Doctors warn on coronavirus danger for Julian Assange, imprisoned without conviction, in a coronavirus incubator
ASSANGE EXTRADITION: Doctors Warning on Assange in a Covid-19 Breeding Ground, Consortium News,April 1, 2020 • In a prison cited for failing to curb infections, Doctors4Assange warn that Julian Assange is at high risk of contracting the deadly coronavirus. According to a report Wednesday in The Daily Maverick, imprisoned WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange is one of only two prisoners of 797 inmates in Belmarsh Prison who are being held for skipping bail. The majority are violent criminals, including 20 percent for murder and 16 inmates on terrorism offenses. The facility was also repeatedly criticized by prison inspectors for a lapse in preventing infections to inmates. Following Judge Vanessa Baraitser’s decision to deny Assange bail last week, Doctors4 Assange released the following statement:
Doctors4Assange Statement on Assange
Bail Hearing over Coronavirus Risk, March 27, 2020 Doctors4Assange strongly condemns last Wednesday’s decision by UK District Judge Vanessa Baraitser to deny bail to Julian Assange. Despite our prior unequivocal statement[1] that Mr Assange is at increased risk of serious illness and death were he to contract coronavirus, and the evidence of medical experts, Baraitser dismissed the risk, citing UK guidelines for prisons in responding to the global pandemic: “I have no reason not to trust this advice as both evidence-based and reliable and appropriate.”[2]
Notably, however, Baraitser did not address the increased risk to Mr Assange relative to the general UK prison population, let alone prisoners at HMP Belmarsh where Assange is incarcerated. Nor did she address the rapidly emerging medical and legal consensus that vulnerable and low-risk prisoners should be released, immediately.
As the court heard, Mr Assange is at increased risk of contracting and dying from the novel disease coronavirus (COVID-19), a development which has led the World Health Organization to declare a public health emergency of international concern[3] and a global pandemic.[4] The reasons for Mr Assange’s increased risk include his ongoing psychological torture, his history of medical neglect and fragile health, and chronic lung disease.
Edward Fitzgerald, QC, representing Mr Assange, said, “These [medical] experts consider that he is particularly at risk of developing coronavirus and, if he does, that it develops into very severe complications for him… If he does develop critical symptoms it would be very doubtful that Belmarsh would be able to cope with his condition.”[5]
Baraitser’s casual dismissal of Mr Assange’s dire situation in the face of the COVID-19 emergency stood in stark contrast not only to the expert medical evidence, but the proceedings themselves. The hearing took place on the third day of the UK’s coronavirus lock-down. Of the two counsels representing Mr Assange, Edward Fitzgerald QC wore a facemask and Mark Summers QC participated via audiolink. US attorneys joined the proceedings by phone.
Mr Assange himself appeared by videolink, which was terminated after around an hour, rendering him unable to follow the remainder of his own hearing, including the defence summation and the District Judge’s ruling. Mr Assange’s supporters attending in person observed social distancing measures. Overall only 15 people were in attendance, including judge, counsel, and observers……..
Adding their legal voices to these medical and human rights authorities, the day after Mr Assange’s bail hearing, three professors in law and criminology recommended “granting bail to unsentenced prisoners to stop the spread of coronavirus”.[12]
Julian Assange is just such an unsentenced prisoner with significant health vulnerability. He is being held on remand, with no custodial sentence or UK charge in place, let alone conviction.
Doctors4Assange are additionally concerned that keeping Assange in Belmarsh not only increases his risk of contracting coronavirus, it will increase his isolation and his inability to prepare his defence for his upcoming extradition hearing, in violation of his human right to prepare a defence…… https://consortiumnews.com/2020/04/01/assange-extradition-doctors-warning-on-assange-in-a-covid-19-breeding-ground/
Different federal laws complicate legal case about radiation exposure and teenager’s brain cancer
The appellate panel must decide how two different federal laws should intersect. Law.com By Raychel Lean | April 01, 2020 A federal wrongful death lawsuit alleging exposure to radiation from nuclear materials caused a South Florida teenager’s brain cancer had its moment before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on Wednesday as attorneys debated whether Florida’s four-year statute of limitations should apply.
The appellate panel must decide how two different federal laws should intersect. While 42 U.S.C. § 9658 preempts state time limits for lawsuits involving nuclear incidents, the Price-Anderson Act adopts state law as “the rules for decision.”
The question arose after Palm Beach County resident Cynthia Santiago sued in the Southern District of Florida in 2014, five years after she was diagnosed with a brain tumor at 13. When she died about two years later, her parents Joselyn and Steve Santiago became personal representatives.
The complaint blamed Connecticut-based aircraft maker United Technologies Corp., alleging its Palm Beach County engineering facility released radioactive materials, heavy metals and semi-volatiles in The Acreage, where several children were also reportedly diagnosed with brain tumors. …… https://www.law.com/dailybusinessreview/2020/04/01/clock-ticking-for-florida-family-alleging-radiation-exposure-caused-teens-cancer/?slreturn=20200301190656
The court has yet to rule.
Tokyo High Court slashes damages to Fukushima nuclear disaster evacuees
|
Tokyo High Court slashes damages to Fukushima nuclear disaster evacuees, Japan Times, 18 Mar 20, The Tokyo High Court on Tuesday ordered ¥1 million in additional damages be paid each to some 300 evacuees from the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, down by two-thirds from the amount awarded by a lower court ruling.The total amount of additional compensation Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc. must pay was reduced to about ¥360 million from the ¥1.1 billion awarded by the Tokyo District Court in 2018…….
In their petition, the plaintiffs, including former residents of the Odaka district in Minamisoma, Fukushima Prefecture, sought additional damages of ¥10.9 billion in total. The ruling was the second by a high court on a collective damages lawsuit filed by those displaced by the nuclear accident, following one issued by Sendai High Court last week. On Tuesday, presiding Judge Wataru Murata said Tepco must pay additional damages on top of the ¥8.5 million it paid per person based on estimates calculated under government-set interim standards. The additional damages have to be paid to compensate for the loss of hometowns, as “the foundations of residents’ lives have changed greatly and have yet to be restored,” Murata said. But the amount of the additional damages should be reduced because individual circumstances of the evacuees should not be taken into account, Murata said, denying the need for such consideration as had been recognized by the lower court…….https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/03/18/national/crime-legal/tokyo-high-court-slashes-damages-fukushima-nuclear-disaster-evacuees/#.XnJ94IgzbIU |
|
Nuclear-powered submarines – fraught with legal and political problems
|
The Complex Policy Questions Raised by Nuclear Energy’s Role in the Future of Warfare, Just Security by Alex Gilbert, Morgan Bazilian and Julia Nesheiwat, March 16, 2020 The United States military, as well as other militaries around the world, are racing to develop high-energy weapons—lasers, high-powered microwaves, and electromagnetic rail guns—in order to compete with near-peer competitors on the next generation of military technologies. But the electricity to power these systems will need to derive from somewhere, and so military planners are eyeing a new generation of energy-dense nuclear reactors, despite potential policy and legal challenges to doing so…….. The Army is considering mobile nuclear power plants, in part to drive high-energy weapons, an idea one retired three-star hailed as a potential logistics revolution. And should the U.S. build space-based lasers for missile defense, nuclear energy may be the only way to provide the needed megawatts. All this raises key policy concerns in relation to international law, rules of engagement, and the laws of warfare. Basing, or even deploying, nuclear reactors in the territorial waters or land of an overseas ally requires the permission of the host government, which may be averse to expanding nuclear power as in the case of major bases like Yokosuka, Japan. Diego Garcia, an island in the Indian Ocean, provides another challenging case as the ongoing territorial dispute between the United Kingdom and Mauritius threatens the U.S. base there, and a nuclear plant would only complicate the existing dispute. The U.S. Navy already faces constraints on where their nuclear-powered ships can visit. Floating nuclear power plants, like those developed by Russia and China, face similar concerns if they transit foreign waters or, in the case of the South China Sea, are stationed in disputed territories. Similarly, mobile reactors, like those considered by the U.S. Army, would likely be transported by air, requiring permission of all overflight countries. Beyond basing, a critical question is whether the U.S. military would own and operate these new reactors, as the Navy currently does, or whether they would pursue commercial alternatives, as the Army is considering. The U.S. Army report on mobile reactors noted that, with either government or commercial ownership, there are concerns about international rules and licensing that present potential barriers to deployment. In some cases, potential host countries do not even have nuclear regulatory agencies. Further, commercial ownership raises liability concerns, both in the case of a military incident or an accident. International nuclear liability treaties are not well harmonized between the U.S. and most of its allies, especially when it comes to the unique concerns of transportable reactors. Using nuclear power for high-energy weapons also creates targeting dilemmas for the U.S. and foreign militaries. High-energy weapons and their support infrastructure, including reactors, may be initial targets in a conflict. The social, environmental, and reputational impacts of damaging a nuclear reactor, particularly on a country’s home territory, or with effects on a third country, could lead to conflict escalation and international condemnation……. Nuclear-powered laser satellites could aggravate concerns about nuclear arms controls as such systems could be used for anti-ballistic missile or anti-satellite applications. While the Outer Space Treaty prohibits weapons of mass destruction in orbit, it does not prohibit other types of weaponry. During the Cold War, Soviet military space reactors raised calls for bans on space nuclear power, particularly after one accidentally crashed in Canada. Recent calls for space arms control have been unsuccessful. As with terrestrial nuclear-powered lasers, the unique role of laser satellites would make them early targets in any major power conflict, leading to risks of collateral damage from radioactive and dangerous space debris, as occurred after the accidental 2009 collision involving a decommissioned Soviet nuclear satellite.. The article below is not about Australia, but it is about small nuclear reactors. Everybody knows, (just quietly) that Australia won’t be getting small nuclear reactors for providing electricity. The real aim is for nuclear-powered submarines. So this article, about the legal and political problems of nuclear reactors for Defence is applicable to Australia, too
The Complex Policy Questions Raised by Nuclear Energy’s Role in the Future of Warfare, Just Security by Alex Gilbert, Morgan Bazilian and Julia Nesheiwat, March 16, 2020 The United States military, as well as other militaries around the world, are racing to develop high-energy weapons—lasers, high-powered microwaves, and electromagnetic rail guns—in order to compete with near-peer competitors on the next generation of military technologies. But the electricity to power these systems will need to derive from somewhere, and so military planners are eyeing a new generation of energy-dense nuclear reactors, despite potential policy and legal challenges to doing so…….. The Army is considering mobile nuclear power plants, in part to drive high-energy weapons, an idea one retired three-star hailed as a potential logistics revolution. And should the U.S. build space-based lasers for missile defense, nuclear energy may be the only way to provide the needed megawatts.
All this raises key policy concerns in relation to international law, rules of engagement, and the laws of warfare.
Basing, or even deploying, nuclear reactors in the territorial waters or land of an overseas ally requires the permission of the host government, which may be averse to expanding nuclear power as in the case of major bases like Yokosuka, Japan. Diego Garcia, an island in the Indian Ocean, provides another challenging case as the ongoing territorial dispute between the United Kingdom and Mauritius threatens the U.S. base there, and a nuclear plant would only complicate the existing dispute.
The U.S. Navy already faces constraints on where their nuclear-powered ships can visit. Floating nuclear power plants, like those developed by Russia and China, face similar concerns if they transit foreign waters or, in the case of the South China Sea, are stationed in disputed territories. Similarly, mobile reactors, like those considered by the U.S. Army, would likely be transported by air, requiring permission of all overflight countries.
Beyond basing, a critical question is whether the U.S. military would own and operate these new reactors, as the Navy currently does, or whether they would pursue commercial alternatives, as the Army is considering. The U.S. Army report on mobile reactors noted that, with either government or commercial ownership, there are concerns about international rules and licensing that present potential barriers to deployment. In some cases, potential host countries do not even have nuclear regulatory agencies. Further, commercial ownership raises liability concerns, both in the case of a military incident or an accident. International nuclear liability treaties are not well harmonized between the U.S. and most of its allies, especially when it comes to the unique concerns of transportable reactors.
Using nuclear power for high-energy weapons also creates targeting dilemmas for the U.S. and foreign militaries. High-energy weapons and their support infrastructure, including reactors, may be initial targets in a conflict. The social, environmental, and reputational impacts of damaging a nuclear reactor, particularly on a country’s home territory, or with effects on a third country, could lead to conflict escalation and international condemnation…….
Nuclear-powered laser satellites could aggravate concerns about nuclear arms controls as such systems could be used for anti-ballistic missile or anti-satellite applications. While the Outer Space Treaty prohibits weapons of mass destruction in orbit, it does not prohibit other types of weaponry. During the Cold War, Soviet military space reactors raised calls for bans on space nuclear power, particularly after one accidentally crashed in Canada. Recent calls for space arms control have been unsuccessful. As with terrestrial nuclear-powered lasers, the unique role of laser satellites would make them early targets in any major power conflict, leading to risks of collateral damage from radioactive and dangerous space debris, as occurred after the accidental 2009 collision involving a decommissioned Soviet nuclear satellite…. …… https://www.justsecurity.org/69056/the-complex-policy-questions-raised-by-nuclear-energys-role-in-the-future-of-warfare/
|
|
High Courts in Japan to assess government liability for Fukushima nuclear disaster
|
Attention is on how the courts will assess the liability of the government, which has flatly denied responsibility over the accident at Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc.’s Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant. The plant suffered meltdowns in three of its reactors after being hit by a massive earthquake and tsunami on March 11, 2011, forcing many residents to evacuate. So far, six of 10 district courts have found the government responsible for the nuclear accident, while the other four did not recognize government liability. The key issues are whether the government was able to predict the huge tsunami and was able to avert the catastrophe by taking preventive measures. The plaintiffs claim that the government could have prevented the accident if it had urged Tepco to take measures by exercising its regulatory power, based on its long-term earthquake prediction issued in 2002. All of the 10 district courts recognized Tepco’s responsibility to pay damages to the plaintiffs based on a law obliging a plant operator to pay damages over a nuclear accident, regardless of whether it was negligent or not. The Maebashi District Court and five others found that the long-term earthquake assessment was reliable, saying it was a reasonable prediction that should have been taken into account when considering tsunami countermeasures. The courts thus recognized the government’s responsibility, finding that it acted illegally by neglecting to order Tepco to take preventive measures — such as relocating power sources to a higher location at the plant. By contrast, two separate rulings issued by the Chiba District Court did not support the claim of government responsibility, reaching verdicts that the nuclear accident could not have been avoided even if preventive measures had been taken. Still, all district court rulings found that the government had been able to foresee the possibility of a huge tsunami hitting the plant. “Based on the premise that a nuclear plant should be protected at any cost, the government should exercise its regulatory power soon after it predicts a tsunami,” said Izutaro Managi, a lawyer involved in a case filed with the Fukushima District Court. The Fukushima case involves some 3,800 plaintiffs — the largest number among suits filed against Tepco and the government over the nuclear accident. The first high court ruling is expected later this year. “If high courts issue rulings in succession recognizing state responsibility over the nuclear accident, the Japanese government as a perpetrator should act to address damages from the accident,” Managi said. Specifically, he called on the government to review its compensation guidelines, which include measures such as monthly payments of ¥100,000 to each resident in evacuation zones. |
|
Westinghouse nuclear reactors – a very poor deal for India
Pushing the wrong energy buttons, https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/pushing-the-wrong-energy-buttons/article30965454.ece?fbclid=IwAR1ymOL6TLlSxlUKkVVSL6_ukPPeiSzDlI_JM-He3CMG2qBD4HaBU0vezog, M.V. Ramana, Suvrat Raju, MARCH 03, 2020
The idea of India importing nuclear reactors is a zombie one with serious concerns about their cost and safety
Red flags in the U.S. deal
Because of serious concerns about cost and safety, the two organisations should have been told to abandon, not finalise, the proposal.
Indeed, it has been clear for years that electricity from American reactors would be more expensive than competing sources of energy. Moreover, nuclear reactors can undergo serious accidents, as shown by the 2011 Fukushima disaster. Westinghouse has insisted on a prior assurance that India would not hold it responsible for the consequences of a nuclear disaster, which is effectively an admission that it is unable to guarantee the safety of its reactors.
The main beneficiaries from India’s import of reactors would be Westinghouse and India’s atomic energy establishment that is struggling to retain its relevance given the rapid growth of renewables. But Mr. Trump has reasons to press for the sale too. His re-election campaign for the U.S. presidential election in November, centrally involves the revival of U.S. manufacturing and he has been lobbied by several nuclear reactor vendors, including 
Westinghouse, reportedly to “highlight the role U.S. nuclear developers can play in providing power to other countries”. Finally, he also has a conflict-of-interest, thanks to his son-in-law and adviser, Jared Kushner, who accompanied him during the India visit.
In 2018, the Kushner family’s real-estate business was bailed out by a Canadian company that invested at least $1.1-billion in a highly unprofitable building in New York. Earlier that year, Brookfield Business Partners, a subsidiary of that Canadian company, acquired Westinghouse Electric Company. It violates all norms of propriety for Mr. Kushner to be anywhere near a multi-billion dollar sale that would profit Brookfield enormously.
What renewables can offer
Analysts estimate that each of the two AP1000 units being constructed in the U.S. state of Georgia may cost about $13.8 billion. At these rates, the six reactors being offered to India by Westinghouse would cost almost ₹6 lakh crore. If India purchases these reactors, the economic burden will fall upon consumers and taxpayers. In 2013, we estimated that even after reducing these prices by 30%, to account for lower construction costs in India, the first year tariff for electricity would be about ₹25 per unit. On the other hand, recent solar energy bids in India are around ₹3 per unit. Lazard, the Wall Street firm, estimates that wind and solar energy costs have declined by around 70% to 90% in just the last 10 years and may decline further in the future.
How safe?
Nuclear power can also impose long-term costs. Large areas continue to be contaminated with radioactive materials from the 1986 Chernobyl accident and thousands of square kilometres remain closed off for human inhabitation. Nearly a decade after the 2011 disaster, the Fukushima prefecture retains radioactive hotspots and the cost of clean-up has been variously estimated to range from $200-billion to over $600-billion.
The Fukushima accident was partly caused by weaknesses in the General Electric company’s Mark I nuclear reactor design. But that company paid nothing towards clean-up costs, or as compensation to the victims, due to an indemnity clause in Japanese law. Westinghouse wants a similar arrangement with India. Although the Indian liability law is heavily skewed towards manufacturers, it still does not completely indemnify them. So nuclear vendors have tried to chip away at the law. Instead of resisting foreign suppliers, the Indian government has tacitly supported this process.
Starting with the Tarapur 1 and 2 reactors, in Maharashtra, India’s experiences with imported reactors have been poor. The Kudankulam 1 and 2 reactors, in Tamil Nadu, the only ones to have been imported and commissioned in the last decade, have been repeatedly shut down. In 2018-19, these reactors produced just 32% and 38%, respectively, of the electricity they were designed to produce. These difficulties are illustrative of the dismal history of India’s nuclear establishment. In spite of its tall claims, the fraction of electricity generated by nuclear power in India has remained stagnant at about 3% for decades.
The idea of importing nuclear reactors is a “zombie idea” that, from a rational viewpoint, should have been dead long ago. In fact an earlier plan to install AP1000s in Mithi Virdi, Gujarat was cancelled because of strong local opposition. In 2018, Gujarat Chief Minister Vijay Rupani declared that the reactors “will never come up” in Gujarat. The Prime Minister should take a cue from his own State and make a similar announcement for the rest of the country.
Belgian nuclear plants now could shut down earlier than planned
 Court ruling could close Doel nuclear reactors earlier, Friday, 06 March 2020 A ruling by the Constitutional Court could mean the nuclear power stations Doel 1 and Doel 2 have to close down earlier than the government planned. Brussels Times, The Court this week struck down a law passed in 2015 which extended the lifetime of the reactors by ten years. The case was brought by two environmental organisations, Bond Beter Leefmilieu (BBL) and Inter-Environnement Wallonie. The two reactors came into service in 1975, and should have closed in 2015. But to fill the requirements of the electricity industry at the time, a law was passed extending the lifetime of the reactors for ten years. However, the Court ruled, that law is unconstitutional, as it required an environmental assessment report be carried out, which never happened. That effectively suspends the 2015 law, but the court said it would allow it to remain in force until the end of 2022. The government must now organise the lengthy procedure to take place of commissioning an environmental assessment report and the public enquiry procedure that goes with it. It must then pass a new law through the various stages in parliament. If that is not completed by the end of 2022, the two reactors will have to close down then, three years earlier than planned. To make matters more complicated still, the government also needs to enter into talks with the Dutch authorities, since Doel – an abandoned village on the estuary of the Scheldt river in the municipality of Beveren in East Flanders – is a stone’s throw from the border with the Netherlands…….. https://www.brusselstimes.com/all-news/belgium-all-news/98803/court-ruling-could-close-doel-nuclear-reactors-earlier-environmental-report-constitutional-court/ |
|
Marshall islanders continue their fight for nuclear justice
Fight for nuclear justice continues in the Marshall Islands https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/410871/fight-for-nuclear-justice-continues-in-the-marshall-islands 3 March 2020
The fight for nuclear justice continues in the Marshall Islands where people have been gathering to call for the US to atone for its legacy of testing.The country marked National Nuclear Victims Remembrance Day on Monday, the 64th anniversary of the Castle Bravo hydrogen bomb test that exposed thousands of people to downwind effects.At a ceremony in the capital, Majuro, a tribute was paid to 22 living survivors from the communities affected by the nuclear testing.
This comes as the Marshall Islands and the United States have begun preliminary talks on a new agreement to address the legacy of testing.
The compact of free association, which guarantees relations and funding for the Marshalls from the US, expires in two years.
Last year, it was revealed the US withheld information about nuclear waste it left behind when the Marshalls gained independence, and the extent of the tests it carried out.
Washington previously said there would be no replacement compact. But the chair of the Marshall Islands Nuclear Commission, Rhea Moss-Christian, said nuclear issues were a key, ongoing aspect of negotiations.
“Well we are coming up on renegotiating the economic provisions of the compact, and we’ve had some initial discussions with the US officials.
“So yes internally we are working on our strategy and pulling together all the key issues to include in those negotiations, including the nuclear legacy.”
Ms Moss-Christian, who said formal talks should start later in the year, vowed that the fight for nuclear justice for Marshall Islanders would continue.
“Really it comes down to compensation for loss of land. It’s about health care for those who might be having medical issues,” she said.
“It’s about livelihoods and how much their lifestyles were forced to change when they were moved from their land. These are just a few examples.”
Meanwhile, an essay competition for high schoolers was held as part of Monday’s commemoration programme.
The winner was a senior at Marshall Islands High School on Majuro, Rosie Ammontha, who wrote:
“They had the choice to test those bombs, we didn’t. They had the choice to be truthful about the consequences that awaited us, we didn’t. They had the choice not to endanger innocent lives, we didn’t. They had the choice to help protect our oceans and environment, we didn’t. At the end of the day, nuclear justice means righting what was wronged.”
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
|
|
1 This Month
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- September 2026 (194)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (375)
-
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 