx

December 1, 2024 Posted by | environment, UK | Leave a comment

What Project 2025 Would Do to the Environment – and How We Will Respond

The policy playbook from the Heritage Foundation would strip away our rights to clean air, clean water, and a healthy planet.

By Earthjustice November 12, 2024,  https://earthjustice.org/article/what-project-2025-would-do-to-the-environment-and-how-we-will-respond

When Donald Trump takes office for the second time in January, we expect his administration to dramatically dismantle environmental protections. We see the shape of what’s coming not just from battling his first administration, but because of the blueprint laid out in Project 2025.

Project 2025 is 900 pages, and 150 of them are about how to destroy the environment. This deregulatory agenda, written by former Trump government officials and Heritage Foundation staff, would strip away our rights to clean air, clean water, and a healthy planet.

Earthjustice is built for moments like this. We’re the legal arm of the environmental movement, with more than 200 attorneys wielding the power of the law to defend the planet and its people. We filed more lawsuits on behalf of clients against the last Trump administration to protect the environment than any other organization – and we won 85% of our cases.

We’ve shown that we can take on the Trump administration’s worst ideas and win.

We’ve studied the proposed tactics in Project 2025, including undermining government staff who are charged with safeguarding health and environmental protections. We are prepared to defend the environment and communities from what comes next, no matter how long it takes. Here are some of the Project 2025 recommendations we’re most concerned about:

Taking a hatchet to bedrock environmental laws

What Project 2025 says:

  • Gut the Endangered Species Act (ESA): Project 2025 would rewrite the most successful legal tool we have for protecting wildlife in ways that would harm imperiled species. It specifically calls for removing protections from gray wolves and Yellowstone grizzlies.
  • No need for national monuments: Another proposal would repeal the Antiquities Act, which would strip the president of the ability to protect priceless public lands and waters as national monuments.
  • Weaken the Clean Air Act: Project 2025 would nix the part of the law that requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set health-based air quality standards.
  • Less say for communities in environmental decisions: The plan would undermine key portions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which ensures you have a voice in major projects built near you.

Why we’re prepared:

  • Defending endangered species: The Trump administration went after both Yellowstone grizzlies and the Endangered Species Act itself. Both times, Earthjustice went straight to court. One of our cases spared the grizzlies from planned trophy hunts, and the Biden administration subsequently reversed some damaging changes to the ESA.
  • Defending national monuments: When the Trump administration gutted Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments in Utah, Earthjustice immediately sued. Protections for the monuments have now been restored. We also helped defend the monuments from a later legal challenge by the state of Utah that attacked the Antiquities Act itself.
  • Defending NEPA: This summer, when 21 state attorneys-general sued to block important updates to NEPA, we intervened to fight back. The updates will ensure that critical infrastructure needed for the clean energy transition is built quickly and equitably and is resilient to climate change.

More mining and fossil fuel development on public lands

What Project 2025 says:

  • Prioritize oil and gas: Project 2025 tells the agencies that manage federal lands and waters to maximize corporate oil and gas extraction. It calls for approving more pipelines like Keystone XL and Dakota Access.
  • Willow? Make it bigger: The agenda explicitly aims to expand the Willow Project, which is already the largest proposed oil and gas undertaking on U.S. public lands.
  • Target iconic landscapes: The project also calls for drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and mining in Minnesota’s Boundary Waters wilderness, among other irreplaceable natural treasure

Why we’re prepared:

  • Fighting on all fronts: Under the Trump administration, Earthjustice challenged an aggressive extractive agenda at every turn. Our victories included winning protections for 128 million acres of ocean and hundreds of thousands of acres of sage-grouse habitat threatened by oil and gas development.
  • We’ve defended many of the places Project 2025 targets:
  • Undermining science and the regulation of toxic chemicals
  • What Project 2025 says:
  • Trust the chemical companies: Project 2025 tells the EPA to be more open to industry science and to stop funding major research into toxic chemical exposure.
  • Make it harder to regulate chemicals: The plan calls for the EPA to meet an absurdly high standard of proof that a chemical is hazardous before deciding to regulate it. This would give chemical companies greater freedom to put toxic substances into our air, water, and products.
  • Forever chemicals are fine: Project 2025 would walk back the determination that PFAS — the “forever chemicals” linked to reproductive harms, developmental delays, and increased risk of cancer — are a hazardous substance.

Why we’re prepared:

Ending government efforts to address the climate crisis

What Project 2025 says:

  • The plan’s authors are climate skeptics: The document refers pointedly to “the perceived threat of climate change.”
  • Climate solutions? Don’t need ‘em: Project 2025 calls for undoing many of the clean energy investments in the Inflation Reduction Act, the largest climate solutions bill in history. It also supports Congressional efforts to repeal the law entirely.
  • Shut down climate research: The plan would get rid of more than a dozen government offices and agencies that study climate change.

Why we’re prepared:

  • Confronting government with climate reality: We have fought every administration in recent decades to include climate change impacts in various decisions. Earlier this century, we joined in a suit that became a landmark Supreme Court ruling, Massachusetts v. EPA, which found that carbon emissions are air pollutants and consequently the EPA must set limits on such pollution. We will defend the necessity to combat climate change — but further delays will hurt us all. An analysis from Energy Innovation found that enacting Project 2025 would increase carbon emissions by 2.7 billion tons by 2030 — equivalent to the annual emissions of India. These policies would cost households $32 billion in higher energy costs, result in 1.7 million lost jobs, and decrease the U.S. GDP $320 billion per year by 2030.
  • Fighting for science: Earthjustice has previously defended the critical role of scientific experts within the government. In 2020, we won a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s illegal decision to remove independent science advisors from the EPA.

Eliminating environmental justice programs

What Project 2025 says:

  • Environmental justice is not the government’s problem: Project 2025 questions whether the government should address the ways that communities of color and low-income communities are disproportionately exposed to dangerous pollution.
  • Get rid of staff who work on these issues: The plan calls for disbanding offices with the Department of Justice and the EPA that focus on environmental justice.

Why we’re prepared:

  • An environmental justice first: In 2021, after years of pushing by Earthjustice and our partners, the Justice Department opened its first-ever environmental justice investigation, looking into whether an Alabama county was managing sewage in a way that disproportionately harmed Black communities.
  • Raising our voice: We helped advocate for billions of dollars of funding from the Inflation Reduction Act to go to the communities that need it most.

What You Can Do

November 29, 2024 Posted by | environment, legal, USA | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »