nuclear-news

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

Japan’s Insane Immoral, Illegal Radioactive Dumping

CounterPunch, BY ROBERT HUNZIKER 8 Sept 23

Japan cannot possibly outlive the atrocity of dumping radioactive wastewater into the Pacific Ocean. In fact, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) is an example of how nuclear meltdowns negatively impact the entire world, as its toxic wastewater travels across the world in ocean currents. The dumping of stored toxic wastewater from the meltdown in 2011 officially started on August 24th, 2023. Meanwhile, the country restarts some of the nuclear plants that were shut down when the Fukushima Daichi Nuclear Power Plant exploded.

Fukushima’s broken reactors are an example of why nuclear energy is a trap that can’t handle global warming or extreme natural disasters. Nuclear is an accident waiting to happen, for several reasons, including victimization by forces of global warming.

According to Dr. Paul Dorfman, chair of the Nuclear Consulting Group, former secretary to the UK Scientific Advisory Committee on Internal Radiation, and Visiting Fellow, University of Sussex: “It’s important to understand that nuclear is very likely to be a significant climate casualty. For cooling purposes nuclear reactors need to be situated by large bodies of water, etc. …” Essentially, global warming is nuclear energy’s Waterloo; it has already seriously endangered France’s 56 nuclear reactors with partial shutdowns because of extreme global warming. Nuclear reactors cannot survive global warming. See “the nuclear energy trap” link at the end of this article.

TEPCO’s treacherous act of dumping radioactive water into a wide-open ocean is a deliberate violation of human decency, as it clearly violates essential provisions of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) General Safety Guide No. 8 (GSG-8).

Japan should be forced to stop its diabolical exercise of potentially destroying precious life. Shame on the IAEA and shame on the member countries of the G7 for endorsing this travesty. They’ve christened the ocean an “open sewer.” Hark! Come one, come all, dump your trash, open toxic spigots, bring chemicals, bring fertilizers, bring plastic, bring radioactive waste that’s impossible to dispose… the oceans are open sewers. It’s free! Yes, it’s free but only weak-minded people would allow a broken-down crippled nuclear power plant to dump radioactive waste into the world’s ocean. It is a testament to human frailty, weakness, insipience, not courage.

According to Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D. Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, TEPCO’s ALPS-treated Radioactive Water Dumping Plan Violates Essential Provisions of IAEA’s General Safety Guide No. 8 (GSG-8) and Corresponding Requirements in Other IAEA Documents, June 28, 2023: “The IAEA is an important United Nations institution. Like the rest of the Expert Panel, the author of this paper has been reluctant to criticize the IAEA. Yet, its outright refusal to apply its own guidance documents in full measure is stark. Its constricted view of the dumping plan has allowed it to evade its responsibilities to many countries. Its eagerness to assure the public that harm will be “negligible” has been carried to the point of grossly overstating well-known facts about tritium. The serious lapses of the IAEA in the Fukushima radioactive water matter have made criticism unavoidable.”………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

“At high doses, ionizing radiation can cause immediate damage to a person’s body, including, at very high doses, radiation sickness and death. At lower doses, ionizing radiation can cause health effects such as cardiovascular disease and cataracts, as well as cancer. It causes cancer primarily because it damages DNA, which can lead to cancer-causing gene mutations.” (Source: National Cancer Institute)

How is it possible to justify dumping any amount of radioactive wastewater into the Pacific Ocean? Is the world’s consciousness so low, so lacking a moral compass, that it’s okay to dump the most toxic material on the planet into the oceans?

Stop destroying the oceans!

And please contemplate the dire ramifications of the nuclear energy trap. more https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/09/08/japans-insane-immoral-illegal-radioactive-dumping/?fbclid=IwAR0IaIETBoTgZeDUmJ3caeJAlFFWGPrdCtsqt5oR0A7XP8NEl1fKqLJwu54

Robert Hunziker lives in Los Angeles and can be reached at rlhunziker@gmail.com.

September 12, 2023 Posted by | Japan, oceans, Religion and ethics, wastes | Leave a comment

RADIOACTIVE TSUNAMIS: NUCLEAR TORPEDO DRONES AND THEIR LEGALITY IN WAR

, By Raul (Pete) Pedrozo, Center for International Maritime Security

Introduction 

Russia and North Korea are both fielding a novel type of naval weapon – nuclear-armed torpedo drones. These new weapons introduce a variety of strategic and operational challenges that further complicate a worsening threat environment. They also pose critical legal questions about whether their intended concepts of operation are lawful. These weapons have a fearsome potential to weaponize the maritime environment, and precise questions of their legality should be resolved in order to dissuade their proliferation. 

North Korea and Russia’s Doomsday Torpedoes

On July 28, North Korea displayed a new nuclear-armed drone torpedo at the 2023 Victory Day Parade in Pyongyang. Although its official classification is unknown, the new weapon is likely a Haeil-class drone torpedo. The nuclear torpedo drone is approximately 52 feet long and 5 feet in diameter, has an estimated range of about 540 nautical miles, and can be fitted with a conventional or nuclear warhead. It could therefore be used against targets in both South Korea and Japan. ……………………………………………..

The nuclear-armed underwater drone can be used to attack coastal naval installations or cities with little or no warning, providing North Korea with a strategic nuclear weapons delivery option that is difficult to detect and defend against. 

The Haeil-class drone torpedo is similar to (but smaller than) the Russian Poseidon, an intercontinental, nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed autonomous torpedo that was first revealed by the Russian Navy in 2015. The Poseidon (also known as Kanyon or Status 6) can reportedly operate at speeds of around 70-100 knots and at depths of around 3,300 feet, which means it can outrun and out dive any conventional torpedo……………………………………………………….

These drone torpedoes can be armed with up to a 100-megaton nuclear warhead, but their primary method of destruction is less about directly impacting targets. Instead, they focus on weaponizing the immediate aftereffects of nuclear detonations in the maritime environment. These nuclear torpedo drones are designed to trigger a radioactive tsunami-like ocean swell that destroys coastal cities and renders them uninhabitable, potentially resulting in large-scale displacement and millions of deaths. The legality of this concept of operations deserves closer scrutiny.

Legal Means and Methods of Warfare

Generally, the legal right of the belligerents to adopt means or methods of warfare during an international armed conflict is not unlimited (AP I, art. 35; HR, art. 22; Newport Manual, § 6.1). Specifically, a belligerent does not have the unlimited right to inflict superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering on the opposing belligerent (HR, art. 23; Newport Manual, § 6.1). Weapons law “regulates which weapons and means can lawfully be used during an armed conflict,” and is comprised on both customary international law and treaties (St. Petersburg Declaration; Newport Manual, § 6.2). The customary international law principle of distinction and the prohibition of unnecessary suffering regulate the legality of the means of warfare (Newport Manual, § 6.2). Weapons law is also codified in treaties, such as the Environmental Modification (ENMOD) Convention and Additional Protocol I (AP I) to the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

Damage to the environment is a concern. AP I places restrictions on weapons that “are intended or may be expected to cause widespread, long-term, and severe damage to the natural environment (AP I, art. 35(3); Newport Manual, § 6.3).” AP I further provides that the belligerent shall take care “in warfare to protect the natural environment against widespread, long-term and severe damage,” which includes a prohibition of the “use of methods or means of warfare which are intended or may be expected to cause such damage to the natural environment…” that prejudices the health or survival of the civilian population (AP I, art. 55(1); Newport Manual, § 6.3). The International Committee of the Red Cross interprets “long-term” to include damage over a period of decades (ICRC Commentary to AP I, ¶ 1453(c))……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Conclusion

Armed with multi-megaton nuclear warheads, these torpedo drones will be detonated along an adversary’s coast to create a powerful radioactive tsunami to destroy coastal cities and naval bases. Given that the concept of operations for these new weapons might unlawfully modify and weaponize the natural environment, both the North Korean Haeil and Russian Poseidon torpedo drones are likely unlawful weapons per se under the law of armed conflict.

The unleashing of environmental forces in such a manner is contrary to the law of war and likely violates the ENMOD Convention, which prohibits any method of warfare for changing—through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes—the dynamics, composition, or structure of the Earth (DoD Law of War Manual, §§ 6.10.1-6.10.2; FM 6-27, ¶¶ 2-139, 2-140). ………………………………………………………………………………………..

As parties to AP I and the ENMOD Convention, both North Korea and Russia have legal obligations not to use environmental techniques that are prohibited by the Convention, or to employ means or methods of warfare that can cause widespread, long-term, and severe damage to the natural environment.  https://cimsec.org/radioactive-tsunamis-nuclear-torpedo-drones-and-their-legality-in-war/

September 5, 2023 Posted by | legal, oceans, Reference, weapons and war | Leave a comment

South Koreans worry about Fukushima water: more disapprove of President Yoon

A majority of South Koreans are worried about Japan’s discharge of treated
radioactive water from the Fukushima nuclear plant into the sea despite
efforts by their government to allay fears, a poll published on Friday
showed.

Japan says the water from the wrecked nuclear power plant is safe
and it began releasing it into the Pacific on Aug. 24 despite objections at
home and abroad, particularly from China, Japan’s biggest trade partner,
which banned Japanese seafood.

The South Korean government, however, has
said it sees no scientific problem with the water release, though stressing
it does not approve of it, and banning the import of seafood from waters
off Fukushima, north of Tokyo. President Yoon Suk Yeol has led a campaign
to ease public concern and encourage consumption of seafood. On Thursday,
he visited a major fisheries market to shop and have lunch. Despite such
efforts, South Korean environmental groups and many members of the public
are alarmed and Yoon’s disapproval rating has risen to the highest in
months, a Gallup Korea poll of 1,002 people showed.

Reuters 1st Sept 2023

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/south-koreans-worry-about-fukushima-water-more-disapprove-yoon-poll-2023-09-01/

September 5, 2023 Posted by | oceans, politics, South Korea | 1 Comment

Fukushima Daiichi adds Insult to Injury for the Pacific’s Coral Reefs.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=LmUVb-Sezco%3Fsi%3DmrL1O2lDtnrdLpDk

 September 1, 2023 by Kevin Hester

As the El Niño builds to a terrifying crescendo, that won’t peak before April 2024, the Pacific’s Coral Reefs will become stressed, and a bleaching event will unfold as it did in the 2016 El Niño. What is our response? TEPCO and the Japanese government have decided to dump 1.3million tons of radioactive water into my beloved Pacific Ocean. After careful consideration the criminal cohort in Japan have decided to take the cheapest option and dump the radioactive sludge into the adjacent Pacific Ocean.

In the video above, I mentioned that Sea Surface Temperatures hit 38C off the coast of Florida. Here’s the evidence:
“Sea surface temperatures of more than 38C (100.4F) have been recorded off the coast of Florida – potentially setting a new world record.” Sea temperature off Florida reaches 38C- potentially a world record.

Almost every coral reef in the Northern Hemisphere is under stress.
Daily Global 5km Satellite Coral Bleaching Heat Stress Degree Heating Week

…………………………………………. We discussed the compounding consequences of the Pacific Ocean being irradiated thanks to TEPCO, the Japanese Government and Fukushima Daiichi. The very same people who triggered this disaster, by building a sea wall half the size their own analysis called for.
My Polynesian neighbours are furious. Niue and Tuvalu ‘concerned, dismayed, disappointed’ with Fukushima release

 https://kevinhester.live/2023/09/01/fukushima-daiichi-adds-insult-to-injury-for-the-pacifics-coral-reefs/?fbclid=IwAR0jp1-vAscTRRljsClpLdwM3oCRzSN5XC24qm6UgiqXprX85aElrc4jybk
—

September 3, 2023 Posted by | oceans | Leave a comment

Brink of catastrophe: Japan as Pacific polluter

True, the IAEA (the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency) has provided helpful cover for the Government of Japan (and the TEPCO power company) by taking the view that the environmental impact of discharge of polluted (but “processed” to remove most of the major radio-active materials) cooling water would be “negligible.” That, however, is neither surprising nor decisive.

The IAEA, founded in 1957, is an organisation devoted to the propagation of “safe” civil nuclear energy; the state of Japan is its third largest source of its funds; and the future of the global nuclear industry depends on there being seen to be a “final solution” to the problems posed by Fukushima.

 https://johnmenadue.com/brink-of-catastrophe-japan-as-pacific-polluter/ By Gavan McCormack, Aug 30, 2023

In 2011, Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant, roughly 250 kilometres north of Tokyo, was hit by a magnitude 9.0 quake and tsunami. Three reactors stopped immediately but the loss of electricity supply led in the days and months that followed to breakdown of the cooling system and to a series of hydrogen explosions and meltdowns of the cores of Reactors 1 to 3.

Prime Minster Kan Naoto feared for the worst. He faced the possible need to evacuate the whole Kanto region, including the Tokyo metropolitan area. Japan itself, its state and society, stood on the brink of catastrophe. That fate was only narrowly averted.

To this day the flow of water to cool the debris polluted with various forms of radioactivity has had to be maintained. Over the past twelve years some 1.34 million tons of water has accumulated and is being held in a vast array of over 1000 tanks along the coast of Fukushima prefecture. Those tanks are about 98 per cent full, but the flow of contaminated water will have to be continued for at least the next three decades, or till such time as the site can be cleaned up. Nobody today can say with any confidence when that might be.

The polluted waters contain 64 radioactive elements, or radionuclides, of greatest concern being carbon-14, iodine-131, caesium-137, strontium-90, cobalt-60 and hydrogen-3, also known as tritium. Some have short life and might already have ended, but others take longer to decay, with a half-life of more than 5,000 years in the case of carbon-14 (Nature, 29 June 2023). Tritium, which focuses most attention, has a half-life of 12.3 years. Its concentrations may be low, but one hundred years will have to pass before its threat to humans and the ocean becomes truly negligible

The government has yet to find additional sites for expansion, and each day it has to put about 90 tons of newly polluted water somewhere. And, while the people of Japan remain steadfast in opposing any return to the pre-2011 vision of a nuclear-powered, energy self-reliant, superpower Japan future, government and bureaucracy are increasingly open about their determination to pursue just such a goal.

In 2016, the Japanese government considered multiple methods of treating the water. Ruling out simple continuation of the status quo – more and more tanks along an already crowded sea-front – there seemed to be three options: ocean discharge, atmospheric discharge, and underground burial. The cost differential was estimated at 34.9 billion yen to release the problem materials as gas into the atmosphere, 24.3 billion to dig a deep hole and bury it, but just 3.4 billion to pour it out gradually into the sea.

The logic of such math was inescapable. The chosen option was the one that was cheaper by a factor of 7 or more. Time, and the recuperative, regenerative powers of the sea, would come to humanity’s rescue. The materials would be released into the ocean (channelled by giant pipes to a point about one kilometre offshore). That process began on 24 August 2023.

Anxiety, alarm, and increasingly anger, spread, both within Japan (and especially in the Fukushima vicinity that bore the brunt of the initial 2011 disaster) and on the part of Japan’s Pacific neighbour states – China (including Hong Kong), Korea (north and south), Russia, Philippines,  and the mini-states of the South Pacific (its 18 countries and regions). In Japan just 44 per cent of people said they had “no worries” over the release, but about 75 per cent said the government had not properly explained what it was doing.

The Japanese government, having promised it would take no step without duly consulting all concerned parties, proceeded to ignore that principle both in regard to its own citizenry (especially those employed in its once vibrant fishing industry) and its Pacific neighbours, whose shores are washed by the same Pacific waters.

True, the IAEA (the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency) has provided helpful cover for the Government of Japan (and the TEPCO power company) by taking the view that the environmental impact of discharge of polluted (but “processed” to remove most of the major radio-active materials) cooling water would be “negligible.” That, however, is neither surprising nor decisive. The IAEA, founded in 1957, is an organisation devoted to the propagation of “safe” civil nuclear energy; the state of Japan is its third largest source of its funds; and the future of the global nuclear industry depends on there being seen to be a “final solution” to the problems posed by Fukushima.

Though given little attention in media coverage of the problem, a small but significant body of scientific opinion has begun to express severe criticism of IAEA for its failure to apply its own fundamental principles, being in some important respects “at least 10,000 times in error,” neglecting to give proper consideration to the non-dumping solutions, “grossly over-stating” well known facts in its “eagerness to assure the public that harm will be ‘negligible’.” (Arjun Makhijani, “TEPCO’s ALPS-treated Radioactive Water Dumping Plan Violates Essential Provisions of IAEA’s General Safety Guide No. 8 and Corresponding Requirements in Other IAEA Documents, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research [IEER], 28 June 2023.

In this view, the IAEA should, starting with Japan, provide assistance to nuclear-possessing countries to stop dumping so that the oceans that have been much abused in so many ways for so long can at least have a chance to begin recovering.

When then Prime Minster Abe Shinzo told the world in September 2013 that Fukushima was “under control,” he lied. Till 2018, all attempts to locate the missing reactor cores, let alone to place them “under control,” had failed. Only in 2021 did it become possible at least to locate the debris in one reactor. But knowing the location is but the start. Now we know where it is, we are no closer to knowing how to deal with it. The recovery effort for two of the reactors will not commence until 2024. If they succeed in locating the debris, estimated to be about 880 tons, it will then have to be extracted, gram-by-gram. Meanwhile, as of 2023, between 4,000 and 5,000 workers are mobilised each day to perform various (high-risk) tasks in the disaster zone.

To the peoples of the small states of the Pacific, serial victims of waves of nuclear testing, first American, then French, the blow coming from nuclear-victim country Japan was especially bitter. To the shock and harm caused by the initial massive radioactivity release of 2011 has now to be added that of the deliberate, premeditated dumping of nuclear wastes from 2023. The “great powers” in the past had given Island peoples repeated assurances that there would be no risk to health or environment from testing or dumping. Those peoples watch sadly now as nuclear victim country Japan does likewise, engaging in intense propaganda efforts to line up regional states to endorse its wastewater dumping campaign.

Japanese words today rings as hollow to Pacific Island peoples as did once American or French words. Even the Japanese people themselves, when it comes to Fukushima wastewater dumping “have little trust in TEPCO or the Japanese Government.” (Suzuki Tatsujiro, former Vice-Chairman of Japan’s Atomic Energy Commission, quoted in Makhijani, p. 3)

by the current administration and by the process launched on 24 August. The support given Japan’s ocean dumping by prominent Western industrial countries strikes Pacific Islanders as hypocritical (Kalinga Seneviratne, “To the Pacific islands, the West’s support for Japan’s Fukushima nuclear waste ocean dumping is hypocrisy,” South China Morning Post, 20 July 2023,) Motarilavoa Hilda Lini, chief of the Turaga nation of Pentacost Island, Vanuatu, and activist of the Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific (NFIP) movement, puts it this way, “We are people of the ocean. We must stand up and protect it.” She went on,

“We need to remind Japan and other nuclear states of our Nuclear Free and independent Pacific movement slogan: if it is safe, dump it in Tokyo, test it in Paris, and store it in Washington, but keep our Pacific nuclear-free.” (Guardian, 26 April 2023).

Brushing aside the pleas of neighbour states, especially those of the long-suffering peoples of the Pacific Islands, Japan has pressed ahead to dump its nuclear wastes into the ocean, ensuring that in due course a third wave of nuclear pollution will wash over Pacific shores.

August 31, 2023 Posted by | oceans, wastes | 2 Comments

OPENING THE FLOOD GATES AT FUKUSHIMA

Discharging radioactive water from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant is avoidable, risky and potentially illegal

By Sarah Hachman and Associate Professor Tilman Ruff AO, University of Melbourne, 29 Aug 23 https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/opening-the-flood-gates-at-fukushima

The Japanese government intends to discharge all 1.34 million tonnes of wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, an operation that began on 24 August 2023. Presumably, it also plans to discharge the wastewater that will continue to accumulate over the coming decades.

This decision is not only harmful to human and environmental health but is also in direct violation of international law.

The original announcement, made in 2021, came 10 years after a 9.0 earthquake and tsunami struck Japan’s east coast, damaging the cooling mechanisms at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (FDNPS) and causing three nuclear reactors to meltdown.

The destruction of the FDNPS released an estimated 520 Peta Becquerels (520 x 10¹⁵ nuclear decays per second) of various radionuclides (radioactive elements) into the atmosphere, including cesium, carbon-14, iodine-129, and tritium. However, this figure excludes noble gases such as xenon-133, of which the Fukushima release was the largest since atmospheric nuclear bomb tests.

AN INCOMPLETE CLEAN-UP

Following the incident, the Japanese government worked with the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) on a plan to decommission the plant, efforts which continue to this day.

The first step of this process was to ensure the reactors remained stable. As such, ocean water was pumped into the reactors as a replacement for the now-defunct cooling mechanisms. Though necessary, this process, along with extensive groundwater leakage, has produced over one million tonnes of irradiated wastewater, which continues to accumulate daily.

This wastewater is being decontaminated using an Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS), a filtration process intended to remove 62 radionuclides from water using a series of chemical reactions. However, this system’s consistent effectiveness, even with repeated treatment, has not yet been demonstrated, and ALPS is incapable of eliminating tritium and carbon-14.

As of July 2023, the ALPS-treated wastewater was being stored on-site in 1,046 storage tanks that are nearing capacity, hence the claimed need for ocean discharge.

The Japanese government plans to incrementally discharge the treated wastewater into the Pacific Ocean over the next 30 to 40 years. Though presented with other disposal options, such as long-term storage in purpose-built, seismically-safe tanks and solidifying the water in a leakproof form such as mortar or concrete, the task force declined to explore these avenues due to complexity and cost.

Even after initial cleaning, 70 per cent of the stored wastewater contains levels of radionuclides above regulatory standards, in some cases up to 20,000 times higher. And it’s not just tritium (more on this substance below) in this water, there are other, more toxic, substances, such as cesium-137, strontium-90 and cobalt-60.

However, the IAEA found that Japan’s plans “are consistent with IAEA Safety Standards” and that the levels of tritium, carbon-14, and other potential radioactive contaminants will be within international standards when discharged, without TEPCO having demonstrated its water cleaning can consistently achieve this.

Dilution of the wastewater as planned to meet regulatory limits will not alter the total amount of materials released, which is the key factor.

TEPCO estimates the annual radiation dose to people from the discharged water would be lower than that of a dental x-ray or a round-trip flight from New York City to Tokyo.

However, TEPCO’s checkered history gives little grounds for confidence in its assurances.

NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE OF SAFETY

Despite reassurance from the IAEA, the scientific community remains divided on the decision, citing growing evidence of how tritium may impact human and environmental health.

Moreover, environmental scientists have argued that the amount considered to be an environmentally safe level of radiation is more political than scientific. National standards invariably lag behind the science, and regulatory limits for tritium in water vary from as much as 7000 Bq/L (Becquerels per litre) in Canada to 15 Bq/L in California.


Tritium is a naturally occurring, radioactive form of hydrogen also produced by nuclear reactors and explosions. It is the largest radioactive byproduct of nuclear power plants. It reacts with oxygen to create tritiated water, which is why ALPS is unable to filter it. Tritium exposure has been largely considered to be harmless in low concentrations and, when ingested, tritiated water is processed in the body identically to water.

There is strong evidence, however, that tritium, particularly organically-bound forms, may have lasting health effects similar to other forms of radiation exposure, such as decreased lifespan, developmental delays and cognitive deficits, immunodeficiency, infertility and birth defects, and cancer and DNA mutations among humans, land animals and aquatic vertebrates and invertebrates who experienced high or prolonged exposure.

The International Commission on Radiological Protection considers tritium’s beta radiation overall to be twice as biologically damaging as X-rays, and organically-bound tritium three times as damaging as tritium incorporated into water.

Though the task force has committed to monitoring tritium exposure in aquatic animals, TEPCO noted that “fish tritium measurement is very difficult and there are only a few analysis agencies that are capable of performing this measurement,” and that reports from these agencies are often conflicting, making this an insufficient risk mitigation strategy.

ILLEGAL UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

Japan joined both the 1972 London Convention to prevent marine pollution by waste dumping, and also the 1996 Protocol which specifically prohibits the marine dumping of radioactive waste. In 1996, Japan ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), an international agreement that established a framework for maritime activities.

By ratifying UNCLOS, Japan committed itself to “protect and preserve the marine environment” and abstain from polluting waterways from “land-based sources”.

Additionally, in 1992 Japan committed to the Rio Declaration, a collection of goals created by the UN targeting sustainable development and environmental protection that heavily emphasises the precautionary principle. Article 15 states: “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”

Though there is still debate within the scientific community surrounding the effects of tritium and what constitutes an acceptable level of radiation exposure, two truths remain. One, Japan has committed itself to environmental protection, and two, the contaminated wastewater is a land-based source of pollution.

Furthermore, the very existence of the debate on tritium’s safety and the knowledge that the discharged water will contain other, more harmful radioactive pollutants, requires Japan to employ the precautionary principle just as they agreed to in 1992.

The Japanese government moving forward with the discharge plan, disregarding its commitments to the global community and international efforts for environmental protection sets a precedent for how the global community responds to modern nuclear crises.

Approving this plan means approving a compromise on human and environmental health, inflicting a transboundary and transgenerational problem on peoples around the Pacific with no offsetting benefit or say in the decision, and a failure to engage state and non-state actors with stakes in the nuclear industry to question what’s acceptable.

As such, the Japanese government must follow through on its commitments to the international community and critically consider alternatives for wastewater disposal. The discharge is planned to go on for 30-40 years and radioactive wastewater will continue to accumulate.

Even though it has already started, it can still be stopped and a better alternative implemented.

August 30, 2023 Posted by | oceans, radiation, Reference | Leave a comment

‘Animals could become MUTATED’ from the 1.3 million tons of radioactive waste dumped from Japan’s nuclear power plant in the Pacific

 Japan started dumping more than 1.3 million tons of radioactive water into
the Pacific Ocean Thursday – and an expert has warned it ‘has the potential
to cause mutations as seen in Chernobyl.

‘The wastewater is currently being
held in the nation’s Fukushima nuclear plant, which is set to be
decommissioned and must be cleaned to prevent accidental leaks. The
contaminated water has been filtered to remove isotopes, leaving only
tritium and carbon-14, which are radioactive isotopes of hydrogen and
carbon that cannot be easily removed from water.

Timothy Mousseau, a
researcher at the University of South Carolina, told DailyMai.com: Tritium
and carbon-14, along with the other radionuclides [that cause cancer] to be
released, all have the potential to cause mutations, cancers and
developmental deformities, as seen in Chernobyl.’

 Daily Mail 24th Aug 2023

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-12441915/Japan-dumping-million-tons-radioactive-waste-Pacific-Ocean-today-cause-animals-MUTATE.html

August 26, 2023 Posted by | Fukushima continuing, oceans | Leave a comment

Fukushima waste-water decision disregards scientific evidence, violates the human rights of Pacific region communities

Japan announces date for Fukushima radioactive water release

Greenpeace International, 22 August 2023   https://www.greenpeace.org/international/press-release/61364/japan-announces-date-for-fukushima-radioactive-water-release/

Tokyo – Greenpeace Japan criticises the Japanese government’s announcement of the start date for radioactive water discharges from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear station into the Pacific Ocean.

The decision disregards scientific evidence, violates the human rights of communities in Japan and the Pacific region, and is non-compliant with international maritime law. More importantly it ignores its people’s concerns, including fishermen. The Japanese government and Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) – the nuclear power plants’ operators – falsely assert that there is no alternative to the decision to discharge and that it is necessary to move towards final decommissioning. This further highlights the failure of the decommissioning plan for the nuclear plants destroyed in the 2011 earthquake, stating that tens of thousands of tons of contaminated water will continue to increase with no effective solution.

“We are deeply disappointed and outraged by the Japanese Government’s announcement to release water containing radioactive substances into the ocean. Despite concerns raised by fishermen, citizens, Fukushima residents, and the international community, especially in the Pacific region and neighboring countries, this decision has been made,” said Hisayo Takada, Project Manager at Greenpeace Japan.

The increasing volumes of and the pending release of the radioactive water demonstrate the failure of the decommissioning plan for the Fukushima Daiichi. The contaminated water will continue to accumulate for many years without effective measures to stop it. The Japanese Government and TEPCO falsely claim that discharge is the only viable option necessary for eventual decommissioning. Nuclear power generation, which experiences shutdowns due to accidents and natural disasters, and perpetually requires thermal power as a backup, cannot serve as a solution to global warming. 

“The deliberate pollution of the Pacific Ocean through these radioactive waste discharges is a consequence of the 2011 nuclear disaster and Japan’s decades long nuclear power program. Instead of acknowledging the flaws in the current decommissioning plan, the ongoing nuclear crisis, and the massive amount of public funds required, the Japanese government intends to restart more nuclear reactors despite evidence of major earthquakes and safety risks. The current government energy plan fails to deliver secure and sustainable renewables such as wind and solar energy that the climate emergency demands,” said Takada.

As of 8 June 2023, there were 1,335,381 cubic meters of radioactive wastewater stored in tanks[1], but due to the failure of the ALPS (Advanced Liquid Processing System) processing technology, approximately 70% of this water will have to be processed again. Scientists have warned that the radiological risks from the discharges have not been fully assessed, and the biological impacts of tritium, carbon-14, strontium-90 and iodine-129, which will be released in the discharges, have been ignored.[2] 

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) endorsed Japan’s plans for discharge. However, the IAEA has failed to investigate the operation of the ALPS, has completely ignored the highly radioactive fuel debris that melted down which continues every day to contaminate ground water – nearly 1000 cubic meters every ten days. Furthermore, the discharge plan has failed to conduct a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment, as required by its international legal obligations, given that there is a risk of significant transboundary harm to neighboring countries. The IAEA is not tasked with protecting the global marine environment but it should not encourage a state to violate it.

“The myth is being perpetuated that discharges are necessary for decommissioning. But the Japanese government itself admits that there is sufficient water storage space in Fukushima Daiichi.[3] Long-term storage would expose the current government decommissioning roadmap as flawed, but that is exactly what needs to happen. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear station is still in crisis, posing unique and severe hazards, and there is no credible plan for its decommissioning,”  emphasized Shaun Burnie, Senior Nuclear Specialist at Greenpeace East Asia.

Member states at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, as well as UN Special Rapporteurs, have opposed and criticized Japan’s discharge plans.[4] Japan’s discharge plans also disregard the groundbreaking Human Rights Council resolution 48/13, which in 2021 determined that it is a human right to have a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.[5] Furthermore, Japan has failed to comply with its legal obligations under the United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), to protect the marine environment including its legal requirement to conduct a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment into the discharges into the Pacific Ocean, given the risk of significant transboundary harm to neighboring countries.[6]

“Instead of engaging in an honest debate about this reality, the Japanese government has opted for a false solution – decades of deliberate radioactive pollution of the marine environment – during a time when the world’s oceans are already facing immense stress and pressures. This is an outrage that violates the human rights of the people and communities of Fukushima, and other neighboring prefectures and the wider Asia-Pacific region,” said Burnie.

August 25, 2023 Posted by | Fukushima continuing, oceans, wastes | Leave a comment

Fukushima: What are the concerns over waste water release?

By Tessa Wong, Asia Digital Reporter, BBC News, 23 Aug 23,

Japan’s controversial plan to release treated waste water from the Fukushima nuclear plant into the Pacific Ocean has sparked anxiety and anger at home and abroad.

Since the 2011 tsunami which severely damaged the plant, more than a million tonnes of treated waste water has accumulated there. Japan has said it will start discharging it from 24 August.

Despite an endorsement from the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the plan has been deeply controversial in Japan with local communities expressing concerns about contamination.

Fishing industry groups in Japan and the wider region are also worried about their livelihoods, as they fear consumers will avoid buying seafood.

China has accused Japan of treating the ocean as its “private sewer”, and criticised the IAEA of being “one-sided”. While South Korea’s government has said it has no objections to the plan, many of its citizens are opposed to it.

So what is Japan’s plan and how exactly has it churned the waters?

What is Japan doing with the nuclear waste water?

Since the disaster, power plant company Tepco has been pumping in water to cool down the Fukushima nuclear reactors’ fuel rods. This means every day the plant produces contaminated water, which is stored in massive tanks.

More than 1,000 tanks have been filled, and Japan says that it needs the land occupied by the tanks to build new facilities to safely decommission the plant. It has also pointed out concerns that the tanks could collapse in a natural disaster.

Releasing treated waste water into the ocean is a routine practice for nuclear plants – though critics have pointed out that the amount from Fukushima is on an unprecedented, far vaster scale.

Tepco filters the Fukushima water through its Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS), which reduces most radioactive substances to acceptable safety standards, apart from tritium and carbon-14…………………………………………….

What do critics say?

Despite years of government assurances, the plan remains deeply controversial to the Japanese public. Only 53% said they support it, while 41% said they did not, in a survey conducted in August by the newspaper Asahi Shimbun.

UN-appointed human rights experts have opposed the plan, as have environmental activists. Greenpeace has released reports casting doubt on Tepco’s treatment process, alleging it does not go far enough in removing radioactive substances.

Critics say Japan should, for the time being, keep the treated water in the tanks. They argue this buys time to develop new processing technologies, and allow any remaining radioactivity to naturally reduce.

There are also some scientists who are uncomfortable with the plan. They say it requires more studies on how it would affect the ocean bed and marine life.

“We’ve seen an inadequate radiological, ecological impact assessment that makes us very concerned that Japan would not only be unable to detect what’s getting into the water, sediment and organisms, but if it does, there is no recourse to remove it… there’s no way to get the genie back in the bottle,” marine biologist Robert Richmond, a professor with the University of Hawaii, told the BBC’s Newsday programme.

Tatsujiro Suzuki, a nuclear engineering professor from Nagasaki University’s Research Center for Nuclear Weapons Abolition, told the BBC the plan would “not necessarily lead to serious pollution or readily harm the public – if everything goes well”.

But given that Tepco failed to prevent the 2011 disaster, he remains concerned about a potential accidental release of contaminated water, he said.

What have Japan’s neighbours said?

China has been the most vocal, accusing Japan of violating “international moral and legal obligations” and “putting its selfish interests above the long-term wellbeing of the entire humanity”.

It has also warned that Tokyo “must bear all consequences”, and has already banned seafood from Fukushima and surrounding prefectures…………….

n contrast to China, Seoul – which has been keen to build ties with Japan – has soft-pedalled its concerns. It says it “respects” the IAEA’s findings and has endorsed the plan.

But this approach has angered the South Korean public, 80% of whom are worried about the water release according to a recent poll.

“The government enforces a strong no-littering policy at sea… But now the government is not saying a word (to Japan) about the wastewater flowing into the ocean,” Park Hee-jun, a South Korean fisherman told BBC Korean………….

Thousands have attended protests in Seoul calling for government action, as some shoppers fearing food supply disruptions have stockpiled salt and other necessities.

In response, South Korea’s parliament passed a resolution in late June opposing the water release plan – though it is unclear what impact this would have on Japan’s decision. Officials are also launching “intense inspections” of seafood, and are sticking to an existing ban of Japanese seafood imports from regions around the Fukushima plant……………………………

the biggest vindication may lie with the IAEA report, released by the agency’s chief Rafael Grossi while visiting Japan in July.

The report, which came after a two year investigation, found that Tepco and Japanese authorities were meeting international safety standards on several aspects including facilities, inspections and enforcement, environmental monitoring, and radioactivity assessments.

Mr Grossi said the plan would have a “negligible radiological impact on people and the environment”.

Yet, Japan’s decision to start discharging the Fukushima water has set the stage for an intensified showdown with its critics.

Additional reporting by Yuna Ku and Chika Nakayama.  https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-66106162

August 25, 2023 Posted by | Fukushima continuing, oceans, opposition to nuclear | Leave a comment

Japanese fishing industry leader is “greatly concerned” over the pending disharge of Fukushima radioactive water into the ocean.

 The leader of a Japanese fisheries industry group told officials on Monday
he was “greatly concerned” about the discharge of treated radioactive water
set to be released into the sea from the wrecked Fukushima nuclear plant.

The government is expected to decide soon, perhaps within days, when to
start releasing the water, equivalent to the contents of 500 Olympic-size
swimming pools, despite objections at home and abroad to the plan.

 Reuters 21st Aug 2023

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/japan-pm-kishida-meet-with-fishermens-group-monday-afternoon-jiji-2023-08-21/

August 23, 2023 Posted by | Japan, oceans | Leave a comment

Poisoning the planet

Radioactive water dump is just latest example our reckless destruction of habitat

By Linda Pentz Gunter, 20 Aug 23, https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2023/08/20/poisoning-the-planet/

Much has been made — and rightly so — about the potential impact on human health and the Japanese fishing industry if Japan moves forward with its proposal to dump 1.2 million cubic meters — that’s 1.3 million tons —of radioactively contaminated water into the Pacific Ocean from the destroyed Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant site.

Unfortunately, this looks likely to happen sometime this month or next despite the worldwide outcry. But when I say “happen”, that rather suggests a one-off dump. Instead, the discharge of these liquid nuclear wastes could go on for at least 17 years according to the Atomic Energy Society of Japan, but likely longer as decommissioning work at the site is expected to take at least 30-40 years.

It is perfectly right and reasonable that the Japanese fishing community sees its livelihood under threat from this proposal. Indeed, it has already taken a hit, as imports of Japanese fish stock to South Korea were down by 30% in May, before the dumping even began. This was clearly driven by jitters around the on-going safety of Japanese fish supplies once those radioactive discharges get underway.

And Pacific Island nations, along with an international team of scientific experts, have equally decried the plan as premature, unnecessary and in need of far greater confidence and further study before such discharges are executed, if ever.

But there is a greater moral issue here, one that speaks to humankind’s reckless and selfish behavior on planet Earth ever since mechanization and the various so-called industrial revolutions began.

For almost three centuries in the developed world, we have continuously and wantonly destroyed vast areas of precious habitat for numerous species. We have clear cut forests, sliced the tops off mountains, broken open the earth to mine minerals, exploded atomic weapons, spewed mercury and carbon into our air, drilled for oil, sprayed pesticides at will and filled the oceans with plastics, to name just a few environmental atrocities.

The toxic mess these activities leave behind has been dumped into rivers, streams, lakes and oceans, or on the lands where the less influential and powerful amongst us live — in the United States almost always in communities of color or on Native American reservations.

One of the worst offenders on this list is nuclear waste. In keeping with our heedless irresponsibility we have kept making lethal radioactive waste without the slightest idea how to safely manage or store it for the longterm. For years, barrels of the stuff were dumped into the sea, until a 1994 amendment to the London Dumping Convention, put an end to it.

But of course the nuclear industry found a way around this. Routine liquid discharges through a pipe circumvented this law. Institutions such as the LaHague reprocessing site on the northern French coast, have discharged radioactive liquids (and gases) for decades. Didier Anger, the now retired expert activist on the environmental crimes at La Hague, uses this history to warn us urgently and eloquently of the folly of discharging nuclear waste into our oceans.

At times, the liquid wastes from La Hague, measured at the discharge point by vigilant groups such as Greenpeace, could have been classified as high-level radioactive waste that would normally require a deep geological repository. 

As we approach the moment when radioactive liquids are once more poured into the sea, this time in Japan, imposing a toxic burden on the creatures who are already struggling to survive there, we must ask whether human beings have some sort of divine right of kings to trash the habitat of other living things? 

The answer should surely be ‘no’. That humans can generate a radioactive mess and “dispose” of it into some other creatures’ habitat, poisoning their environment is, frankly, both arrogant and abhorrent.

We have already done this everywhere and it has come with a terrible price to other creatures as well as to ourselves. The destruction and contamination of habitat has led to mass extinctions. The US has lost three billion birds since 1970. That’s one in four birds. We may have thought the birds were back in abundance during the start of the covid pandemic, but that was just us hearing what’s left of them more clearly, in the quiet of lockdown.

Bees, who perform around 80% of all pollination, are dying out and hives collapsing, all due to human activities. These include pesticides, drought, habitat destruction, nutrition deficit, air pollution, and, of course, the climate crisis.

Absent these and other essential members of the web of life, our own extinction is not far behind.

We need to stop this behavior and we need to stop it now. We should do it not only for ourselves but for the countless innocent creatures who should not be expected to offer up their homes as our dustbins.

Loading up the Pacific Ocean with liquid radioactive waste — whether it dilutes and disperses or not — is a crime of immorality representative of so many that have come before. If we are truly to change our plundering, polluting and profligate ways, banning the radioactive water dump at Fukushima would be an excellent place to start.

Linda Pentz Gunter is the international specialist at Beyond Nuclear and writes for and curates Beyond Nuclear International. 

August 21, 2023 Posted by | environment, Japan, oceans, Religion and ethics, wastes | Leave a comment

Agency to test for tritium in fish after Fukushima water discharge

The Fisheries Agency will conduct daily checks of tritium levels in fish
caught off the coast of Fukushima Prefecture after treated water from the
Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant is released into the ocean.

The agency announced on Aug. 10 that the results of the checks would be released two
days later. The study will continue for about a month after the start of
the discharge of water treated after being contaminated with radiation
within the plant grounds.

The government plans to begin releasing the
water, which has accumulated at the crippled plant for more than a decade
and is nearing the capacity of storage tanks on the site, later this
summer. China has been especially virulent in opposing the discharge of the
treated water due to environmental concerns. The results of the daily
checks will be released in Japanese and English by the Fisheries Agency.

Asahi Shimbun 11th Aug 2023

https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14979387

August 13, 2023 Posted by | Fukushima continuing, oceans | Leave a comment

Chinese UN mission releases working paper on Fukushima nuclear-contaminated wastewater issue, urging Japan to discharge in responsible manner

By Global TimesP Aug 09, 2023  https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202308/1295954.shtml

Chinese UN mission releases working paper on Fukushima nuclear-contaminated wastewater issue, urging Japan to discharge in responsible manner

China’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations (UN) and Other International Organizations in Vienna has submitted the working paper on the disposal of nuclear-contaminated water of Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station to the First Preparatory Committee for the Eleventh Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

The disposal of nuclear-contaminated water from Fukushima concerns the global marine environment and public health. There is no precedent for artificially discharging nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean and no internationally recognized disposal standards. 

The international community should attach great importance to Japan’s ocean discharge of the nuclear-contaminated water and urge Japan to dispose of the contaminated water in a responsible manner, according to the working paper released on Wednesday.

The working paper pointed out that Japan had previously discussed five ways to dispose of the contaminated water, namely injection into the ground, discharge into the ocean, vapor release, release as hydrogen gas into the atmosphere, and underground burial. However, Japan did not conduct a thorough study of all disposal options and insisted on choosing ocean dumping, which was the lowest cost option, thus transferring the risk of nuclear contamination.

If the so-called ”treated-water” is really safe and harmless, why does Japan not dispose of it within its own territory or use it for industrial and agricultural purposes? The working paper pointed out. 

The paper noted that Japan fails to prove the long-term effectiveness and reliability of the purification equipment for treating the contaminated water. According to the data released by Japan, nearly 70 percent of the nuclear-contaminated water treated by Japan’s ALPS (Advanced Liquid Processing System) still fails to meet the discharge standard and needs to be purified again. 

Japan has failed to prove the authenticity and accuracy of the data on contaminated water. Fukushima power plant operator TEPCO has repeatedly concealed and falsified nuclear-contaminated water related data in recent years. The IAEA conducted its review and assessment solely based on the data and information provided by Japan, and carried out inter-laboratory comparative analyses of only a small number of nuclear-contaminated water samples collected by Japanese officials, read the working paper.

According to general international law and the provisions of UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, Japan has the obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment. The Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter 1972 (the London Convention) prohibits the dumping of radioactive waste into the sea by means of man-made structures at sea. Japan’s discharging of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea by means of submarine pipelines is in violation of the relevant provisions of the London Convention.

Japan has failed to demonstrate the perfection of the monitoring program. Tokyo  must not start discharging until the long-term monitoring mechanism is established, and must stop discharging water once anomalies are detected in the data on the discharge of nuclear contaminated water.

The Chinese UN mission stressed that Japan should not confuse the concept of nuclear-contaminated wastewater with the wastewater from the normal operation of nuclear power plants.

The working paper warned Japan of not making use of IAEA’s comprehensive assessment report on the disposal of Fukushima nuclear-contaminated water as ”shield” or ”greenlight” for the dumping plan. 

In addition, the paper urged Japan to fully respond to the concerns of China and the international community, and dispose of the nuclear-contaminated water in a responsible manner in line with its obligations under international law, stop pushing through the dumping plan, fully consult with stakeholders including neighboring countries, make sure to handle the nuclear contaminated water in a science-based, safe and transparent way, and subject itself to rigorous international oversight

August 12, 2023 Posted by | oceans, wastes | Leave a comment

Fish Hell – impacts of sea water nuclear cooling systems

12 July 2023 https://www.banng.info/news/regional-life/fish-hell/

Varrie Blowers looks at the devastating impacts of sea water cooling systems on the marine environment in the July 2023 edition of Regional Life

What amounts to a ‘fish hell’ is being proposed at the Hinkley Point C (HPC) new nuclear power station. This provides an indication of what might happen on the Blackwater if a new nuclear station or so-called Small Modular Reactors were ever built here.

In 2019, conservation groups predicted that the gigantic twin cooling water intake tunnels at HPC would kill up to 250,000 fish a day. Eels, small fish and the fry of many species, such as salmon, whiting and cod, and microorganisms will be sucked into the cooling system through the 5mm mesh installed to prevent larger fish being swallowed up into this fish hell, to be discharged in heated water after hideous suffering. If this seems outrageous, things may be about to get worse.

To gain Planning Permission HPC’s developer, Electricité de France (EDF), was required to instal Acoustic Fish Deterrents (AFDs) in the intake pipes to give some warning to fish to keep away. EDF does not now want to instal these, most likely for financial reasons. Without AFDs, Stop Hinkley! argues that up to 500,000 fish a day will be sucked into the cooling water intakes. That suggests 11 billion fish and other marine life will be destroyed in the c.60 years life of the station.

Conditions may be different in the Bradwell B context but any nuclear development that requires cooling water from the estuary would severely affect marine life. Affected, too, would be the many wildfowl and migratory birds that depend on fish and other marine life for food in estuaries like the Severn and Blackwater, which support important and protected habitats.

In other sobering news, an ‘unheard of’ heatwave in our coastal waters has been reported. Before you jump into the sea, consider the impacts of warmer water on our marine life. If the heatwave continues through the summer, experts believe ‘we could see the mass mortality of kelp, seagrass, fish and oysters’ (Guardian, 20 June).

August 10, 2023 Posted by | oceans, UK | Leave a comment

Do right by the whales

Beyond Nuclear International 6 Aug 23

No environmental study has ever been conducted of the impact of the North Atlantic right whales’ protected birthing waters being occupied by the massive Kings Bay naval station

Nuclear sub base expansion ignores precious species; missiles could destroy us all

Background: The U.S. Navy has released a Draft Environmental Assessment for the homeporting of the Columbia Class submarines at Naval Submarine Base (NSB) Kings Bay.

The Navy proposes to establish facilities and functions at NSB Kings Bay to support the homeporting of Columbia Class submarines as replacements for the retiring Ohio Class submarines currently homeported at NSB Kings Bay. Under the Proposed Action, the Navy would construct eight facilities, modify five facilities, and demolish three facilities across three locations on NSB Kings Bay. 

Facility changes and development activities would be phased over a period of five years and completed coincident to the first Columbia Class submarines in 2028. 

Nuclear Watch South has prepared comments opposing this development. The following article is drawn from their statement and comments recently submitted to the U.S. Navy.

Georgia’s 100 miles of Atlantic Ocean coastline is a globally unique, fertile, and fragile marshland environment of barrier islands, freshwater tidal forests, maritime forests, and endangered longleaf pine forest. Georgia’s vast salt marshes support a staggering diversity of plant and animal life nurturing the eggs and hatchlings of countless sea creatures and providing significant nesting and migration habitat for 200 bird species.

Kings Bay, near the Georgia-Florida state line, is home base for six Trident submarines and deploys 25% of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. A Trident submarine is the most expensive and deadly nuclear weapons system on Earth. The only other nation to possess a similarly powerful system is the United Kingdom, a longtime United States ally. The Trident has been controversial since its inception as it upsets the so-called MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) power balance, fueling a dangerous and costly international arms race.

The Navy conducted an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in 1977 when Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base was first proposed. The EIS was performed to fulfill environmental and public accountability requirements of the newly instituted National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) of 1969. 

In 1979, construction began on Kings Bay. In 1984, it was first discovered that the base had unwittingly intruded upon the (previously unknown and apparently only) birthing waters for the critically endangered North Atlantic right whales in the Cumberland Sound.

Kings Bay base began operations in 1989. The Soviet Union dissolved in 1991. At the same time, the U.S. nuclear weapons manufacturing complex, occupying vast reservations in more than a dozen states from Washington to South Carolina, was shuttering its reactors and facilities amidst revelations of widespread nuclear contamination and vast inventories of poorly managed radioactive wastes. 

The nuclear weapons complex suddenly and belatedly became subject to environmental law and NEPA has since proved to be a difficult filter through which to permit new nuclear weapons manufacture. 

For example, the U.S. Department of Energy and National Nuclear Security Agency have failed in five attempts over the past 30 years to establish a plutonium pit production facility at the Savannah River Site (SRS) on the South Carolina/Georgia state line.

Nuclear weapons manufacturing has languished since 1990 in all nuclear-armed nations and limited nuclear treaties have greatly reduced nuclear stockpiles. All nuclear testing ceased in 1992. Trident submarines now carry fewer nuclear weapons, but each Trident submarine currently can deploy the explosive power of 1,825 Hiroshimas.

In 2021, the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons entered into force, presently counting 68 nations as parties. The treaty begins by expressing the parties’ concern for “the catastrophic humanitarian consequences that would result from any use of nuclear weapons, and recognizing the consequent need to completely eliminate such weapons, which remains the only way to guarantee that nuclear weapons are never used again under any circumstances.”

This landmark, game-changing treaty sets forth as international law that it is illegal to “develop, test, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.”

The North Atlantic right whale population rebounded from near extinction when hunting the whales was outlawed in 1935. The whales encountered new hazards, however, with the industrialization of shipping and fishing. Ship strikes and entanglement in fishing gear are held responsible for mortality events which are now decimating the whale population. 

The current population of the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale has crashed to fewer than 350 animals. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) estimates 50 births per year are required to avoid extinction of these ancient, magnificent marine mammals. In 2022, only 15 North Atlantic right whales were born. 

No environmental study has ever been conducted of the impact of the North Atlantic right whales’ protected birthing waters being occupied by the massive Kings Bay naval station.

Despite the moribund state of nuclear weapons manufacture, in 2022, the U.S. spent $83,000 per minute on nuclear weapons. This budget includes items such as the redundant Columbia class submarine, which this environmental study narrowly contemplates. 

Earth’s inhabitants now face extreme dislocation from climate change in addition to living under the Damocles sword of nuclear annihilation for the previous three generations. Clearly, resources now squandered on nuclear weapons can be converted to the task of making the lifestyle changes required to retain our planet’s life-supporting atmosphere.

It is the pleasure and duty of the public to participate in important decisions as framed and codified by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Nuclear Watch South lists here the pertinent portions of the Act upon which these comments rely.

Comments

An Environmental Assessment is inadequate. An Environmental Impact Statement should be performed…………………………………………………………………………….

Before 1984, it was unknown where the critically endangered North Atlantic right whales gave birth to their calves. Nuclear Watch South believes that the construction activities of the naval base forced the whales into open waters during a most vulnerable part of their life cycle, which led to the death of the baby calf discovered in 1982 and puts ongoing pressure upon the dwindling population of this critically endangered, protected species. Kings Bay’s presence must be counted among the human-created hazards driving the North Atlantic right whale to extinction.

The reasonably foreseeable impact of nuclear weapons is wholesale environmental destruction

NEPA requires analysis of all foreseeable impacts from the proposed activity. The environmental impact from use of the nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons system housed at Kings Bay must be contemplated in an EIS. It is the nature of the SSBN (Sub-Surface Ballistic Nuclear) program that it is capable of destroying the whole Earth. The whole Earth is stakeholder…………………………………………………

Kings Bay impacts on unique Georgia coastal environment are absent from EA and must be considered in an EIS 

Kings Bay is a complex and unique site with environmental impacts from 30 years of Kings Bay operation in the sensitive Georgia coastal eco-system. Kings Bay’s previous environmental impacts, some of which are highlighted below, must be included in an EIS……………………………………………………………….

The sound where whales have given birth for previous millennia is regularly dredged to accommodate the five-story Trident submarines. In addition, U.S. Navy sonar testing has been shown to harm sea turtles and marine life, including the large marine mammals, whales, and dolphins. The impacts of Kings Bay on the dwindling North Atlantic right whale population’s southern range must be considered in addition to its impacts on other sea-life……………………………………………………………..

We are at a cultural crossroads that requires contemplation of whether to continue planet-killing nuclear arms roulette or to denuclearize and end the Atomic Age to avert annihilation. The NEPA process provides for a public and transparent exploration of the “big picture” with respect to large projects. Indeed, NEPA was borne out of the previously unforeseen environmental misadventures of the military industrial complex and instituted as a method to avert disaster with experience and deep foresight.

An alternative to continued “business as usual” at Kings Bay would be to remove the submarine killing machines and nuclear weapons from this sensitive, fragile, and vital eco-system and instead maintain a presence of national defense in the coastal marsh with a Coast Guard base and marine wildlife sanctuary. 

This serves as a more benign project for our national defense that will also defend our wildlife and restore a healthy atmosphere to our planet.

Nuclear Watch South is a grassroots, statewide direct action environmental organization founded in 1977. Nuclear Watch South’s three-fold mission is 1) phase out nuclear power and promote conservation and sustainable energy sources such as wind and solar, 2) halt the proliferation of nuclear materials and abolish the global threat of nuclear weapons, and 3) promote the formation of ethical environmental policies for nuclear waste handling and containment.  https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2023/08/06/do-right-by-the-whales/

August 8, 2023 Posted by | oceans, USA | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »