Fukushima couple wins landmark case against TEPCO
Fukushima disaster: Tepco to pay couple in landmark damages case BBC News 19 Feb 16 A court in Japan has ordered the operator of the tsunami-hit Fukushima nuclear plant to compensate a couple who fled radiation, even though they lived outside the evacuation zone.
Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) will pay 30m yen ($265,000; £185,00) for financial losses and poor health.
It is thought to be the first time Tepco has been found liable for people outside the mandatory evacuation area………Analysts say Thursday’s ruling could pave the way for many more compensation claims from such evacuees…….
The sum awarded to the couple, who have not been named but are in their 40s, is also far greater than the 11m yen proposed by a government-established centre to mediate settlements for compensation cases.
According to the written submission, the husband became depressed and developed pleurisy after the evacuation and their children were stigmatised for their association with the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
Tepco has already been embroiled in a number of compensation claims. In 2011, the government ordered Tokyo Electric to pay 1m yen to every family within 30km of the plant. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35610249
US Energy Dept cites two companies for violations at Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP)
Two Contractors Cited for Radioactive Release at Nuclear Waste Sites http://sputniknews.com/us/20160219/1035057063/us-nuclear-waste-contactors.html The companies responsible for nuclear waste are Nuclear Waste Partnership (NWP), which operates an Energy Department facility to store nuclear waste and Los Alamos National Security (LANS), the contractor that manages the nearby Los Alamos National Laboratory, according to the US Department of Energy.
“The violations by NWP… are associated with two events that occurred in February 2014. The first event involved a fire in a salt haul truck in the [waste storage facility] underground, and the second event involved a radiological release,” the release explained.
The violations by LANS are associated with the packaging of nuclear waste containers, according to the release.
The two events took place in February 2014 at the Energy Department’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, an underground storage facility at a 600 meter deep salt bed, the release explained. Both companies have already been heavily penalized, losing 90 percent of their fees.
In the second event ten days later, air monitors detected unusually high levels of radiation, later traced to an exploding barrel of nuclear waste from Los Alamos.
The storage facility has been closed for the past two years, but the Energy Department expects to reopen the plant later this year with improved safety measures, according to an earlier posting on the department’s website.
Los Alamos is best known as the site where the United States developed the atomic bombs dropped on Japan at the end of World War II. http://sputniknews.com/us/20160219/1035057063/us-nuclear-waste-contactors.html#ixzz40eL2SilO
9,600 members of Fukushima plaintiff association suing Japanese govt and TEPCO
Fukushima disaster plaintiffs form association
Nuclear & Energy Feb. 13, 2016 –
Nearly 10,000 people suing the central government and an electric power firm in connection with the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster have formed their first national association.
Representatives of 21 plaintiff groups joined a rally in Tokyo on Saturday to launch the association representing more than 9,600 members. Next month marks 5 years since the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.
The groups are in class-action lawsuits to demand compensation from the state and Tokyo Electric Power Company over the accident.
The association plans to share information on the lawsuits.
It also intends to seek an extension of a free housing provision for voluntary disaster evacuees beyond March next year.
A co-representative of the association, Tokuo Hayakawa, said the accident deprived survivors of the right to live in their hometowns. He said he will join with the association members and fight until they win a victory.
Another co-representative Akiko Morimatsu said 5 years have passed since the accident, but that problems have yet to be solved. She added that the plaintiff groups will unite to claim that there will be no restoration without support for survivors.
Court action against nuclear reactors in Belgium
Lawsuits against nuclear reactors in Belgium kick off, DW 8 Feb 16 Cracked pressure vessels haven’t kept Belgium from restarting two nuclear reactors that many experts consider unsafe. Now, a lawsuit contesting that decision is underway. They are not safe: That is the basic argument brought forth by the Brussels-based lawyers Pierre and Maxime Chome on behalf of the NGO Nucleaire Stop Kernenergie, which is seeking to shut down two nuclear reactors in Belgium.
Last year, authorities turned off the reactors Doel 3, near Antwerp, and Tihange 2, close to the border with Germany, after tiny cracks were found in their pressure vessels. However, the reactors wererestarted at the end of 2015, when Belgium’s nuclear authority assessed that they were safe after all.
Public opposition to that decision has been building, and various legal actions have been launched.The German city and district of Aachen is planning to take its case to Belgium’s Constitutional Court.The Chomes are pursuing a different track and have taken Electrabel, the utilities operator running Doel 3 and Tihange 2, to court in Brussels. The trial is now adjourned, but a verdict is expected within a month. DW got some background from the lawyers after they appeared in court Monday.
DW: What are the legal grounds on which you are demanding that the Doel 3 and Tihange 2 reactors be stopped again?
Since 1993, Belgian law grants environmental NGOs that meet certain requirements the right to demand that the court find a solution for situations that create environmental dangers.
With regard to the reactors Doel 3 and Tihange 2, many scientists are saying that there is a risk of a nuclear accident – with all the consequences that would entail for the population – because of the cracks found in the pressure vessels. So we are asking the court to stop operations of these reactors or alternatively to appoint a panel of experts to re-examine the scientific evidence.
………We also argue that the authorization to restart the two reactors lacks a sound scientific basis because dissenting opinions among the scientists were not duly taken into account……. http://www.dw.com/en/lawsuits-against-nuclear-reactors-in-belgium-kick-off/a-19034309
South Carolina takes legal action against DOE over unfinished Nuclear Fuel Project
SC Sues Energy Dept Over Unfinished Nuclear Fuel Project http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/sc-sues-energy-dept-unfinished-nuclear-fuel-project-36812338 By MEG KINNARD, ASSOCIATED PRESS COLUMBIA, S.C. — Feb 9, 2016 South Carolina has again sued the federal government over an unfinished project to convert nuclear weapons components into reactor fuel, saying in a lawsuit filed Tuesday that the administration has acted unconstitutionally in failing to complete the mixed-oxide facility by a Jan. 1 deadline.“The federal government has a responsibility to follow through with its promises,” state Attorney General Alan Wilson said in a statement provided to The Associated Press. “The Department of Energy has continually shown disregard for its obligations under federal law to the nation, the state of South Carolina and frankly the rule of law.”
Federal officials didn’t immediately return a message seeking comment.
The program is intended to turn weapons-grade plutonium into commercial nuclear reactor fuel to fulfill a nonproliferation deal with Russia. Under the agreement, Russia and the U.S. agreed to dispose of at least 34 metric tons apiece of weapons-grade plutonium, enough material for about 17,000 nuclear warheads, which would then be turned into commercial nuclear reactor fuel.
The project at the Savannah River Site, along the South Carolina-Georgia border, is years behind schedule and billions over its original budget. Because the facility wasn’t operational by a Jan. 1 deadline, the federal government was supposed to remove 1 metric ton of plutonium from South Carolina or pay fines of $1 million a day for “economic and impact assistance” — up to $100 million yearly — until either the facility meets production goals or the plutonium is taken elsewhere for storage or disposal.
The suit also seeks daily fines of $1 million and the plutonium removal.
The lawsuit has been expected. Last month, Gov. Nikki Haley told Wilson that she wanted to sue, also warning Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz in December that the state would be forced to sue if his agency didn’t start making payments. A clause in the law, however, makes the fine “subject to the availability of appropriations.”
The Obama administration has gradually scaled down funding for the project, proposing to mothball it in 2014, citing cost overruns and delays. That prompted a lawsuit, with the state saying the federal government had made a commitment to South Carolina and couldn’t use money intended to build the plant to shut it down.
The state ultimately dropped the suit when the administration committed to funding the project through that fiscal year. But the administration has since said it’s searching for an alternate, less expensive way to dispose of the plutonium, like immobilizing it in glass or processing it in different kinds of reactors.
In his budget submitted Tuesday, President Barack Obama included minimal funding for the mixed-oxide fuel project.
Kinnard can be reached at http://twitter.com/MegKinnardAP . Read more of her work athttp://bigstory.ap.org/content/meg-kinnard/
Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC) does not override India’s nuclear liability law
Nuclear still unclear: Does ratification of CSC fix problems of nuclear law? Now that India has ratified the Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC) for Nuclear Damage, the question is whether this paves the way for firms like GE, Westinghouse and Areva setting up nuclear plants in India or whether the Indian Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (CNLD) Act still effectively acts as a deterrent. The Financial Express, By: Sunil Jain | New Delhi | February 5, 2016 Now that India has ratified the Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC) for Nuclear Damage, the question is whether this paves the way for firms like GE, Westinghouse and Areva setting up nuclear plants in India or whether the Indian Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (CNLD) Act still effectively acts as a deterrent. Considering that, on his visit to India less than six months ago, GE CEO Jeff Immelt was quite dismissive of the changes proposed by India, it would appear it isn’t quite the done deal that was made out by the government which, after the ratification in Vienna, said “this marks a conclusive step in the addressing of issues related to civil nuclear liability in India”.
While in India, Immelt had said “the world has an established liability regime … it has been accepted and adopted … I can’t put my company on risk … India can’t reinvent the language on liability”. All that the ratification means, for all practical purposes, is that India considers its nuclear liability law to be in conformity with the CSC; it doesn’t mean that the CSC will now override the Indian law. Indeed, as the FAQs released by the ministry of external affairs (MEA) last year in February make clear, India has believed its law to be in conformity with CSC for a long time. “Based on the presentations by the Indian side …”, the MEA’s FAQs read, “there is a general understanding that India’s CLND law is compatible with the CSC”; at another place, the FAQs states “the provisions of the CLND Act are broadly in conformity with the CSC”.
Strange progress of Class Action lawsuit against Brookhaven National Lab
“The Brookhaven scientific culture still doesn’t understand the interrelationship between humans and the natural world and the lethal consequences their work in nuclear technology imposes on the population and environment of the world. They still don’t understand that nuclear power is a polluting, deadly technology”
The book “Welcome to Shirley: A Memoir from an Atomic Town” by Kelly McMasters links widespread cancer in neighboring Shirley to radioactive releases from BNL.
Class action lawsuit against Brookhaven National Lab moving ahead, Enformable, Karl Grossman 2 Feb 16 A class action lawsuit—begun 20 years ago—that charges Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) with contaminating neighborhoods adjacent to it will be moving ahead again in New York State Supreme Court this month.
Court action is scheduled for the last week in February. Since it was first brought in 1996, the lawsuit has gone back and forth between the State Supreme Court and the Appellate Division several times, as BNL has fought it.
In July the Appellate Division—the judicial panel over the Supreme Court in New York State —ruled the case can move towards trial. It declared that “the causes of action of the proposed intervenors are all based upon common theories of liability.” In other words, it stated that the plaintiffs could sue for damages.
But, outrageously, the radioactive contamination caused by BNL—documented in the 2008 book “Welcome to Shirley: A Memoir from an Atomic Town” and focused upon by the award-winning 2012 documentary “The Atomic States of America”—can no longer be part of the case. Continue reading
International Court of Justice sets March dates for Marshall Islands’ nuclear case
Marshalls nuclear case set for ICJ hearing http://www.radionz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/295377/marshalls-nuclear-case-set-for-icj-hearing 1 Feb 16, The Marshall Islands’ legal battle against the world’s nuclear powers has inched forward after an international court announced dates for hearings involving India, Pakistan and Britain.
The UN’s highest court, the International Court of Justice, set dates between 7 March and 16 March for separate hearings for the three cases.
The Marshall Islands, where the United States tested 67 nuclear weapons between 1946 and 1958, launched action in 2014 against nine nuclear states.
It has accused them of flagrant violation of international law for failing to pursue the negotiations required by the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
In the cases against India and Pakistan, the court at The Hague will examine whether it is competent to hear the lawsuits.
The hearing involving Britain will look at preliminary objections raised by Britain.
The Marshall Islands’ case against the US hit a stumbling block last year when it was thrown out by the Federal District Court in San Francisco.
An appeal is underway. The Marshall Islands also filed suits against Russia, France, China, Israel and North Korea.
Japan wrestling with problem of compensation for victims of nuclear accidents
Panel begins debate on limit of compensation in event of nuclear accident http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/01/24/national/panel-begins-debate-limit-compensation-event-nuclear-accident/#.VqUt4Jp97Gh JIJI The Japan Atomic Energy Commission has started full discussions by experts on whether to limit the power plant operator’s liability to pay damage compensation in the event of a nuclear accident.
Currently, nuclear plant operators in Japan bear unlimited liability for compensation, but some experts demand that a ceiling be set for their responsibility.
The discussions are expected to be difficult, as limiting the liability would raise the problem of how to compensate affected people and businesses for the damage in excess of the limit.
For the March 2011 triple meltdown accident at Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s disaster-stricken Fukushima No. 1 plant, Tepco shoulders full liability for compensation under the nuclear compensation law.
But as Tepco alone cannot finance all the costs for compensation payments and decontamination work, the government set aside ¥9 trillion in assistance, which has been provided to the company through Nuclear Damage Compensation and Decommissioning Facilitation Corp., a public-private organization. Tepco repays the aid little by little.
Electric power industry people have been pushing for a cap on nuclear plant operators’ liability for compensation. “If the sky’s the limit for compensation, we cannot project an outlook for our nuclear energy business,” a senior official of a major power utility said.
In line with the government’s policy of continuing to use nuclear energy, an expert panel of the Japan Atomic Energy Commission started debate last year on any problems with the current compensation regime.
Some panel members argued for a limited liability system. “Shouldering risks that go beyond the limit of the private sector will impede fund procurement by electric power companies,” one member said.
On the other hand, a separate member said, “Limited liability is not an option, considering the current situation of Fukushima.”
There are also concerns that a narrower scope of responsibility for power companies could be detrimental to their commitment to safety.
With the panel divided sharply, a government official said no conclusion is expected at an early date.
The expert panel plans to produce a report on their discussions next year, and the government will subsequently start working on any necessary amendments to the nuclear compensation law.
Even if the nuclear compensation system is revised, past nuclear accidents will not be covered by a limited liability system.
Among countries that impose limits on an electric power company’s liability of compensation for a nuclear accident, the United States sets the maximum liability at $12.6 billion and Britain has a ceiling of £140 million ($199.7 million), according to the Japan Atomic Energy Commission. Under the U.S. system, if the scale of nuclear damage exceeds the limit, the president proposes a supplementary compensation program to the Congress.
USA changes law to make it harder for nuclear radiation victims to get compensation
the directive signals an initial step toward trying to dismantle or rein in a $12 billion compensation program that has made payments to more than 53,000 sickened workers or their survivors since 2001.
Nuclear workers fear new policy will make it harder to win compensation
Department of Labor says nuclear facilities are much safer since 1995
Workers and advocates worry it will be more difficult to prove cases
A fight is underway to get policy repealed in order to protect sick employees
BY LINDSAY WISE, ROB HOTAKAINEN AND FRANK MATT McClatchy Washington Bureau, 22 Jan 16 WASHINGTON
Abelardo Garza was working near tanks full of toxic sludge at Hanford nuclear reservation in Washington state last Aug. 14 when one of his co-workers noticed a strange smell.
Within minutes, Garza’s nose started bleeding. The next morning, he awoke gasping for breath.
It was the fourth time in five years that Garza would end up in the hospital after suspected exposure to chemical vapors at Hanford, a 586-square-mile site where workers once made plutonium for the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan.
Now Garza, 65, worries that a new federal directive the government says was intended to speed up compensation claims by sick and dying nuclear workers could harm his chances of qualifying for benefits if his health worsens in the future.
The directive, which became effective in December 2014, orders claims examiners to conclude that workers at Department of Energy nuclear facilities have not have any significant exposure to toxins since 1995 “in the absence of compelling data to the contrary.”
To Garza, the wording of the government’s directive feels like a dismissal. Continue reading
Legal action over Los Alamos failure to complete radioactive trash cleanup
Nuclear Watch to sue over LANL cleanup problems By Mark Oswald / Journal Staff Writer January 21st, 2016 Albuquerque Journal SANTA FE – Nuclear Watch New Mexico on Wednesday put the federal Department of Energy and the private contractor that manages Los Alamos National Laboratory on official notice that it will file suit over the lab’s failure to meet cleanup goals established in a legally binding 2005 consent order.
The notice mailed Wednesday notes the lab missed a December final deadline for completion of Los Alamos clean-up work and hasn’t asked for an extension of the now-expired schedule that was set a decade ago.
That makes DOE and Los Alamos National Security LLC (LANS), the lab’s private manager, liable for civil penalties and subject to injunction, says the notice by attorney Jonathan Block of the New Mexico Environmental Law Center.
“We are putting the weaponeers on notice that they have to clean up their radioactive and toxic mess first before making another one for a nuclear weapons stockpile that is already bloated far beyond what we need,” said Jay Coghlan, executive director of Nuke Watch, a nonprofit watchdog group. He was referring to DOE’s recent preliminary approvals for changes at Los Alamos, including new underground facilities, to accommodate re-starting production of plutonium “pits,” the triggers for nuclear weapons……..
The Environment Department has plans to revise the 2005 cleanup consent order with DOE and LANS, a private consortium that includes Bechtel and the University of California.
The order was a result of the Environment Department’s 2002 finding that decades worth of radioactive and hazardous waste at Los Alamos posed an “imminent” threat to health and the environment. The state issued an order requiring LANL to investigate its 40-square-mile property for waste. DOE and the lab argued their own cleanup schedule was better and sued.
The 2005 consent deal ending the dispute laid out milestones toward “fence-to-fence” cleanup by 2015, enforceable by financial penalties. But getting enough funding for the work – federal dollars have been mostly in the range of $185 million to $200 million annually – became increasingly difficult, and it was clear in recent years that the lab would come nowhere near meeting deadlines set in the 2005 document. In November, state Environment Secretary Ryan Flynn said he believes it will cost much more than DOE’s own $1.2 billion estimate to finish the job.
Nuke Watch’s Coghlan said Wednesday that cleanup at Los Alamos “continues to be delayed, delayed, delayed,” despite plans to spend a trillion dollars over 30 years to rebuild the U.S. nuclear weapons force……..
Nuke Watch also has been pushing for a formal public hearing process – which Nuke Watch contends is required and allows interested parties to submit materials and question witnesses – as a revised consent order on cleanup is developed. Flynn has said that would cause delays and promised opportunities for public comment instead in other settings, such as meetings of a citizens advisory board.
Flynn also has insisted that before a new consent order is negotiated, DOE must come to final agreement with the state over plans for $73.5 million that the federal agency agreed to pay for a radioactive leak that has shut down the nation’s nuclear waste repository near Carlsbad. Two years ago, a waste drum from LANL, improperly packed, breached at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant and contaminated the storage facility. http://www.abqjournal.com/709455/news/nuke-watch-files-suit-over-missed-clean-up-deadlines-at-los-alamos.html
Nuclear reactor Legal struggle continues between AREVA and Finland’s TVO
Areva, TVO have month to settle nuclear reactor claims-minister http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFL8N154366 PARIS Jan 20 (Reuters) French nuclear reactor maker Areva and Finnish customer Teollisuuden Voima (TVO) will try to settle mutual claims over a long-delayed nuclear reactor within a month, French Economy Minister Emmanuel Macron said on Wednesday.“I had the chance at the start of the week to speak to (Finnish Economy Minister) Olli Rehn, and we gave ourselves a month to let the companies and shareholders find the conditions for an agreement or way out,” Macron said on the sidelines of a New Year event.
Finnish utility TVO and an Areva-led consortium with Siemens are claiming billions of euros from one another in an arbitration suit over cost overruns and delays to the EPR reactor Areva is building in Olkiluoto, in Finland, for TVO.
The unsettled claims are holding up a planned takeover of Areva’s reactor arm by French utility EDF, which does not want to be responsible for them.
TVO has a 2.6 billion euro ($2.8 billion) claim against the Areva-Siemens consortium at the International Chamber of Commerce’s (ICC) arbitration court, while Areva-Siemens have a 3.4 billion euro counter-claim.
While the French state – which owns 85 percent of EDF and 87 percent of Areva – has a big stake in a speedy resolution of the Olkiluoto claims, TVO is a private company and the Finnish government’s position so far has been not to intervene.
TVO’s owners include paper companies UPM and Stora Enso as well as utility Fortum. (Reporting by Michel Rose and Yann Le Guernigou; Writing by Geert De Clercq; Editing by James Regan and Susan Thomas)
Legal obstacle to South Africa’s nuclear energy plan
Energy department faces legal ordeal on nuclear energy deal, Business Day Live, South Africa BY CAROL PATON, 11 JANUARY 2016 THE CURIOUS DEVELOPMENTS ON GOVERNMENT’S NUCLEAR ENERGY PROCUREMENT PROGRAMME LAST MONTH HAVE SUNK THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DEEPER INTO A LEGAL MESS.
Already, an attempt to challenge the legality and constitutionality of the process has been lodged: Earthlife and the Southern African Faith Communities Environmental Initiative (Safcei) filed papers to oppose it in October.
Now, the muddled events that unfolded last month are likely to make matters worse, making an already controversial process even more contested.
It all began in the last Cabinet meeting of the year on December 7, when it took a decision to issue a request for proposals (RFP) to build 9,600MW of nuclear power-generation.
As important as it is, this decision was not communicated in the normal post-Cabinet media statement by Minister in the Presidency Jeff Radebe.
Official confirmation took place only on December 21 in a government gazette. Like the absence of an official announcement, the gazette, too, was strange. Apart from the fact that it was issued on December 21, when the holiday season was under way, the gazette made use of a two-year-old signature by previous minister Ben Martins to establish its legal basis.
In order to call for proposals for new generation, the minister of energy must first make an official determination in terms of the Electricity Regulation Act of 2006. To do so, she must obtain the concurrence of the National Energy Regulator of SA (Nersa). This, it seems, was done two years ago by Mr Martins and the paperwork then lay in a file in the Department of Energy for the next two years.
Last month, the old document was retrieved and slapped into the government gazette.
There are several reasons why the Department of Energy decided to use an old document to make the determination rather than getting a fresh one from serving Energy Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson. None of them, though, will make the nuclear deal any smoother……..
key to the legal arguments will be the difference of opinion over whether public consultation to build nuclear power stations has taken place. The department says that it has as it consulted widely over the IRP 2010 and has also engaged in environmental impact assessments. Safcei and Earthlife disagree that this amounts to meaningful consultation.
It is also worth noting that an RFP is only the beginning of the shopping process and does not mean that a decision to build plants has been taken. Reaching a decision on whether nuclear energy is affordable, particularly on the scale that SA has in mind, is a bigger and more difficult decision that the Cabinet will still have to take.
Getting there, though, will mean first navigating the procedural legal hurdles along the way. http://www.bdlive.co.za/business/energy/2016/01/11/energy-department-faces-legal-ordeal-on-nuclear-energy-deal
Hope for nuclear disarmament – the Marshall Islands legal case
Say hello to the Marshall Islands, the tiny, heroic island nation in Micronesia, with a population just over 70,000. This former U.S. territory, which still bears the terrible scars of 67 above-ground nuclear blasts between 1946 and 1958, when this country used it as an expendable nuclear test site, has engaged the United States — and, indeed, all nine nations that possess nuclear weapons — in lawsuits demanding that they comply with the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and begin the process of negotiating global nuclear disarmament.
Taking on the Nuclear Goliath http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/08/taking-on-the-nuclear-goliath/ by ROBERT KOEHLER
“Just as we stood for freedom in the 20th century, we must stand together for the right of people everywhere to live free from fear in the 21st century. And . . . as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act. We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we can start it.
“So today, I state clearly and with conviction America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”
Uh…
These words, the core of President Obama’s first major foreign policy speech, delivered in Prague in April 2009, now resonate with nothing so much as toxic irony — these pretty words, these words of false hope, which disappeared into Washington’s military-industrial consensus and failed to materialize into action or policy.
James Carroll, writing at Mother Jones in 2013, describes what happened in the wake of this extraordinary policy declaration:
“In order to get the votes of Senate Republicans to ratify the START treaty, Obama made what turned out to be a devil’s bargain. He agreed to lay the groundwork for a vast ‘modernization’ of the US nuclear arsenal, which, in the name of updating an aged system, is already morphing into a full-blown reinvention of the arms cache at an estimated future cost of more than a trillion dollars. In the process, the Navy wants, and may get 12 new strategic submarines; the Air Force wants, and may get a new long-range strike bomber force. Bombers and submarines would, of course, both be outfitted with next-generation missiles, and we’d be off to the races. The arms races.”
And the cause of global nuclear disarmament, once a dream with geopolitical cred, may wind up entombed in eternal apathy. Continue reading
Litany of health problems in US sailors exposed to Fukushima nuclear radiation
the plaintiffs have suffered a litany of health problems including cancer, tumors, brain defects, birth defects, early death and a wide variety of undiagnosed conditions. These are “very serious illnesses for a very large population of very young people
Even though it cannot be legally liable, the Defense Department seems to have been actively obstructing the sailors’ quest for justice.
Fukushima radiation causes debilitating deformities in US Navy sailors Thursday, December 31, 2015 by: David Gutierrez, staff writer (NaturalNews) U.S. Navy sailors and Marines dispatched to provide aid to Japan following the massive earthquake and tsunami in 2011 are now suffering a variety of rare and undiagnosed health problems, including many involving horrifying and visible changes to their bodies.
After the tsunami, the U.S. Navy’s 7th Fleet, led by the USS Ronald Reagan, was diverted to the coast of Japan to provide relief work. The soldiers were not told that the disaster had triggered multiple meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, or that a radioactive plume was spreading across the Pacific Ocean.
Aviation Bosun’s Mate Dagan Honda and Aviation Structural Mechanic Ron Wright say they spent all day nearly every day of the mission on the deck of the Reagan, loading supplies. For roughly the first week of the mission, the sailors were given no radiation protection.
“So these sailors literally were marinating in radioactive particles,” said Attorney Charles Bonner, who is representing more than 200 sailors and Marines in a class action lawsuit against Fukushima operator Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) and several other defendants. Continue reading
1 This Month
26 April – Chernobyl: Inside the Meltdown airs on National Geographic on Sunday 26th April from 4pm
29 April – Nuclear Expert Webinar #1 – Radiation Impacts on Families with Mary Olson and Cindy Folkers
- 12:15 PM MT – 1:45 PM MT
- Location: Virtual – REGISTER TODAY
4 May -West Suburban Peace Coalition to discuss Iran war at May Educational Forum
Monday, May 4, 7:00 – 8:00 PM Central Standard Time
Title: : How Trump’s Narrative Tries to Shape the Reality of the War on Iran.
Contact Walt Zlotow, zlotow@hotmail.com 630 442 3045 for further information
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
Pine Ridge Uranium is the real threat, not Tehran- Tell Burgum: Stop the Extraction.
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (317)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
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 