nuclear-news

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

Tax day and war resistance

For U.S. citizens, the well-known waste and fraud of the Pentagon should be one outrage. The Pentagon remains the only federal department to never pass a required federal audit. The Pentagon cannot account for 63% of the tax money it receives. That’s our money. Gone. Unaccounted for. Lining the pockets of weapons manufacturers.

    by beyondnuclearinternational, By Brad Wolf, https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/04/14/tax-day-and-war-resistance/

What can we learn from Philip Berrigan’s quest for peace?

It is April 15 and we can reflect on the life and work of Philip Berrigan and undertake our own ministry of risk for peace—to ease the suffering, to restore human dignity, and to challenge our doomed policy of warmaking.

Each year Americans forfeit a sizable slice of their income to the United States Treasury to fund the government. Tax Day is dreaded. No one likes surrendering their hard-earned cash. But rather than a resigned shrug, Americans should look closely at what they are getting for their money when it comes to government services and policy.

In fiscal year 2023, the Pentagon received $858 billion for the preparation of war. This doesn’t include hidden costs for intelligence services, veterans’ benefits, Homeland Security, or the Department of Energy, which oversees the nation’s nuclear arsenal. All totaled, over $1 trillion a year is allotted for warmaking. By comparison, the 2023 budget for the U.S. Department of State, this nation’s department tasked with making peace across the globe, was a relatively miniscule $63 billion.

One way to register resistance to this profligate spending on warmaking is that of renowned peace activist and then Catholic priest Philip Berrigan. During the Vietnam War, Phil initiated the destruction of U.S. military draft files in Baltimore and Catonsville, Maryland, to save the lives of both Vietnamese and Americans, actions for which he received lengthy prison sentences.

These draft file actions by Phil initiated a new form of resistance to the Vietnam War, since no copies were kept of the draft files. Hundreds of similar actions followed at draft board offices across the country with hundreds of thousands of draft files destroyed, all stopping young men from being conscripted to kill or be killed.

In 1980, Phil initiated the Plowshares movement—which continues to this day—as he and others entered the General Electric nuclear weapons facility in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, pouring blood on weapons blueprints and symbolically hammering on the nosecones of missiles, “Beating swords into plowshares.” A Christian metaphor indeed, but a universal message. Since that first action, there have been over 70 Plowshares actions around the world.

Phil strongly objected to the notion that U.S. citizens should fund needless death and destruction abroad through their taxes, or possibly fund their own destruction by nuclear war. He repeated nonviolent actions time and again, serving a total of 11 years in prison to stop the slaughter of innocents and protest the use of U.S. tax dollars for arms proliferation, nuclear warmaking, and endless wars of choice.

For U.S. citizens, the well-known waste and fraud of the Pentagon should be one outrage. The Pentagon remains the only federal department to never pass a required federal audit. The Pentagon cannot account for 63% of the tax money it receives. That’s our money. Gone. Unaccounted for. Lining the pockets of weapons manufacturers.

But the more pressing concern with these war dollars is their use to initiate wars of choice, often against impoverished countries, because those countries have natural resources beneath the soil that the U.S seems to think belong to them. The cruel joke is, “How dare they put their country over our oil.” And so, we take it. With extreme violence and death.

The U.S. currently has soldiers in northern Syria where massive quantities of oil is extracted for Western fossil fuel companies. The war in Iraq was for oil. We are building new bases in Somalia where oil fields have been found. These wars for corporate profit have gone on for over a century. As decorated war hero Smedley Butler said in the 1930s about his many years in the U.S. military, “I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism… Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints.”

Whether it be gold, fruit, rubber, or sugar in Latin America; oil in the Middle East; or rare earth minerals in Africa, the U.S. taxpayer has long funded the corporate theft of natural resources from Indigenous lands for the benefit of U.S corporations and their wealthy shareholders. Innocents in foreign lands die as a result, while U.S. taxpayers struggle to pay mortgages, rent, healthcare bills, and food costs.

According to Brown University’s Costs of War Project, the United States spent some $8 trillion in the last 23 years for the Wars on Terror. Four-and-a-half to 4.7 million people in foreign lands died because of those wars, most of them innocent civilians. Mothers and fathers and children.

And so, as this Tax Day approaches, perhaps we can reflect on the life and work of Philip Berrigan and undertake our own ministry of risk for peace in whatever form that may take, to ease the suffering, to restore human dignity, to challenge our doomed policy of warmaking. Only in this way can we reconcile ourselves with justice and democracy. Only in this way can we save ourselves, our country, and perhaps the world.

As Phil said, “These blind leading the blind have done more than threaten us with doomsday scenarios. They have, with a devilish ingenuity, convinced us that we ought to pay, through taxes, for our own destruction.”

April 15, 2024 Posted by | opposition to nuclear | Leave a comment

Non-proliferation experts urge US to not support nuclear fuel project

By Thomson Reuters, Apr 4, 2024 , By Timothy Gardner, https://wtvbam.com/2024/04/04/non-proliferation-experts-urge-us-to-not-support-nuclear-fuel-project/

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Nuclear proliferation experts who served under four U.S. presidents told President Joe Biden and his administration on Thursday that a pilot project to recycle spent nuclear fuel would violate U.S. nuclear security policy.

SHINE Technologies and Orano signed a memorandum of understanding in February to develop a U.S. plant to recycle, or reprocess, nuclear waste. It would have a capacity of 100 tonnes a year beginning in the early 2030s.

The project would violate a policy signed by Biden in March, 2023 that says civil nuclear research and development should focus on approaches that “avoid producing and accumulating weapons-usable nuclear material,” the experts said in a letter to the president.

“If such a facility were constructed in the United States, it would legitimize the building of reprocessing plants in other countries, thereby increasing risks of proliferation and nuclear terrorism,” they said.

Many non-proliferation advocates oppose reprocessing, saying its supply chain could be a target for militants seeking to seize materials for use in a crude nuclear bomb.

France and other countries have reprocessed nuclear waste by breaking it down into uranium and plutonium and reusing it to make new reactor fuel. A U.S. supply chain would likely be far longer than in those countries, non-proliferation experts say.

Former President Gerald Ford halted reprocessing in 1976, citing proliferation concerns. Former President Ronald Reagan lifted a moratorium in 1981, but high costs have prevented plants from opening.

The White House’s national security council and the National Nuclear Security Administration did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

A SHINE spokesperson said its technology improves global safety and that “responsible recycling of spent fuel is the only known way to actually eliminate plutonium that has already been generated in fission reactors.”

An Orano USA spokesperson said: “It’s a blending of our expertise to develop a process that is sensitive and addresses non-proliferation concerns, but also gleans this viable commercial material.”

The letter was signed by 11 former U.S. officials including Thomas Countryman, who served under President Barack Obama, Robert Einhorn, who served under President Bill Clinton, Robert Galluci, who served under President George H.W. Bush, and Jessica Matthews, who served under former President Jimmy Carter.

The Biden administration believes nuclear energy to be critical in the fight against climate change. But the waste is kept in storage in pools and then thick casks at nuclear plants across the country as there is no permanent place to put it. The Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, or ARPA-E, said in 2022, it is funding a dozen projects to reprocess the waste, with $38 million

April 10, 2024 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, reprocessing | Leave a comment

Past anti-nuclear activists speak out against current plans

Ryck Thill (Télé) adapted for RTL Today| 05.04.2024 https://today.rtl.lu/news/luxembourg/a/2184141.html

In the concluding segment of this mini-series, Luxembourg’s initial wave of anti-nuclear advocates reflect on contemporary nuclear energy proposals.

Presently, ten EU member states are engaged in discussions regarding the expansion of nuclear energy, with plans underway for new reactors or ongoing construction. Apart from France, the Netherlands, and Sweden, Eastern European nations are predominantly spearheading this push towards nuclear technology, viewing it as a potential environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels or a transitional solution.

However, physicist Claude Wehenkel voices apprehension over what he perceives as a resurgence of nuclear energy, particularly in light of recent announcements by French President Macron regarding the development of small, simpler, and more cost-effective reactors. Wehenkel raises concerns about the implications of scaling back nuclear power stations, emphasising unresolved issues surrounding waste treatment and storage.

Théid Faber, former president of the Ecological Movement, echoes these sentiments, noting that the proposed new type 4 nuclear reactors fail to address key challenges related to waste disposal and safety. Faber emphasises that the proliferation of smaller reactors may heighten risks compared to a smaller number of larger reactors. He argues that nuclear energy remains as problematic today as it was half a century ago.

Faber further critiques the economic inefficiency of nuclear energy, highlighting its dependence on state and EU interventions. Additionally, he points to contemporary concerns regarding the use of cooling water, especially amidst escalating climate change threats. Faber contends that longstanding arguments against nuclear energy remain as valid today as they were in the past.

Nuclear fusion: Elusive technology faces scepticism

Since the 1950s, nuclear fusion has been touted as a potential game-changer, yet doubts persist about its viability on an industrial scale.

Claude Wehenkel dismisses nuclear fusion as “entirely unsuitable” for large-scale implementation, citing decades of substantial investment without any real progress.

Roger Spautz of Greenpeace shares a similar sentiment, highlighting the extensive research and funding poured into nuclear fusion with little tangible outcome. Spautz predicts that significant advancements in fusion energy production are unlikely within the foreseeable future, casting doubts on its potential as a widespread energy source.

Recent controversial remarks by Prime Minister Luc Frieden sparked criticism, particularly regarding his stance on nuclear energy policies beyond Luxembourg’s borders. Ben Fayot, former president of the Luxembourg Socialist Workers’ Party (LSAP), expresses concern over Frieden’s assertion that Luxembourg should remain indifferent to nuclear developments elsewhere. Fayot finds such remarks “appalling” and questions the Prime Minister’s dismissive attitude towards regional energy dynamics.

Following public backlash, Prime Minister Frieden clarified Luxembourg’s commitment to renewable energy initiatives. But as long as nuclear energy remains an issue in neighbouring countries, the controversial technology is certain to remain a pertinent issue for the inhabitants of the Grand Duchy as well.

April 10, 2024 Posted by | EUROPE, opposition to nuclear | Leave a comment

45 years after Three Mile Island, we need a ‘No Nukes’ comeback

“A tsunami of nuclear power propaganda is sweeping the globe.” According to Gunter, this propaganda is backed by a multi-billion-dollar nuclear promotion campaign funded by taxpayers via the Biden administration’s Department of Energy. “

Billions of dollars in nuclear subsidies were loaded into Biden’s infrastructure bill, with billions more in the Inflation Reduction Act.

As Biden sinks billions into nuclear energy, members of the historic Clamshell Alliance are reuniting to spark a new wave of anti-nuke resistance.

Arnie Alpert , WAGING NON VIOLENCE, March 25, 2024

When a nuclear reactor at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania went from a technological miracle to a pile of radioactive rubble in a matter of moments in 1979, the Portsmouth, New Hampshire office of the Clamshell Alliance became a hive of activity. I was working there at the time, fielding calls from activists and journalists from around the world. Everyone wanted our opinion since — over the previous few years — our nonviolent demonstrations to prevent the construction of the Seabrook nuclear power plant put us at the forefront of a growing social movement.

From the arrests of 18 New Hampshire residents in our first act of civil disobedience in 1976 to more than 1,400 arrests the following spring to a permitted rally that drew some 18,000 protesters in 1978, the Clamshell Alliance touched off a grassroots anti-nuclear rebellion that brought the “No Nukes” message to communities across the country and into the popular culture.

With that groundwork in place, Three Mile Island took our message to the next level. The idea that “nuclear power is a bad way to generate electricity” soon became accepted knowledge across the United States. Everyone from Wall Street tycoons to congressional staffers to ordinary voters now understood that the nuclear industry’s promise of safe, clean and affordable power was a fraud.

Unfortunately, in recent years this understanding has slowly eroded, as the industry has worked to tout its product as the answer to climate catastrophe. With the Biden administration now sinking billions into nuclear energy — and Congress on the verge of passing legislation to ease regulatory precautions on new reactors — the nuclear fraudsters are aiming for a comeback.

Whether they call it a ‘nuclear renaissance’ or a ‘nuclear enlightenment,’ nukes aren’t the answer to the climate crisis,” said Paul Gunter, who was one of the first 18 Clamshell members arrested at Seabrook in 1976.

Now the co-director of Beyond Nuclear, a nonprofit advocacy group based in Takoma Park, Maryland, Gunter says “Nukes are just too expensive, take too long to build and feature too many pathways to catastrophic accidents.” What’s more, as he maintains, their continued use — along with building costly new reactors — make climate change worse and the world less safe.

With this in mind, “seasoned Clams,” as we jokingly call ourselves, have been holding regular meetings over Zoom — and occasionally in person — to strategize on how to bring our anti-nuclear message to younger generations, as well as fellow boomers, for whom Three Mile Island has become a faded memory. We ultimately want to refute the nuclear industry’s claims that it has solved the problems posed by the old reactors.

In a statement on our new website, we assert: “A tsunami of nuclear power propaganda is sweeping the globe.” According to Gunter, this propaganda is backed by a multi-billion-dollar nuclear promotion campaign funded by taxpayers via the Biden administration’s Department of Energy. “They even have a plan to convert coal-fired power plants to nuclear generation,” he said.

Billions of dollars in nuclear subsidies were loaded into Biden’s infrastructure bill, with billions more in the Inflation Reduction Act. Meanwhile, the Atomic Energy Advancement Act — which sailed through the U.S. House 365-36 last month — extends nuclear subsidies further by continuing the $16.6 billion cap on liability from nuclear accidents for the next 40 years.

“The still unrealized total damage costs of a severe nuclear accident, as evidenced by ongoing nuclear catastrophes at Fukushima (13 year ago) and Chernobyl (38 years ago), are already running into the hundreds of billions of dollars,” Gunter said, adding that Congress didn’t even hold a public hearing on the liability cap extension.

As the new Clamshell website maintains, new nukes are not needed to avert a climate crisis. “Far better options are being built much faster than nuclear power plants, at a fraction of the cost and without the grave hazards. They include solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, efficiency and conservation.”………………………………………………………….. https://wagingnonviolence.org/2024/03/three-mile-island-45th-anniversary-no-nukes-comeback-clamshell-alliance/

April 4, 2024 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, USA | Leave a comment

April 29 – May 2 Free public events during Not-the-Nuclear-Lobby Week in Ottawa

 https://stop-smrs.weebly.com/not-nuclear.html

Monday, April 29, 6:30 PM (pay what you can)
Film Screening Radioactive – The Women of Three Mile Island​
Tuesday, April 30, 7 PM (free)
Workshop reading of the play The Children
Wednesday, May 1, 7 PM (free)
Community Forum: Canada’s Nuclear Future – Renaissance or Relic?

April 4, 2024 Posted by | opposition to nuclear | Leave a comment

The First Annual Plutonium Trail Caravan is on Saturday April 6th – Join Us!

March 29th, 2024,  https://nuclearactive.org/

Did you know that the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) was supposed to complete its 25-year waste disposal mission and begin closing on Tuesday, March 26th?  You may know about it because WIPP officials had a party.  https://www.rdrnews.com/news/state/new-mexico-regulators-worry-about-us-plans-to-ship-radioactive-waste-back-from-texas/article_00e04fb6-ed72-5ec6-aabb-cc35a01d12f0.html  

But for those living downwind and downstream of Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and along the WIPP transportation routes, the risk of the federal Department of Energy (DOE) operations at both facilities will continue to threaten us, and if DOE has its way, for decades to come.

DOE, which owns both facilities, is not planning to close either site.  LANL is to continue to generate plutonium-contaminated wastes by fabricating the triggers, or pits, for new nuclear weapons.  DOE hopes to leave some of that waste at LANL forever. Some waste would be shipped to WIPP, a journey of 315 miles, for disposal.

Rather than closing WIPP, DOE has no plans for any other repository, so the world’s only operating deep underground facility would also operate forever.

But many New Mexicans oppose “Forever WIPP.”  https://stopforeverwipp.org/

On Saturday, April 6th, the first annual Plutonium Trail Caravan will travel along the WIPP transportation route.  It will begin at Camel Rock and end with a press conference at the Lamy Train Station.  The purpose is to highlight some of the dangers of WIPP and waste transportation and encourage people to join in the effort to Stop Forever WIPP.

The caravan will have literature about WIPP and items for sale. The participants can answer questions about present and future activities. More information is available at https://stopforeverwipp.org/

The caravan will gather at 9:30 am at the Camel Rock geologic formation on the frontage road to U.S. 84/285 in Tesuque for a blessing, a safety briefing, and a group photo.

There will be four stops along the WIPP waste transportation route– in the Tesuque Village, the Solano Shopping Center in Santa Fe, the intersection of Airport Road and the 599 By-pass around Santa Fe, and the Agora Shopping Center in El Dorado.

After the four stops, a press conference will be held at the Lamy Train Station at 3:15 pm.  Speakers include Hank Hughes, Santa Fe County Commission Chair; Myrriah Gómez, author of Nuclear Nuevo México; Destiny Ray, of Youth United for Climate Crisis Action, or YUCCA; and Ashley Schannauer, an activist and concerned citizen.  They will speak about their concerns and suggest ideas for working together to oppose Forever WIPP.  Please join us!

March 31, 2024 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, USA | Leave a comment

Scotland’s National Party attacks £200m extra for nuclear deterrent and industry

By Kathleen Nutt, 25 Mar 24

The SNP have criticised an announcement by Prime Minister to commit a further £200m on strengthening the nuclear deterrent and boosting the nuclear industry saying the money would be better spent on improving the NHS or alleviating the cost of living crisis for households.

Martin Docherty-Hughes MP, the party’s defence spokesman, condemned the plans to “waste another £200 million” on nuclear and accused the Conservatives and Labour, which backed the plans, of focusing on “the wrong priorities”.

“Westminster has already wasted billions of taxpayer’s money on nuclear weapons and expensive nuclear energy. It is grotesque to throw another £200million down the drain when the Tories and Labour Party both claim there is no money to improve our NHS, to help families with the cost of living or to properly invest in our green energy future.

“This money would be much better spent on a raft of other priorities – not least investing in the green energy gold rush, which would ensure Scotland, with its wealth of renewable energy potential, can be a green energy powerhouse of the 21st century.

“And while the UK government wastes millions of pounds misfiring Trident missiles at Defence Secretary Grant Shapps, the urgent priority is more money for conventional defence and for our armed forces, who are underpaid and under-resourced.

“With both Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer focused on the wrong priorities – it is only the SNP standing up for Scotland’s interests and Scotland’s values.”……………………………………………………………………………………………… https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/24208207.snp-attack-200m-extra-nuclear-deterrent-industry/

March 29, 2024 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Hundreds of groups for climate action reject nuclear power at Brussels Summit

 Today, more than 600 civil society groups across the globe working on
climate action, including 130 from Canada launched a declaration in
Brussels, Belgium, stating that nuclear power expansion is not a solution
to the climate crisis. The groups declare: “We are living in a climate
emergency.

Time is precious, and too many governments are wasting it with
nuclear energy fairy tales. What we demand is a just transition towards a
safe, renewable and affordable energy system that secures jobs and protects
life on our planet.” The groups made their declaration public today at
the pro-nuclear Summit in Brussels where countries are meeting to bolster
the industry’s claim that investing in new nuclear plants must be a
priority to save the climate.

The International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA), whose principle mandate is to promote nuclear expansion, is
co-hosting the event, along with Belgium, which ironically passed a law in
2003 –still on the books –to phase out nuclear power completely.

 Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility 21st March 2024

Click to access CCNR-CANE_media_release_2024.pdf

March 24, 2024 Posted by | Canada, climate change, opposition to nuclear | Leave a comment

World Water Day Prompts Submission to Parliamentary Committee on Risks of NWMO’s Nuclear Waste Project to Water

Thunder Bay – A Northern Ontario alliance concerned about a risky project to transport and bury nuclear fuel waste has chosen World Water Day to submit their brief to a parliamentary committee studying freshwater.

We the Nuclear Free North submitted the ten-page brief to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development today, outlining the set of risks the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) project poses to the lakes, rivers and groundwater of Northern Ontario. The Committee is carrying out a comprehensive study of the role of the federal government in protecting and managing Canada’s freshwater resources in Canada.

The opposition group points to the risks during transportation, processing and burial of the highly radioactive nuclear fuel waste, including from operations at the site of the proposed deep geological repository.

“The NWMO plan is still largely theoretical, but according to their own limited descriptions of the operating period, it is evident that freshwater in the area of the site will be impacted”, explained Wendy O’Connor, one of the report authors.


“Water used for washing down the nuclear waste transportation packages will become contaminated with radionuclides. According to the NWMO’s published details, that water will be sent to a settling pond and then released to natural water bodies in the vicinity of the site, as will the contaminated water that will be pumped from the underground repository”, said O’Connor.

“Despite assurances from the nuclear industry, it remains entirely possible that the nuclear waste itself, deposited underground, will contaminate the deep groundwater in the near or long term – contamination that will eventually reach surface water in the vast watershed”.

The NWMO’s candidate site in Northwestern Ontario is located half-way between Ignace and Dryden. Because it is at the height of land for the Wabigoon and the Turtle River systems, there are concerns about releases to the downstream communities, including Rainy River and Lake of the Woods. The group notes that if and when the radioactive releases occur from the deep geological repository there will be no means to reverse the impacts.


World Water Day, held on 22 March every year since 1993, is an annual United Nations Observance focusing on the importance of freshwater.

“It’s ironic that the UN theme for World Water Day in 2024 is “Water for Peace”, given the level of division and conflict that the NWMO’s proposal has brought to our region”, commented Kathleen Skead, a member of Anishinaabe of Wauzhushk Onigum Nation, one of several downstream Treaty 3 communities.

“Hopefully people will pause today and recognize that water is life and the NWMO’s promise of money is not worth the risk. Water is vital for all forms of life.”

The brief is posted HERE.

We the Nuclear Free North is an alliance of people and groups opposing a Deep Geological Repository for nuclear waste in Northern Ontario. We oppose the transport, burial and abandonment of this radioactive waste in our northern watersheds.

Our alliance is honoured to have received the name Tataganobin: looking far ahead into the future. Learn more about who we are, and the origin and meaning of this name.

March 24, 2024 Posted by | Canada, opposition to nuclear, wastes | Leave a comment

Groups demand broader consent for nuclear waste storage

A petition demands that Ottawa require the Nuclear Waste Management Organization to get consent from other communities, including those along the transportation route.


Gary Rinne, 22 Mar 24  https://www.tbnewswatch.com/local-news/groups-demand-broader-consent-for-nuclear-waste-storage-8471189.

THUNDER BAY — An alliance of Northern Ontario citizen groups wants the federal government to ensure an underground storage site for used nuclear fuel isn’t built without the consent of all impacted communities.

We The Nuclear Free North has launched an online petition asking Ottawa to require the Nuclear Waste Management Organization to demonstrate it has the permission not just of its designated “host community” but also of residents and communities in the region, along the transportation route, and downstream of the proposed repository.

NWMO has narrowed its search to the Ignace area in Northwestern Ontario and South Bruce in Southwestern Ontario, and plans to announce its preferred site before the end of this year.

In a news release Wednesday, North Bay-based Northwatch spokesperson Brennain Lloyd said NWMO has repeatedly stated it will only proceed with “an informed and willing host,” and argued that “the communities along the transportation route are ‘hosts’ to the same risks as Ignace,” but are shut out of the selection process.

“Residents living closer to the site and downstream live with the short-term and long-term risks of nuclear contamination but are not being asked if they are willing,” he added.

The alliance is also wary about five members of Ignace council having the ultimate power to decide if NWMO can label the community as an agreeable host.

“Now is the time for all of us to speak up,” said Dodie LeGassick, nuclear lead for Thunder Bay-based Environment North. “The federal government must intervene to bring some fairness and facts into the siting process. That’s what this petition is all about.”

The petition will be open to all residents of Canada until May 3.

Among other things, it notes that the federal government has affirmed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which requires that no hazardous materials shall be stored on the territories of Indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent.

March 24, 2024 Posted by | Canada, opposition to nuclear | Leave a comment

Green Groups Protest ‘Nuclear Fairy Tale’ in Brussels

“All the evidence shows that nuclear power is too slow to build, too expensive, and it remains highly polluting and dangerous,” one activist said.

OLIVIA ROSANE, Mar 21, 2024,  https://www.commondreams.org/news/protest-nuclear-power

An international coalition of environmental groups dropped banners and blockaded roads to protest the International Nuclear Energy Summit in Brussels on Thursday.

While the summit, hosted by the Belgian government and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), pushes nuclear energy as a replacement for fossil fuels, more than 600 climate action groups launched a declaration calling nuclear power plants a “distraction which slows down the energy transition.”

“We are in a climate emergency, so time is precious, and the governments here today are wasting it with nuclear energy fairy tales,” Greenpeace E.U. senior campaigner Lorelei Limousin said in a statement. “All the evidence shows that nuclear power is too slow to build, too expensive, and it remains highly polluting and dangerous.”

“The nuclear lobby camouflages itself beneath a climate-friendly facade, hoping to divert massive sums of money away from real climate solutions, at the expense of people and the planet.”

At the United Nations COP28 climate conference in the United Arab Emirates last year, more than 20 countries pledged to triple nuclear energy capacity by 2050. However, Greenpeace France calculated that achieving this would mean finishing 70 reactors each year between 2040 and 2050. This would be an unprecedented buildout in defiance of current trends: Between 2020 and 2023, 21 reactors were completed while 24 were shut down worldwide.

In the European Union specifically, many countries turned away from nuclear after 2011 in response to the Fukushima accident in Japan, according to Reuters. Germany shuttered its last three reactors for good in April 2023 following a successful anti-nuclear campaign there. In general, the nuclear share of the E.U. power mix dropped from 32.8% in 2000 to 22.8% in 2023, Greenpeace said.

Activists argue that nuclear still poses all the dangers the anti-nuclear movement has been warning about for decades and also cannot be ramped up quickly enough to prevent escalating climate extremes.

To reinforce this message, members of Greenpeace France blockaded the main roads to the Brussels summit using cars and bicycles. They also lit pink flares and threw pink powder as a motorcade of officials en route to the summit approached. The action succeeded in delaying the arrival of several delegations, Greenpeace E.U. said.

Other demonstrators dropped banners from the summit site at Brussels Expo reading, “Nuclear Fairy Tale,” while a group representing the 600 declaration signatories protested in front of an inflatable bouncy castle holding up a sign reading, “Nuclear fairy tales = climate crisis.”

The declaration was drafted by Climate Action Network Europe and signed by groups from at least 56 different countries and territories including Climate Action Network Canada, the David Suzuki Foundation, the Sierra Club, Food and Water Watch, CodePink, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, and several 350.org, Fridays for Future, and Friends of the Earth affiliates.

“The nuclear lobby camouflages itself beneath a climate-friendly facade, hoping to divert massive sums of money away from real climate solutions, at the expense of people and the planet,” the declaration reads.

The signatories pointed out that, while the world must dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 in order to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels, it would take longer than this for any new nuclear plant to come online.

At the same time, it costs significantly more money to increase nuclear capacity than renewable options like wind and solar, they stressed. A new reactor requires almost four times the funds of a new wind power installation.

“Governments need to invest in proven climate solutions, such as home insulation, public transport, and renewable energy, rather than expensive experiments, like small modular reactors, which have no guarantees of actually delivering,” the declaration says.

It also points to safety risks across the nuclear lifecycle, from uranium mining to waste storage. And it adds that those dangers would only increase as temperatures rise.

“The climate crisis also increases the risks involved in nuclear power, as increased heatwaves, droughts, storms, and flooding all pose significant threats to the plants themselves and to the systems that aim to prevent nuclear accidents,” the signatories argued.

Instead, the declaration proposes that governments focus on achieving 100% renewable energy while also improving efficiency.

“What we demand is a just transition toward a safe, renewable, and affordable energy system that secures jobs and protects life on our planet,” the declaration concludes.

March 23, 2024 Posted by | EUROPE, opposition to nuclear | 1 Comment

Heavy resistance to Canada’s 1st nuclear waste repository, while Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) says it is safe.

Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO)  reaffirms safety of Canada’s 1st nuclear waste repository but there’s still heavy pushback

Preferred site, in either southern or northwestern Ontario, to be chosen by year’s end

Sarah Law · CBC News  Mar 18, 2024

The body tasked with selecting the future storage site for Canada’s nuclear waste has reaffirmed its confidence in the project’s safety, but others remain concerned about the potential risks of burying spent nuclear fuel hundreds of metres below the earth’s surface.

By the end of this year, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) is expected to decide on its preferred site for the country’s first deep geological repository for used nuclear fuel.

The potential locations are:

  • The Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation-Ignace area, about 250 kilometres northwest of Thunder Bay. 
  • The Saugeen Ojibway Nation-South Bruce area in southern Ontario, about 130 kilometres northwest of London. 

Earlier this month, the NWMO released updated “Confidence in Safety” reports, which say both sites are suitable for the safe, long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel.

However, We the Nuclear Free North and the First Nations Land Defence Alliance, for example, remain concerned about what’s known as the Revell site in northwestern Ontario.

The alliance issued a letter to NWMO president and CEO Laurie Swami on March 5, saying: “Our Nations have not been consulted, we have not given our consent, and we stand together in saying ‘no’ to the proposed nuclear waste storage site near Ignace. We call on you to respect our decision.”

……. “They’re both good sites. We think that both of the sites would be safe,” said Paul Gierszewski,  technical subject matter expert with the NWMO and lead author of the “Confidence in Safety” reports.

Brennain Lloyd is project co-ordinator with Northwatch, which is part of We the Nuclear Free North. Members of the organization feel less confident about the project’s safety, she said.

“I think this newest report from the NWMO tries to put the best face possible on a project which is absolutely loaded with risk and uncertainty, and uses a lot of language that’s difficult for the public, for non-technical leaders to work through,” Lloyd said.

“There are no resources available in any part of this process for the public to be able to get technical assistance from independent third-party peer reviewers.

While Gierszewski says the 2023 reports expand on the previous year’s findings, Lloyd questions whether they contain new information or airbrushed statements that “paint a better picture.” …………………………………

Demand for in-person meetings

Chief Rudy Turtle of Grassy Narrows First Nation, 250 kilometres northwest of Ignace, said no one from the NWMO has met with him in person to discuss the proposed nuclear waste site.

Grassy Narrows has a particular interest in which Ontario site is chose, given the First Nation’s experiences dealing with contaminated fish in the 1960s and ’70s. Mercury from a Dryden pulp and paper mill was dumped into the English Wabigoon River, upstream from the First Nation. Research indicates past mercury exposure continues to impact the health of people in the community.

In the case of a nuclear waste repository, Turtle said, “Should there be any leak or if the containment fails, there is the possibility that [toxic chemicals] can leak downriver again.” 

Turtle would like to see a series of in-person meetings so people can better understand the safety measures being proposed and the potential risks………………………………………..

Chief Michele Solomon of Fort William First Nation said it is unlikely her community’s position against the site will change.

Band council passed a resolution last September calling for the Ontario government to adopt the proximity principle, which means nuclear waste would be stored at the point of generation and not transported elsewhere.

“Anything that has the potential to get into our waterway that would cause harm to the fish or to the animals or to our people … we take that very seriously,” Solomon said.

………………………………………………. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/nuclear-waste-repository-safety-reports-1.7145240
—

 

March 22, 2024 Posted by | Canada, indigenous issues, opposition to nuclear, wastes | Leave a comment

In Japan, Opposition to restarting nuclear power plants has grown, especially among women

 https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20240318/p2a/00m/0op/004000c 18 Mar 24

More against restarting nuclear plants than for after Japan Noto quake: Mainichi poll

TOKYO — Forty-five percent of people opposed restarting nuclear power plants in Japan, exceeding the 36% who support the move, as they likely realized the risk again in the wake of the Jan. 1 Noto Peninsular earthquake, according to a Mainichi Shimbun opinion poll conducted on March 16 and 17.

The same question was asked in the Mainichi questionnaire carried out in May 2022 and March 2023 in which 47% and 49% of respondents supported the idea, respectively, outweighing the 30% and 37% of those who were at odds.

There was a stark contrast between men and women in the results of the recent survey, with 55% of men answering they were for restarting nuclear power plants in contrast with the 34% against it, while 56% of women who said they were opposed to the idea outweighed the 20% in favor of it.

Younger people tended to support the idea, while older respondents were more opposed, with nearly 70% of those aged 18 to 29 in favor, and approximately 60% of those aged 70 and older against. Opinions among those in their 50s were evenly split, with about 40% for and 40% against.

(Japanese original by Hiroshi Miyajima, Political News Department)

March 20, 2024 Posted by | opposition to nuclear | Leave a comment

Concerns and complaints continue as fourth Fukushima wastewater discharge completed

 https://news.cgtn.com/news/2024-03-18/Concerns-continue-as-fourth-Fukushima-wastewater-discharge-completed-1s4JAJ539w4/p.html

Concerns and complaints from home and abroad remain while Japan’s crippled Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant has finished its first year of discharging nuclear-contaminated wastewater into the ocean.

The plant completed its fourth and final round of discharge for the current fiscal year, which ends in March, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) said on Sunday.

As per the initial plan, approximately 31,200 tonnes of wastewater containing radioactive tritium has been released into the ocean since August 2023, with each discharge running for about two weeks.

Earlier this week, International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General Rafael Grossi emphasized continued efforts to monitor the discharging process.

Stressing that the discharge marks merely the initial phase of a long process, Grossi said that “much effort will be required in the lengthy process ahead,” and reiterated the organization’s stance on maintaining vigilance throughout the process.

While the Japanese government and TEPCO have asserted the safety and necessity of the process, there are still concerns from other countries and local stakeholders regarding environmental impacts.

Sophia from the U.S. complained that the release of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea made her fear for the future.

Najee Johnson, a college student from Canada, suggested the Japanese government find a different plan because it could pollute our ocean and harm our sea life.

Haruo Ono, a fisherman in the town of Shinchi in Fukushima, said “All fishermen are against ocean dumping. The contaminated water has flowed into what we fishermen call ‘the sea of treasure’, and the process will last for at least 30 years.”

“Is it really necessary, in the first place, to dump what has been stored in tanks into the sea? How can we say it’s ‘safe’ when the discharged water clearly consists of harmful radioactive substances? I think the government and TEPCO must provide a solid answer,” said Chiyo Oda, a resident of Fukushima’s Iwaki city.

The recent leakage of contaminated water from pipes at the Fukushima plant also fueled concerns among the Japanese public.

Besides, the promised fund of more than 100 billion yen (around $670 million) to compensate and support local fishermen and fishing industry remains doubtful as a court ruling last December relieved the government of responsibility to pay damages to Fukushima evacuees.

A Tokyo court ruled that only the operator of the tsunami-wrecked Fukushima nuclear power plant has to pay damages to the evacuees, relieving the government of responsibility. Plaintiffs criticized the ruling as belittling their suffering and the severity of the disaster. The court also slashed the amount by ordering the TEPCO to pay a total of 23.5 million yen to 44 of the 47 plaintiffs.

The ruling backpedaled from an earlier decision in March 2018, when the Tokyo District Court held both the government and TEPCO accountable for the disaster, which the ruling said could have been prevented if they both took better precautionary measures, ordering both to pay 59 million yen in damages.

March 19, 2024 Posted by | Fukushima continuing, oceans, opposition to nuclear | Leave a comment

Bridgwater activists shine light on nuclear power in UK

Elizabeth Birt 13th March24, more https://www.bridgwatermercury.co.uk/news/24179056.bridgwater-activists-shine-light-nuclear-power-uk/

There was a lively meeting in Bridgwater discussing the future of US nuclear weapons on British soil.

The Bridgwater Peace Group met at the Bridgwater Railway Club on Tuesday, March 5.

Dr Rowland Dye, a Bristol-based nuclear physicist, provided a comprehensive overview of nuclear power and weaponry in the UK.

He highlighted how the country’s atom bomb production from 1952-63 was more about weapon production than producing ‘clean’ electricity via the Magnox program.

Dr Dye also shone a light on how serious nuclear power accidents, such as Windscale’s 1957 incident and Chernobyl disaster of 1986, have far-reaching and long-term effects unlike conventional electricity generation.

Dr Dye, who formerly worked in a hospital, said he was alarmed when he realised government press reports described the radioactive waste dumped in our oceans as medical waste.

Consequently, he left medicine and pursued activism.

Williton resident Lyn Barlow also delivered a speech that illustrated her personal journey of activism, leading to numerous encounters with the police and prison.

Ms Barlow now utilises art as her form of protest.

Following the speeches, attendees were able to ask questions and network.

Interested parties concerned about conflict and nuclear weaponry in the UK may join future meetings or contact Glen at 07423 786599 for more information.

March 14, 2024 Posted by | opposition to nuclear | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »