USA’s nuclear insurance places the big responsibility on the tax-payer
|
The US government insurance scheme for nuclear power plant accidents no longer makes sense, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, By Victor Gilinsky, February 26, 2020 The Japan Center for Economic Research, a source sympathetic to nuclear power, recently put the long-term costs of the 2011 Fukushima accident as about $750 billion. Contrast that with the maximum of $13 billion that could be available after a catastrophic US nuclear accident under the plant owners’ self-insurance scheme defined by the Price-Anderson Act. The Act will have to be renewed before 2025; Congress should seize the opportunity not only to reflect on the lack of insurance in the event of a catastrophic accident, but also to reconsider our approach to nuclear power plant safety altogether.
The main public risk of nuclear power plants comes from rare but devastating nuclear accidents. Because data on such accidents is sparse, the probability of their occurrence has to be calculated on the basis of a model, rather than obtained from experience. Moreover, the extent of an accident and its monetary consequences are postulated on the basis of models that are limited by analysts’ imagination. Who would have imagined, for example, that the Fukushima accident would involve several reactors? Or that Japan would subsequently shut down all its other nuclear power plants?………. Curiously, from the chairman on down, the NRC misstates the legal standard for its safety decisions. The NRC and its staff claim their job is to provide “reasonable assurance of adequate protection,” whereas the standard in the Atomic Energy Act is “adequate protection.” Under the law, their job is to provide adequate protection, period. Do the commissioners think the extra cushion of “reasonable assurance” justifies weaker regulation? To return to the Price-Anderson Act: As we’ve seen, a catastrophic accident would render the US self-insurance scheme for nuclear power plants pretty much irrelevant. But the indemnification of all industry participants would remain highly relevant: The industry would be free of any liability for offsite death or damage, whereas the victims would have to go hat in hand to Congress for restitution. This is an enormous subsidy—consider, again, the $750 billion and counting tab for Fukushima—that the federal government provides the nuclear industry, one without which not a single US nuclear power plant would or could operate. Freedom from liability also has had a perverse effect on nuclear safety. Without the liability protection of Price-Anderson, industry incentives to develop nuclear designs safer than light water reactors would surely have been higher. Freedom from liability was put into law in the 1950s to get the US commercial nuclear power industry off the ground. It was meant to be temporary, until industry and insurers got some experience with the new technology. But even as time went on, industrial organizations like General Electric and Westinghouse would not participate in the civilian nuclear program if they risked responsibility for offsite damage from a nuclear plant accident……… What is clear is that the nuclear firms—the largest of which possess an understanding of nuclear safety far beyond that of the public—do not believe the NRC safety conclusions that the risk of a catastrophic nuclear accident is infinitesmal. Nor do they accept that probable risk—probability of an accident times the consequences, were one to occur—as the right measure of risk to their companies. They don’t want to risk their companies, period. If they don’t believe the NRC numbers, why should the rest of us accept them? Why shouldn’t we have the same protection from physical harm that the nuclear industry has from financial liability? And just as the nuclear vendors will not participate on terms that do not include indemnification from the overwhelming cost of a severe accident, so should the public have the analogous power to only accept future nuclear designs that can demonstrate that they preclude offsite harm. And the designs should demonstrate that level of safety in a clear way, based on physical principles, not on complicated probabilistic calculations put forward by interested parties. Such new designs would eliminate the current dilemma of a federal nuclear self-insurance scheme that cannot, as a practical matter, cover the financial consequences to the public of catastrophic nuclear power plant accidents. But how to get there? One of the disincentives is the Price-Anderson Act’s limitations on industry liability for offsite accident consequences. That should get phased out. https://thebulletin.org/2020/02/the-us-government-insurance-scheme-for-nuclear-power-plant-accidents-no-longer-makes-sense/# |
|
Extradition case for Julian Assange – how it will proceed
Julian Assange’s extradition case is finally heading to 
court – here’s what to expect more https://www.sbs.com.au/news/julian-assange-s-extradition-case-is-finally-heading-to-court-here-s-what-to-expeFebruary 24, 2020 Holly Cullen, Adjunct professor, University of Western AustraliaThe extradition hearing to decide whether to send Julian Assange to the United States to be tried for publishing classified military documents on Wikileaks is expected to finally begin today in London.Assange is charged with 17 counts under the Espionage Act, involving receipt, obtaining and disclosing national security information. He has also been charged with one count of conspiracy to assist Chelsea Manning to crack a US Department of Defense password to enable her to access classified information.
Assange has been in Belmarsh prison since his arrest in April 2019. He had been in solitary confinement in a prison medical unit, but was recently moved into a less isolated section of the prison due to concerns about his mental health.
From May to September of last year, Assange served a sentence for bail absconding, but since then has been waiting for the extradition hearing.
How will the process play out? Continue reading
Algeria and French Polynesia suffer from France’s 30 years of nuclear bomb testing
But Jean-Claude Hervieux has other memories. He joined the French testing efforts in Algeria as an electrician. He remembers a nuclear test in 1962 that did not go according to plan.
Radioactive dust and rock escaped from underground. Hervieux and others observing the testing ran for shelter. Two French ministers were among them. The group washed themselves in a military housing area to decontaminate.
France held more than 200 nuclear tests until a later president, Jacques Chirac, ended testing in 1996. Most tests took place in French Polynesia. But 17 took place in Algeria between 1960 and 1966, ending four years after Algeria’s independence from France.
Brahim Oumansour is a North Africa expert at the French Institute of International Relations in Paris. He said, “It’s part of the whole issue of decolonization and Algerians in general asking for recognition of colonization crimes.” He added that official recognition and financial compensation for the Algerian tests could cost millions of dollars.
Hervieux spent 10 years working on nuclear test areas in Algeria and later French Polynesia. Now 80 and living in France’s Lyon area, he says he is physically fine. But he used to receive some questionable radioactive testing results from the French government……
France’s nuclear compensation commission, CIVEN, said more than 1,600 claims have been filed under a 2010 French law that finally recognized health problems related to the testing.
Only about one-third have met the requirements needed to receive financial benefits. The requirements include about 24 possible radiation-related cancers. Almost all the claims came from France and French Polynesia. Of the 51 claims from Algeria, only one has been compensated…. https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/questions-remain-as-france-marks-60-years-since-nuclear-tests-/5287541.html
Plutonium-affected U.S. airmen, cancers, deaths, and a new legal ruling
The Palomares disaster occurred on Jan. 17, 1966, when an American B-52 bomber on a Cold War patrol exploded during a midair refueling accident, sending four hydrogen bombs hurtling toward the ground. They were not armed, so there was no nuclear detonation, but the conventional explosives in two of the bombs blew up on impact, scattering pulverized plutonium over a patchwork of farm fields and stucco houses.
Plutonium is extremely toxic, but it often acts slowly. The alpha-particle radiation it gives off travels only a few inches and would not penetrate skin. But inhaled plutonium dust can lodge in the lungs and steadily irradiate surrounding tissue, gradually inflicting damage that can cause cancer and other ailments, sometimes decades later. A single microgram absorbed in the body is enough to be harmful; according to declassified Atomic Energy Commission reports, the bombs that blew apart at Palomares contained more than 3 billion micrograms.
|
For Many Who Cleaned Up a Nuclear Mess, a Key Ruling Comes Too Late
Air Force veterans who dealt with a Cold War-era atomic accident in Spain won the right to sue collectively for health benefits — but not before many had lost battles with cancer. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/11/us/palomares-air-force-nuclear.html By Dave Philipps SPRINGFIELD, Mo. — On Christmas Eve, Victor Skaar mailed a stack of letters to Air Force veterans he had served with in Palomares, Spain, scrawling a simple headline at the top of each one: “Great News!” Mr. Skaar, a retired chief master sergeant, was one of 1,600 troops scrambled by the Air Force in 1966 to clean up a classified nuclear disaster by collecting debris and shoveling up plutonium-laced soil. Many were later stricken with cancer and other ailments, and tried without success to get the federal government to take responsibility and pay for their medical care. He wanted to spread the word about an encouraging development: A lawsuit he had filed against the Department of Veterans Affairs had been certified as a class action, meaning that there was finally a chance to set the plutonium case straight, not just for him but for everyone who was there. But his letters soon began trickling back to him: Undeliverable. No forwarding address. One brought a reply from a widow. Each one in his mailbox made his heart sink. “For many of them, it’s too late,” he said of his comrades. “They’re gone.” As one of the first cases ever granted class-action status by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, the Skaar lawsuit represents a major step forward for veterans with long-term health issues linked to toxic exposure in the service.
|
Six legal arguments against the extradition of Julian Assange to America
Six legal arguments show why the US extradition of Julian Assange should be denied https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2020/01/25/six-legal-arguments-show-why-the-us-extradition-of-julian-assange-should-be-denied/ Tom Coburg 25th January 2020 The first of two articles examining Julian Assange’s upcoming extradition trial.
There are at least six legal reasons why the extradition request by the US against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should be dismissed by the UK courts. The main extradition hearing is scheduled to commence 24 February 2020, with district judge Vanessa Baraitser presiding. The evidence to support Assange is compelling.
1. Client-lawyer confidentiality breached
2. The initial charge is flawed
1. Client-lawyer confidentiality breached
3. Initial charge relies on co-operation from Manning
4. Additional charges raised by the US are political
5. US legal precedent argues that Assange’s work is protected by the US Constitution
6. Threats of violence against Assange mean he’s unable to receive a fair trial
1. Client-lawyer confidentiality breached Continue reading
Class action lawsuit about failed V.C. Summer nuclear plant goes back to state court
|
Federal judge kicks Santee Cooper nuclear fiasco lawsuit back to state court, https://www.thestate.com/news/local/crime/article239614263.html
BY JOHN MONK, JANUARY 26, 2020 A class action lawsuit resulting from the failed V.C. Summer nuclear plant and involving South Carolina-owned power company Santee Cooper is back in state court. That’s the latest turn of the legal screw in a lawsuit involving more than 2 million of Santee Cooper’s customers. A key issue is whether Santee Cooper’s customers will be stuck with paying several billion dollars that the power company is said to owe due to the nuclear project’s failure in mid-construction in July 2017. Another affected matter is whether the historic state-owned utility, which began as a rural electrification project in the 1930s, will eventually be sold to a big out-of-state energy company or remain under state control. Last year, Santee Cooper’s partner in the doomed V.C. Summer nuclear venture — SCANA, a publicly traded company suffering financial woes because of the project — was sold to Dominion Energy, one of the nation’s largest power companies. The state’s 170 lawmakers will be mulling the possible sale of Santee Cooper in this legislative session. Last week, U.S. Judge Terry Wooten ordered that the Santee Cooper case — which had temporarily been transferred to federal court — be sent back to state court to be tried before special Judge Jean Toal, a former S.C. Supreme Court chief justice. It is unclear when a trial will begin. Toal had originally set Feb. 24 as the trial start date in the case. But Judge Wooten’s order could be appealed to the federal 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, delaying the trial. The lawsuit was initially filed in August 2017 by Santee Cooper customers seeking to avoid having to pay for the failed nuclear plant. Costs for the project — estimated at $9 billion before it failed — had for years been added to their monthly bills and continue to be added, according to a complaint in the case. Over the next two years, the parties “vigorously litigated in state court, engaging in significant discovery — including dozens of depositions and the exchange of millions of pages of documents — and arguing numerous substantive motions,” according to a memorandum in the case. Defendants in the case included Santee Cooper, SCANA and various electric cooperatives to which Santee Cooper provides power to be sold to customers around the state. As joint partners in the nuclear venture, Santee Cooper contributed 45% of the cost, while SCANA took responsibility for project oversight and shouldered 55% of the cost. In November, SCANA suddenly moved to transfer the case from Toal’s court to federal court, where it wound up before Judge Wooten. In the month before the case was transferred, Toal had certified the case as a class action, rejected a move by SCANA to send the case to an arbitrator and set a three-week trial to begin on Feb. 24, according to records in the case. Although numerous lawsuits have been filed in state and federal court against SCANA, this lawsuit is the major legal action against Santee Cooper on behalf of ratepayers. According to plaintiffs in the case, Santee Cooper increased its electricity rates five times over the years to pay for construction and other costs associated with the doomed nuclear project. Santee Cooper spent some $4.7 billion on the failed project, and its customers continue to pay extra on their monthly bills for the failure, according to plaintiffs. Santee Cooper is a main defendant in the case, along with SCANA and SCE&G. Plaintiffs are asking the court to refund hundreds of millions of dollars in costs associated with the failed nuclear project they say they have already paid in increased monthly bills. Plaintiffs also also asking the court to rule that Santee Cooper cannot keep passing costs for the failed project on to them — a future amount estimated at more than $4 billion. After the case was transferred to Wooten, the Santee Cooper customers, along with Santee Cooper, urged Wooten to send the the case back to state court, arguing there was no need for federal courts to take up the case. “The central issues involve South Carolina actors, agreements made in South Carolina, governed by South Carolina law, affecting a South Carolina power project and costing South Carolina customers billions of dollars,” they argued. Wooten agreed. “The court finds it would not be appropriate to exercise federal jurisdiction here,” he wrote in his order last week. @ChristinaMac1
|
|
Japanese High Court rules against nuclear reactor restart
Japan court halts nuclear reactor restart citing volcano, earthquake risks, Channel News Asia. 17 Jan 2020
TOKYO: A Japanese nuclear reactor near a fault line must remain shut because of the risk of its being struck by earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, a high court ordered on Friday (Jan 17).
All nuclear power stations were shut down after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident following a catastrophic tsunami, and many remain closed.
The Japanese public has turned against atomic power, despite Prime Minister Shinzo Abe insisting the nation needs nuclear plants to power the world’s third-largest economy, and the court decision was a boost for the country’s anti-nuclear movement.
The move by the Hiroshima High Court reversed a lower court decision in March that would have allowed the reactor at the Ikata nuclear plant in western Japan to resume operations.
The plant’s operator, Shikoku Electric Power, wanted to resume work at the reactor, which had been halted for routine inspections, and said it will appeal the high court’s ruling.
The case was originally lodged by residents of a neighbouring region who complained the utility failed to properly evaluate the risks posed by a local volcano and seismic faultlines……… https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/japan-court-halts-ikata-nuclear-reactor-restart-volcano-quake-12274482
The injustice of the prosecution of Julian Assange
The international witch-hunt of Julian Assange, World Socialist Website, Eric London and Thomas Scripps, 14 January 2020 The prosecution of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at London’s Westminster Magistrates Court is a travesty of justice that will forever stain the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Sweden and Ecuador, as well as all the individuals involved.Appearing alongside Assange in court Monday morning, Assange’s attorneys revealed that they had been given only two hours to meet with their client at Belmarsh prison to review what lawyer Gareth Peirce called “volumes” worth of evidence.
Expressing the practiced cynicism of British class justice, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser said this was “not an unreasonable position,” citing a lack of space in the prison interview room. With the bang of her gavel, Baraitser sent Assange back to his dungeon at Belmarsh, where he awaits his February extradition hearing under conditions UN Rapporteur Nils Meltzer has called “torture.”
At this stage in the near decade-long international witch-hunt of Assange, nobody should be surprised by such shameless lawlessness on the part of the world’s most powerful governments. Ever since Swedish, British and American prosecutors conspired in 2010 to issue a warrant for Assange’s arrest in connection with an investigation into bogus sexual misconduct allegations, these “advanced democracies” have trampled on their own laws and traditions, subjecting the journalist to a pseudo-legal process that would have been deemed unfair even by the standards of the Middle Ages.
Monday’s mockery of justice is an escalation of the attack on Assange’s right to counsel. It takes place after the Spanish newspaper El País published a detailed account of how a security firm, UC Global, secretly spied on Assange’s privileged discussions with his lawyers and fed the illegally obtained surveillance to the CIA. UC Global also shared footage from cameras it installed throughout the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where Assange was forced to seek refuge from 2012 to 2019 to avoid US extradition. El País’ reporting showed that UC Global recorded every word Assange spoke and live-streamed these conversations to the CIA.
o 2019 to avoid US extradition. El País’ reporting showed that UC Global recorded every word Assange spoke and live-streamed these conversations to the CIA.
Despite the support of a criminally compliant media, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the US and British governments to downplay the profoundly anti-democratic precedents they intend to set through the Assange prosecution.
In an opinion article published Monday in the Hill, titled “Will alleged CIA misbehavior set Julian Assange free?” American attorney James Goodale wrote a scathing attack on the CIA’s spying on Assange’s privileged attorney-client communications.
Goodale is among the most prominent and well respected attorneys in the US, best known for representing the New York Times when the newspaper was sued by the Nixon administration for publishing the Pentagon Papers in 1971. The Pentagon Papers were leaked by RAND Corporation analyst Daniel Ellsberg, who has also called for the release of Assange and whistleblower Chelsea Manning.
The Pentagon Papers revealed how the US government for years lied to the public in expanding the Vietnam War, which led to the deaths of 55,000 US soldiers and 3 million Vietnamese people. Their publication triggered an explosion of public anger and fueled anti-war protests.
Goodale wrote: “Can anything be more offensive to a ‘sense of justice’ than an unlimited surveillance, particularly of lawyer-client conversations, livestreamed to the opposing party in a criminal case? The alleged streaming unmasked the strategy of Assange’s lawyers, giving the government an advantage that is impossible to remove. Short of dismissing Assange’s indictment with prejudice, the government will always have an advantage that can never be matched by the defense.”
Goodale explained that “the Daniel Ellsberg case may be instructive.”
Ellsberg, like Assange, was prosecuted under the Espionage Act for leaking documents to the Times and the Washington Post. During the trial, Nixon’s “plumbers” broke into the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist and wiretapped his phone. In that case, Judge William Matthew Byrne ruled that the surveillance had “incurably infected the prosecution” and dismissed the charges, setting Ellsberg free.
Goodale wrote that “for similar reasons, the case against Assange should be dismissed.”……https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/01/14/pers-j14.html
UK: legal action against environmental destruction by Sizewell nuclear project
Crowd Justice (accessed) 30th Dec 2019, Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) is an unincorporated citizens’ group
formed to oppose the building of Sizewell C’s twin nuclear reactors and
associated works in Suffolk Coast & Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty (AONB) in a legal open, peaceful and fully accountable manner.
TASC has mounted a legal challenge against East Suffolk Council’s decision to
approve the planning application submitted by EDF, the nuclear developer,
to: – chop down 100-year-old Coronation Wood, turn a large area of priority
habitat acidic grassland, known as Pillbox Field, into a 576 space car
park, relocate over 320,000 sq. feet of 7 largely non-essential and
non-operational Sizewell B buildings and an additional 128 car parking
spaces, that will encroach further into the AONB. Most of these
buildings/facilities could be located outside the AONB. The works are
needed to free up land for the construction of Sizewell C as the existing
site is too small and are clearly integral to the wider Sizewell C
development.
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/save-coronation-wood/
BBC 30th Dec 2019, Campaigners opposing a new nuclear power station are seeking a judicial review over a “premature” decision to allow woodland to be felled. EDF Energy wants to build two reactors next to Sizewell B in Suffolk and in September was told it could chop down Coronation Wood on the site. TogetherAgainst Sizewell C (Tasc) said the area was vital for wildlife. East
Suffolk Council said it would respond to the campaigners’ challenge in due
course.
Ohio’s nuclear legal battles: Supreme Court will hear case filed by Ohioans Against Corporate Bailouts (OACB).
Kallanish Energy 30th Dec 2019, Legal battles over the Ohio energy law that starts providing subsidies to the state’s two nuclear power plants in 2021, may continue, Kallanish Energy learns.
The Ohio Supreme Court voted 4-0 to hear the case filed by Ohioans Against Corporate Bailouts (OACB). Three justices recused
themselves from the case, citing political campaign conflicts, Energy
Central News reported. OACB maintains it was denied a full 90 days to
gather signatures for a referendum. They want to overturn the law that
subsidizes Ohio’s two nuclear power plants owned by FirstEnergy Solutions
and two coal-fired plants owned by Ohio Valley Electric Corp. The law also
shrinks and eventually eliminates requirements that utilities get a
percentage of their power from renewable energy sources and scraps
utilities’ state-mandated energy efficiency programs.
https://www.kallanishenergy.com/2019/12/30/ohio-supreme-court-will-hear-nuclear-bailout-case/
Ohio court to weigh group’s effort to block nuclear plant rescue
By: Associated Press December 27, 2019 The state Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments from a group attempting to overturn the roughly $1 billion financial rescue of Ohio’s two nuclear power plants…. (subscribers only) https://journalrecord.com/2019/12/27/ohio-court-to-weigh-groups-effort-to-block-nuclear-plant-rescue/
Israel’s High Court rejects Vanunu’s bid to leave Israel
|
Nuclear whistleblower Vanunu denied permission to leave Israel High court rejects petition from man who revealed country’s nuclear secrets in 1986, Irish Times, Mark Weiss in Jerusalem , 16 Dec 19 Israel’s high court has rejected a petition from Mordechai Vanunu, the man who revealed the country’s nuclear secrets to the world in 1986, to be permitted to leave the country. The justices ruled that based on the material shown them, Mr Vanunu possessed secret and sensitive information that he had not revealed and that if he did, this would be dangerous for state security. They also ruled that they had been persuaded that the nuclear whistleblower wished to reveal his information. At the same time, they urged the state to continue to try to find ways to ease Mr Vanunu’s conditions in Israel. For years Mr Vanunu has demanded that Israel rescind his citizenship and allow him to leave the country. Mr Vanunu, a low-level technician at Israel’s Dimona nuclear plant, first hit the headlines in 1986 when he leaked details with photographs he took surreptitiously to the British Sunday Times. The revelations marked the first concrete proof that Israel had the capacity to manufacture nuclear bombs. Nuclear ambiguity’Israel maintains a policy of “nuclear ambiguity”, neither confirming nor denying foreign reports of its nuclear potential. It has refused to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or to allow international surveillance of its Dimona plant in the southern Negev desert. Partly based on the secrets Mr Vanunu revealed, foreign experts have concluded that Israel is the world’s sixth-largest nuclear power……… In 2004 he completed an 18-year sentence, most of which was spent in solitary confinement. However, strict conditions were attached to his release, including a ban on leaving the country, a ban on entering the Palestinian territories and a ban on meeting foreign journalists. Since his release, Mr Vanunu has twice served jail terms after convictions for parole violations. |
|
|
Legal action regarding defective welds in EPR nuclear reactor
Crilan 16th Dec 2019, On July 20, 2018 and following the “Sortir du nuclear” network and Greenpeace France, CRILAN filed a complaint with the Cherbourg Public Prosecutor concerning defective welds, particularly those relating to
crossings of the containment. This December 16, 2019, following ASN
inspections and in connection with the complaint by Réseau “Sortir du
nuclear” and Greenpeace France, CRILAN files a complaint with the Public
Prosecutor of Paris for serious breaches relating to the qualification of
some equipment installed on the EPR.
These are materials participating in
the safety demonstration: mechanical (pumps, valves) or electrical (relays,
circuit breakers, etc.). This qualification is based in particular on
studies and tests. It must be the subject of documentation and traceability
of reservations and “open” points, which has not always been the case.
As EDF is subject to regulations on basic nuclear installations, violations
committed may be penalized.
As the Runit nuclear waste dome crumbles, Marshall Islanders want honesty and justice
‘People want justice’: Marshalls’ fury over nuclear information US withheld– https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/programmes/datelinepacific/audio/2018723289/people-want-justice-marshalls-fury-over-nuclear-information-us-withheld From Dateline Pacific, 21 November 2019
|
The caretaker president of the Marshall Islands says it’s unconscionable that the United States kept secret key information about its nuclear tests for decades. New details reveal the US withheld information about the nuclear waste it left behind when the Marshall Islands gained independence, and the extent of the tests it carried out. Now, a dome that contains hundreds of tonnes of nuclear waste is at risk of crumbling into the ocean. But with Washington increasingly jittery about China, the small Pacific country’s finding it might now have some leverage to get something done. TRANSCRIPTEnewetak was once a paradise – a long atoll in the clear blue waters of the north Pacific, white sand and thick green palms. Today, it’s rutted with scars, after the US detonated dozens of nuclear bombs on, in and above it in the 1940s and ’50s. Whole islands were vaporised, deep craters carved into the coral. Jack Ading is a senator from Enewetak. His family was forced to move for the tests, and then allowed to return in the 1980s. “It appears that when we moved back to Enewetak in the 1980s after we were assured by the US government that it was safe. We were actually subjecting ourselves to a risk that we were never warned about.” Government documents reveal that beyond the nuclear blasts, the US also tested biological weapons, including an aerosol bacteria. Jamie Tahana reports. TRANSCRIPTEnewetak was once a paradise – a long atoll in the clear blue waters of the north Pacific, white sand and thick green palms. Today, it’s rutted with scars, after the US detonated dozens of nuclear bombs on, in and above it in the 1940s and ’50s. Whole islands were vaporised, deep craters carved into the coral. Jack Ading is a senator from Enewetak. His family was forced to move for the tests, and then allowed to return in the 1980s. “It appears that when we moved back to Enewetak in the 1980s after we were assured by the US government that it was safe. We were actually subjecting ourselves to a risk that we were never warned about.” Government documents reveal that beyond the nuclear blasts, the US also tested biological weapons, including an aerosol bacteria. But this was kept secret when the people from Enewetak were allowed to return, and other documents show that people were subjected to tests and experiments about the lingering effects of radiation. Last week, the Los Angeles Times also uncovered that the US didn’t tell the Marshallese it had shipped 130 tonnes of soil from its atomic testing grounds in Nevada in 1958 and dumped it at Enewetak. The caretaker president of the Marshall Islands, Hilda Heine, says the new details are disturbing. “To say the least you would have thought that all that information would have been shared with the Enewetak people before they went back to Enewetak. It is unbelievable that such information was held back, and as a result people have gone back and lived there for many years.” The nuclear waste from the era is stored in a pile at the end of the island of Runit, covered in a concrete dome. But a recent study by the Marshall Islands Nuclear Commission found the dome is now at risk of collapsing, and as rising seas erode beneath it, much of that waste is seeping into the lagoon. The commission’s chair, Rhea Moss-Christian, says information about the dome and the testing era was withheld throughout the independence process, while a compact of free association was negotiated in the 1980s. “We signed the compact in 1986 on the understanding that we had all the information we needed to have. It’s pretty hard for us to see this information, to have the level of detail that we now have, and to think that any of those previous agreements could stand.” The Marshall Islands has sought US help to clean up contamination and to shore up the dome, but American officials have declined, saying it’s on Marshallese land and, therefore, is the Marshall Islands’ responsibility. Ms Moss-Christian says that’s ridiculous. “How can it be that this radioactive waste and structure that we didn’t ask for. How can it be that this is ours and ours to deal with?” A Nuclear Claims Tribunal formed by the two countries in 1988 concluded that the US should pay $US2.2 billion in claims and settlements. But documents from both the Nuclear Commission and a 2010 US House inquiry show only $4 million has been paid. Last month, the Marshall Islands parliament – the Nitijela – endorsed a Nuclear Commission strategy which calls for, among other things, full compensation, better healthcare, and environmental protections. The US maintains it is upholding its responsibilities. It says it’s paid nearly a billion dollars, which has gone towards resettlement, rehabilitation and healthcare costs for affected communities, and that it’s funding tests of the water and atmosphere around the Runit dome. But Giff Johnson, the editor of the Marshall Islands journal and an author of books about the nuclear legacy, says that’s not enough. “People want justice for Marshall Islanders. The US government has to step up and address issues that it has addressed for American victims but is ignoring out here.” For the Marshall Islands, a smattering of atolls in the North Pacific – population 53,000 – it might be an opportune time to twist a superpower’s arm. Washington is increasingly nervous about a growing Chinese presence, and the compact of free association – which guarantees relations and funding from the US – expires in three years. Having initially maintained there won’t be a replacement compact, Washington is now keen to open talks for a new one, and has sent a string of high-ranking officials for visits. The caretaker president, Hilda Heine – who a few months ago was invited to the White House to meet President Donald Trump – says that could bode well. “The geopolitical situation in the Pacific is really helpful to the cause of the Marshall Islands. The US is now paying more attention to the Marshall Islands, so our issues around climate change, around our nuclear legacy, I think those will come to the forefront of our discussions going forward with the United States.” Whatever comes from those discussions, the people of Enewetak want more than they’re getting now. |
|
Ohio: the nuclear industry’s violent assault on democracy
Ohio’s GOP secretary of state has now asked the Ohio Supreme Court NOT to provide a federal judge with answers about key procedural questions surrounding the state’s referendum process.
The short-term issue is about a billion-dollar bailout for two nuke reactors and two coal burners.
Long-term it asks whether targeted violence perpetrated by paid thugs will now define our election process. And whether the public referendum will remain a workable part of our democracy.
The battle starts with House Bill 6, the now-infamous billion-dollar nuke bailout approved by the corrupt, gerrymandered Ohio legislature in late July.
HB6 forces all Ohio ratepayers to subsidize two crumbling nukes on Lake Erie, along with two decrepit coal burners, one of them in Indiana. It helps underwrite ten small solar farms, but undercuts much larger subsidies for other wind and solar facilities.
The Perry reactor east of Cleveland, and Davis-Besse near Toledo, are among the world’s most dangerous, decrepit reactors. Both were set to shut because they cannot compete with wind and solar, as well as fracked gas.
But Akron-based FirstEnergy spent millions to “persuade” the legislature to hand them a billion dollars to keep their uncompetitive, uninsured and essentially unregulated reactors on line.
When the bailout passed, a statewide group called Ohioans Against Corporate Bailouts turned in a petition for a repeal referendum on the 2020 ballot. The law allows 90 days for referendum sponsors to gather signatures to get on the ballot. In this case 265,711 would be required.
Ohio’s Attorney General David Yost sat on the request for 19 days, then rejected it. OACB filed a second application, which the AG sat on for another 19 days before approving it.
That left the petitioners just 52 days to gather signatures.
But signature gatherers were immediately attacked with violent threats and bribery offers. In the field, they (and potential signatories) were physically assaulted by “blockers” hired by the nuclear industry. Sworn testimony about these attacks was filmed at a public gathering in Columbus and can be seen here:
https://freepress.org/article/free-press-second-saturday-petition-blockers-threaten-our-democracy
Bailout opponents then went to federal court to ask that the 38 days consumed by the AG be restored to the petition campaign, which came up short at the 90-day deadline. A federal judge asked for guidance from the Ohio Supreme Court and submitted five questions for the Justices to answer.
And here things have leapt to another level. Frank LaRose, the Ohio Secretary of State, has now asked the Ohio Supreme Court NOT to respond to the federal judge’s queries.
In other words: the Republican attorney general killed nearly half the allotted signature gathering time for the repeal of this bailout. A federal judge has asked to hear from the state Supreme Court. And now Ohio’s Republican secretary of state has asked that Court NOT to comply, in a direct attempt to prevent Ohioans from voting on whether they’re to be forced to pay a billion dollar subsidy for two lethal, money losing atomic reactors.
This shocking combination of overt threats, bribery and outright physical violence, combined with judicial stall tactics by elected Ohio officials, breaks new ground in the assault on democracy itself in the American heartland.
The issue cuts to the core of the 2020 election. Donald Trump has met personally with at least one principal lobbyist for FirstEnergy, the prime beneficiary of the bailout. At least one of his associates lobbied at least five legislators in its behalf.
But a statewide referendum for repeal could be catastrophic for the GOP. Polls show more than 60% of Ohioans opposed. That includes much of the normally corporate statewide media. Many big industrial organizations have joined the fossil fuel industry here in fighting it.
If the referendum does get on the 2020 ballot, it will clearly energize a strong progressive voter turnout. Outraged ratepayers could very easily make the difference in a closely divided swing state. So for Trump and his minions, killing a vote on this billion-dollar rip-off is vital.
Their assault must be seen as part of a larger attack on democracy itself. The right to referendum has been established in numerous states for a century or more. That physical violence, choreographed bribery and official legal manipulation would now be used to kill it bodes badly for our future.
From the rise in violent white supremacist bigotry, to unaccountable police murders, to Charlottesville, to the recent attack on Code Pink’s Medea Benjamin to the concerted Republican assault on paper ballots and fair, inclusive voting practices, it’s clear the GOP intends to gut democracy in 2020 and beyond.
This all-out utility and official attack on the referendum process in Ohio has put a billion-dollar price tag on two nukes capable of doing trillions in damage to human health and the eco-systems of the Great Lakes region.
But it also signals a broader war against both democracy and truth, one we must all take very, very seriously.
—————-
Attorney Bob Fitrakis, Ph.D., is publisher of the Columbus Free Press. He’s co-author
1 This Month
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com/
29 Jan. Thursday 7-8 p.m. Webinar – World’s Largest Nuclear Station in Port Hope, ON?
31st January – Challenging the War Machine – a DECLASSIFIED UK SUMMIT
Website of the Week
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- January 2026 (271)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 