nuclear-news

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

Ontario town starts voting today on willingness to host ‘forever’ nuclear waste storage site

$418 million in subsidies from Canada’s nuclear industry

“When you look at the money, I don’t think it’s really significant when you look at the scope of this project,“

Teeswater, north of London, and northern Ontario site being considered for massive facility

Andrew Lupton · CBC News · Posted: Oct 21, 2024 

The small farming community of Teeswater, Ont., faces a massive decision. Starting today, its 6,000 residents will vote in a referendum on whether or not they’re willing to host Canada’s largest underground storage facility of spent nuclear fuel.

For Anja Vandervlies, who operates a 1,300-goat dairy farm nearby, it’s a monumental decision for her town in the municipality of South Bruce, and an easy choice for her. 

“If we vote yes, we’re stuck with this nuclear waste in the ground forever,” said Vandervlies, a member of the opposition group Protecting Our Waterways – No Nuclear Waste. “This is the only time that we, as residents, are going to get a say in this whole process.” 

A two-hour drive from London but less than 45 minutes from the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station on Lake Huron, Teeswater is one of two locations being considered to host Canada’s largest permanent underground storage facility for spent nuclear fuel. 

Also under consideration is Ignace, a community of about 1,200, located 245 kilometres northwest of Thunder Bay. Voters there have already said they’re willing hosts; now it’s Teeswater’s turn to have its say. 

Voting will be conducted online and by phone over seven days. To be binding, a yes vote of 50 per cent plus one is required. If Teeswater votes yes, the board of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) will make a final decision between Teeswater and Ignace, likely before the end of this year. 

Once the site is decided, the $26-billion storage facility would be built in stages, with plans to begin accepting waste in the 2040s and continue storing it away underground for the next 175 years. 

The process also requires consultation from First Nations groups in both communities. Neither has officially made a decision. The Wabigoon Lake Ojibway First Nation will vote in November. Opposition from Indigenous groups to the northern Ontario site is growing. 

Wherever it’s located, the facility, which the NWMO calls a “deep geological repository” that would be located 600 metres underground, will take spent nuclear fuel from Canadian Candu reactors located as far away as Winnipeg. 

Running counter to the safety concerns is the significant windfall awaiting whichever of the two communities winds up hosting the storage facility. 

The host town would not only benefit from high-paying jobs, but also $418 million in subsidies from Canada’s nuclear industry over the the course of the project. 

South Bruce Coun. Ron Schnurr didn’t want to say how he’s voting, opting instead to give the community its say this week.

However, he said the money would be a massive boost to a rural community with big infrastructure needs and a small tax base to pay for them. ……………………….

To Vandervlies and others in the group opposing the facility, the risk far outweighs the potential reward of hosting the site. 

“When you look at the money, I don’t think it’s really significant when you look at the scope of this project,” she said. 

The question

Voters will decide yes or no to the following question: 

  • Are you in favour of the Municipality of South Bruce declaring South Bruce to be a willing host for the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s proposed Deep Geological Repository (DGR)?

Information about how to vote, how to get on the voters list and where to find a voter assistance centre is posted here. Voting closes on Oct. 28 at 8 p.m. ET.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/teeswater-nuclear-waste-storage-site-vote-1.7356267

October 24, 2024 Posted by | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

‘Millions of fish could die’ under current Hinkley Point C plan

Environmental advocates demand EDF takes action

By Lewis Clarke, Somerset Live , 22nd Oct 2024

A solutions-focussed, scientifically backed answer to the critical environmental situation at Hinkley Point C has been released by a coalition of scientists, engineers, and innovators, showing that the Acoustic Fish Deterrent (AFD) is both a necessary and feasible requirement for the builders of Hinkley Point C – EDF Energy – to apply.

An AFD Delivery Report, launched on October 16, gives evidence that the AFD can be installed safely and effectively in the Severn Estuary. It highlights the innovations in technical ability, technology, logistics, and science which will reduce maintenance times from 72 days per year down to just 19. The report debunks common misconceptions about noise levels, diving time, and more with scientifically backed evidence, and urges EDF to ensure the system is installed, tested, and operational before the station starts to abstract cooling water.

In light of the critical environmental situation at Hinkley Point C, a parliamentary debate led by Sir Ashley Fox MP was held last week on Wednesday 9th October 2024. During the debate, Sir Ashley Fox addressed that EDF Energy’s mosaic of mitigation measures, specifically the proposed saltmarsh plans, are a completely illogical choice.

The saltmarsh plans are a proposed alternative to the Acoustic Fish Deterrent (AFD), a system designed to protect aquatic life by deterring fish from entering the cooling systems of the power plant, and was included in the initial design plans of Hinkley Point C.

The AFD system remains mandated in the Development Consent Order (DCO). It is also considered best practice for screening estuarine intakes in the UK by the Environment Agency, and has been scrutinised by a Welsh Government Report (2021), a Public Inquiry (2022), and the ruling by Secretary of State Kwasi Kwarteng (2022) which all stated that the AFD must be installed. EDF Energy has been working to remove this vital environmental protection measure for nearly eight years, arguing on the grounds of health and safety concerns, noise pollution and effect on mammals, and further delay of the completion of Hinkley Point C.

The AFD Delivery Report provides a solution to the current impasse, but without the AFD, it has been warned by the Welsh Government Commission that approximately 182 million fish would be killed annually, including sensitive species like shad, sprat, Atlantic salmon, and herring.

In the AFD Delivery Report, Professor Mark Everard, University of West of England says “There can in my scientific view be no justification for removal of AFD. It makes absolutely no sense to permit very substantial damage to marine biodiversity and hope then that modest mitigation entailing a degree of recruitment only of species reliant on the saltmarsh can offset it.

“Cost reduction is cited by EDF as one element of its plan to remove the mandated AFD and would appear to be its principal consideration, but one that obviously overlooks the vital purpose of deflecting fish from the intake. Ideally, saltmarsh restoration should be implemented ADDITIONALLY to the AFD to mitigate the still substantial likely entrainment of multiple life stages of fish and invertebrates, even with deflection from the intake.”

South Gloucestershire Council understands that EDF will make another application to the Secretary of State to remove the requirement for an AFD in the new year, and so has written to the Secretary of State for Energy, Security & Net Zero, the Rt Hon Ed Milliband, requesting that he upholds the existing requirement to install an AFD.

Councillors Maggie Tyrrell and Ian Boulton, said in their letter to the Secretary of State: “We are writing to express our gravest concern regarding the scale of impact on the migratory fish populations of the Severn Estuary Special Area of Conservation (SAC) which will result from the massive water abstraction at Hinkley Point C of 120,000 litres of seawater a second for 60 years once the power station is operational.

“This impact would be made significantly worse by the proposed application for a change to the 2013 Development Consent Order to remove the required Acoustic Fish Deterrent (AFD).

“A Welsh Government report on the AFD cites evidence that removal of the AFD would capture at least 182 million fish per year, a significant proportion of which would be killed. Put simply, removing the AFD would cause critical levels of wildlife destruction.”

The council is also concerned that EDF are approaching local landowners about a plan to create new salt marshes, which they would propose as alternative compensation habitat for fish in place of the AFD. It is understood that local landowners are deeply concerned about the idea, which has been turned down in other areas when raised by EDF, and experts query EDFs claims that new saltmarshes would offer suitable habitat for fish killed by the water intake of the new power station.

The council’s letter also highlighted that even with the AFD, that compensation will still be needed as some fish will still be drawn into the intake and killed. Alongside the letter, the Secretary of State was also provided with information about priorities to deliver improvements for fish passage in the Bristol Avon river and Coastal Catchments……………………
https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/millions-fish-could-die-under-9641529

October 24, 2024 Posted by | oceans, UK | Leave a comment

Navy ‘Innovation’ Center  for “warfighting capabilities” will harm the Monterey Peninsula and ocean

Nina Beety
California Carmel Pine Cone, Monterey 23 Oct 24

The planned Navy Innovation Center for “warfighting capabilities” will
cause irreparable harm to the Monterey Peninsula and ocean. The Navy’s
track record of environmental damage is well-known – wanton disregard
for life, health, and safety, including its own personnel, maiming and
killing whales and dolphins, poisoning ocean, land, and drinking water –
while refusing accountability and transparency.

In its scant environmental assessment for the center, the Navy refused
to evaluate coastal zone management, hazardous materials and waste,
public health and safety, or recreation impacts, or existing local
impacts – [Navy] groundwater contamination from the airport flowing into
Laguna Grande, radioactive contamination under NPS, killing historic
trees along Del Monte Avenue, sonar, new 5G on the beach, and violating
federal laser limits. Its microwave emissions harm surrounding
residential areas and forests, and those emissions will increase with
the new center. The Navy’s nuclear waste dumps near the Farallons and
Half Moon Bay impact the bay.

This center is incompatible with the viability and health of this
community and the Earth. Please oppose it.

October 24, 2024 Posted by | environment, USA | Leave a comment

Secrets and Lies: This is how the West doomed Ukraine

Glenn Diesen, By Glenn Diesen, professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway  Wed, 16 Oct 2024,  https://www.sott.net/article/495541-Secrets-and-Lies-This-is-how-the-West-doomed-Ukraine

The desire of the US and UK to conduct a proxy war destroyed the Istanbul+ process.

In February 2022, Russia started its military operation against Ukraine to impose a settlement after a group of NATO countries had undermined the Minsk II peace agreement for seven years. On the first day after the start of hostilities, Vladimir Zelenskyconfirmedthat Moscow had contacted him to discuss negotiations based on restoring Ukrainian neutrality.On the third day, Russia and Ukraineagreedto start peace negotiations based on a Russian military withdrawal in return for this. Zelensky responded favorably to this condition, and he even called for a “collective security agreement” to include Russia to mitigate the security competition that had sparked the war.

The talks that followed are referred to as the Istanbul negotiations, in which Russia and Ukraine were close to an agreement before the US and UK sabotaged it, according to numerous claims by people close to the process.

Washington rejects negotiations without preconditions

For Washington, there were great incentives to use the large proxy army it had built in Ukraine to weaken Russia as a strategic rival, rather than accepting a neutral Kiev. On the first day after the start of the military operation, when Zelensky responded favorably to starting negotiations without preconditions,US State Department spokesperson Ned Pricerejectedthis stance – saying Russia would first have to withdraw all its forces.

This was a demand for capitulation as the Russian military presence in Ukraine was Moscow’s bargaining chip to achieve the objective of restoring Kiev’s neutrality. Less than a month later, Price was asked if Washington would support peace talks, to which he replied negatively as the conflict was part of a larger struggle:

“This is a war that is in many ways bigger than Russia, it’s bigger than Ukraine… The key point is that there are principles that are at stake here that have universal applicability everywhere, whether in Europe, whether in the Indo-Pacific, anywhere in between.”

The US and UK demand a long war: Fighting Russia with Ukrainians

In late March 2022, Zelensky revealed in an interview with The Economist:

“There are those in the West who don’t mind a long war because it would mean exhausting Russia, even if this means the demise of Ukraine and comes at the cost of Ukrainian lives.”

Israeli and Turkish mediators have since confirmed that Ukraine and Russia were both eager to make a compromise to end the war before the US and UK intervened to prevent peace from breaking out.

Zelensky had contacted former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett to help with the talks. Bennett noted that Putin was willing to make “huge concessions” if Ukraine would restore its neutrality to end NATO expansion. Zelensky accepted this condition and “both sides very much wanted a ceasefire.”

However, Bennett argued that the US and UK intervened and blocked the peace agreement as they favored a long war. With a powerful Ukrainian military at its disposal, the West rejected the Istanbul peace agreement and there was a “decision by the West to keep striking Putin” instead of pursuing peace.

The Turkish negotiators reached the same conclusion: Russia and Ukraine agreed to resolve the conflict by restoring Ukraine’s neutrality, but NATO decided to fight Russia with Ukrainians as a proxy. Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusogluarguedthat some NATO states wanted to extend the war to bleed Russia:

“After the talks in Istanbul, we did not think that the war would take this long… But following the NATO foreign ministers’ meeting, I had the impression that there are those within the NATO member states that want the war to continue – let the war continue and Russia gets weaker. They don’t care much about the situation in Ukraine.”

Numan Kurtulmus, the deputy chairman of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s political party, confirmed that Zelensky was ready to sign the peace agreement before the US intervened:

“This war is not between Russia and Ukraine, it is a war between Russia and the West. By supporting Ukraine, the United States and some countries in Europe are beginning a process of prolonging this war. What we want is an end to this war. Someone is trying not to end the war. The US sees the prolongation of the war as its interest.”

Ukrainian Ambassador Aleksandr Chalyi, who participated in peace talks with Russia, confirms that Putin “tried everything” to reach a peace agreement and they were able “to find a very real compromise”. David Arakhamia, a Ukrainian parliamentary representative and head of Zelensky’s political party, said Russia’s key demand was Ukrainian neutrality.

“They were ready to end the war if we, like Finland once did, would accept neutrality and pledge not to join NATO. In fact, that was the main point. All the rest are cosmetic and political ‘additions.'”

Aleksey Arestovich, the former adviser of Zelensky, also confirmed that Russia was mainly preoccupied with restoring Ukraine’s neutrality.

The main obstacle to peace was thus overcome as Zelenskyofferedneutrality in the negotiations. The tentative peace agreement was confirmed by Fiona Hill, a former official at the US National Security Council, and Angela Stent, a former National Intelligence Officer for Russia and Eurasia. Hill and Stent penned an article inForeign Affairsin which theyoutlinedthe main terms of the agreement:

“Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement: Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.”

Boris Johnson goes to Kiev

What happened to the Istanbul peace agreement? On April 9, 2022, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson went to Kiev in a rush to sabotage the agreement and cited the killings in Bucha as the excuse. Ukrainian media reported that Johnson went to Kiev with two messages:

“The first is that Putin is a war criminal, he should be pressured, not negotiated with. And the second is that even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they [the UK and US] are not.”

In June 2022, Johnson told the G7 and NATO:

“The solution to the war was ‘strategic endurance’ and now is not the time to settle and encourage the Ukrainians to settle for a bad peace.”

Johnson also published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journalarguing against any negotiations:

“The war in Ukraine can end only with Vladimir Putin’s defeat.”

Before Johnson’s trip to Kiev, historian Niall Ferguson interviewed several American and British leaders who confirmed:

“A decision had been made for the conflict to be extended and thereby bleed Putin,” as “the only end game now is the end of Putin regime.“

Retired German General Harald Kujat, the former head of the German Bundeswehr and former chairman of the NATO Military Committee, confirmed that Johnson had sabotaged the peace negotiations. Kujat said:

“Ukraine had pledged to renounce NATO membership and not to allow any foreign troops or military installations to be stationed,” while “Russia had apparently agreed to withdraw its forces to the level of February 23.” However, “Boris Johnson intervened in Kiev on the 9th of April and prevented a signing. His reasoning was that the West was not ready for an end to the war.”

According to Kujat, the West demanded a Russian capitulation. He explained that this position was due to the US war plans against Russia:

“Now the complete withdrawal is repeatedly demanded as a prerequisite for negotiations. Perhaps one day the question will be asked who did not want to prevent this war… Their declared goal is to weaken Russia politically, economically, and militarily to such a degree that they can then turn to their geopolitical rival, the only one capable of endangering their supremacy as a world power: China… No, this war is not about our freedom… Russia wants to prevent its geopolitical rival USA from gaining a strategic superiority that threatens Russia’s security.”

What was Ukraine told by the US and UK?Why did Zelensky make a deal given that he was aware some Western states wanted to use Ukraine to exhaust Russia in a long war – even if it would destroy Ukraine? Zelensky likely received an offer he could not refuse:

If Zelensky would pursue peace with Russia, then he would not receive any support from the West and he would predictably face an uprising by the far-right/fascist groups that the US had armed and trained. In contrast, if Zelensky would choose war, then NATO would send all the weapons needed to defeat Russia, NATO would impose crippling sanctions on Russia, and NATO would pressure the international community to isolate Russia.

Zelensky could thus achieve what both Napoleon and Hitler had failed to achieve – to defeat Russia.

Arestovich explained in 2019 that a major war with Russia was the price of joining NATO. He predicted that the threat of Ukraine’s accession to NATO would “provoke Russia to launch a large-scale military operation against Ukraine,” and Ukraine could join NATO after defeating Russia.

Victory over Russia was assumed to be a certainty as Ukraine would merely be the spearhead of a wider NATO proxy war.

“In this conflict, we will be very actively supported by the West – with weapons, equipment, assistance, new sanctions against Russia and the quite possible introduction of a NATO contingent, a no-fly zone etc. We won’t lose, and that’s good.”

NATO turned on the propaganda machine to convince the public that a war against Russia was the only path to peace.

The Russian ‘invasion’ was “unprovoked”; Moscow’s objective was to conquer all of Ukraine to restore the Soviet Union; Russia’s withdrawal from Kiev was not a sign of good will to be reciprocated but a sign of weakness; it was impossible to negotiate with Putin; and NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg subsequently asserted that “weapons are the way to peace.”

The Western public, indoctrinated with anti-Russian propaganda over decades, believed that NATO was merely a passive third party seeking to protect Ukraine from the most recent reincarnation of Hitler. Zelensky was assigned the role as new Churchill – bravely fighting to the last Ukrainian rather than accepting a bad peace.

The inevitable Istanbul+ agreement to end the war

The war did not go as expected. Russia built a powerful army and defeated the NATO-built Ukrainian army. Sanctions were overcome by reorienting the economy to the East, and instead of being isolated, Russia took a leading role in constructing a multipolar world order.

How can the war be brought to an end? The suggestions of a land-for-NATO membership agreement ignores that Russia’s leading objective is not territory but ending NATO expansion, as it is deemed to be an existential threat. NATO expansion is the source of the conflict and territorial dispute is the consequence, thus Ukrainian territorial concessions in return for NATO membership is a non-starter.

The foundation for any peace agreement must be the Istanbul+ formula. An agreement to restore Ukraine’s neutrality, plus territorial concessions as a consequence of almost three years of war. Threatening to expand NATO after the end of the war will merely incentivize Russia to capture strategic territory from Kharkov to Odessa, and to ensure that only a dysfunctional Ukrainian rump state will remain that is not capable of being used against Russia.

This is a cruel fate for the Ukrainian nation and the millions of Ukrainians who have suffered so greatly. It was also a predictable outcome, as Zelensky cautioned in March 2022.

“There are those in the West who don’t mind a long war because it would mean exhausting Russia, even if this means the demise of Ukraine and comes at the cost of Ukrainian lives.”

October 23, 2024 Posted by | Reference, secrets,lies and civil liberties, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Iran complains to UN nuclear watchdog about Israeli threats against its nuclear sites

 https://english.alarabiya.net/News/middle-east/2024/10/21/iran-says-it-warned-un-nuclear-watchdog-about-israeli-threats-against-its-nuclear-sites

Iran has written to the UN nuclear watchdog to complain about Israel’s threats against its nuclear sites, foreign ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said on Monday at a weekly news conference.

Israel has vowed to attack Iran in retaliation for a volley of Iranian missiles launched on Oct. 1, leading to widespread speculation that Iran’s nuclear sites could be among Israel’s targets.

“Threats to attack nuclear sites are against UN resolutions…. and are condemned… we have sent a letter about it to… the UN nuclear watchdog,” Baghaei said in the televised news conference.

Separately, Baghaei said Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi would travel to Bahrain and Kuwait on Monday as part of Iran’s efforts to curb regional tensions.

Iran launched its Oct. 1 missile attack to retaliate against Israeli strikes targeting its allies Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. It was the second Iranian attack on Israel this year; Israel responded to the first missile volley in April with an air strike on an air defense site in central Iran.

October 23, 2024 Posted by | Iran, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Path to peace in Ukraine is thru negotiated settlement, not escalatory war that could go nuclear.

Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL 21 Oct 24

Ethan Finegold’s October 20 letter ‘The US has the power to end the war in Ukraine’ offers just one simplistic remedy to achieve a Ukrainian victory over Russia. Finegold argues the US must approve long range missile strikes by Ukraine with the missiles we’ve already provided but restrict their long range use.

There are 2 problems with this solution. First, long range missile strikes will have no effect on achieving a Ukrainian victory. This is not just the opinion of we in the community including esteemed University of Chicago political science expert John Mearsheimer. It’s the opinion of his polar opposite, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, who argues such strikes will have no effect because Russia has already moved over 90% of its strategic targets beyond the range of these long range missiles.

The second reason is decidedly more ominous. Russia has made clear both publicly at the UN and privately in backchannel talks with the Biden administration, that such attacks using US/UK missiles, fired using US technology and logistics, will put Russia at war with NATO. These communications so unnerved Biden that he rebuffed UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky last month who both sought US approval for such strikes. Russia upped the ante against such strikes by publicly revising its nuclear strategy to allow for use of nuclear weapons if a non-nuclear state strikes deep into Russia supported by weaponry from a nuclear state. So far, President Biden has wisely gotten the message.  

Finegold is correct in stating “Every day that this war is allowed to continue is another day that risks Russia’s use of nuclear weapons on the battlefield.” That is precisely why the US must pivot from endless weaponizing this 32 month long unwinnable war to a sensible negotiated peace.

October 23, 2024 Posted by | politics international, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Humanity is on the verge of ‘shattering Earth’s natural limits’, say experts in biodiversity warning

Humanity is “on the precipice” of shattering Earth’s limits, and will
suffer huge costs if we fail to act on biodiversity loss, experts warn.
This week, world leaders meet in Cali, Colombia, for the Cop16 UN
biodiversity conference to discuss action on the global crisis. As they
prepare for negotiations, scientists and experts around the world have
warned that the stakes are high, and there is “no time to waste”. “We
are already locked in for significant damage, and we’re heading in a
direction that will see more,” says Tom Oliver, professor of applied
ecology at the University of Reading. “I really worry that negative
changes could be very rapid.”

Guardian 21st Oct 2024 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/21/humanity-earth-natural-limits-biodiversity-warning-cop16-conference-scientists-academics

October 23, 2024 Posted by | environment | Leave a comment

‘Nuclear waste would be disaster for our seaside’

BBC News, Paul Murphy, Environment Correspondent, 21 Oct 24

Campaigners opposed to plans for a nuclear waste disposal site on the Lincolnshire coast say it could be “disastrous” for the seaside economy.

The former Theddlethorpe gas terminal on the Lincolnshire coast is one of three sites being considered for an underground facility.

Guardians of the East Coast (GOTEC) said a survey of more than 1,000 visitors to the resorts of Mablethorpe and Skegness found the “great majority” would be put off coming to the area.

GOTEC said it had carried out “extensive research” into the potential impact of the facility.

The group has produced a 60-page booklet called The Nuclear Option.

According to chairman Mike Crookes, the facility would “blight this area” and the economic impact on tourism could be “profound” and “catastrophic”.

“The tourism industry in this area brings £600m of economic benefit and 8,000 jobs,” he said. “We need to protect this at all costs.”

A survey of 1,100 people along the coastline from Mablethorpe to Skegness, carried out by GOTEC, found “83% of them would not visit this area if that facility was built”, Mr Crookes added.

NWS is considering the site for what is known in the waste industry as a geological disposal facility (GDF).

Other possible sites have been mooted in Hartlepool and Cumbria………………………………………………………………………..

Most of the radioactive waste generated by the UK’s nuclear power stations is being temporarily stored at Sellafield in Cumbria, but longer term storage is needed for substances that remain hazardous for many thousands of years.

The idea of a nuclear waste site, or GDF, was first proposed for Theddlethorpe more than three years ago.

Local councillors have called for a referendum on the development.

According to the Theddlethorpe GDF Community Partnership, a facility would only be built in an area where the community “demonstrates if it is willing to host one”, following a “test of public support“, such as a referendum or consultation.

…………………………………… “The government has committed to providing multi-million-pound investment to the community that hosts a GDF. This investment could support better transport links which could help to enhance tourism in a local area.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy4d3y33y3go

October 23, 2024 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear lobby continues to infiltrate education

Pupils from Alde Valley Academy have joined the Sizewell C Youth Council.
This initiative aims to provide the nuclear power project with insights
into the needs of local young people. The students, from Years 7 to 11,
will have regular meetings with joint managing director, Julia Pyke, and
other project leaders. They will discuss local needs, aspirations, and the
project’s progress. Julia Pyke, Sizewell C joint managing director, said:
“Consultation for big infrastructure projects can sometimes be skewed
towards older people.

East Anglian Daily Times 21st Oct 2024
https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/24658473.alde-valley-academy-pupils-join-sizewell-c-youth-council/

October 23, 2024 Posted by | Education, UK | Leave a comment

Somerset village would be devastated by salt marsh plans. 

 One young farmer warned her home and all of her land was in the area that could become a
salt marsh. A North Somerset village is urging bosses at the Hinkley Point
C nuclear power station to drop plans to turn huge swathes of local
farmland into a salt marsh.

EDF, who are building Somerset’s new nuclear
power station, are proposing creating new salt marsh habitats along the
Severn to compensate for the number of fish that will die by being sucked
into the power station’s cooling systems. But the sudden announcement of
plans has shocked communities where the salt marshes are planned — such
as Kingston Seymour in North Somerset.

Somerset Live 21st Oct 2024,
https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/somerset-village-would-devastated-salt-9645474

October 23, 2024 Posted by | environment | Leave a comment

The Gazafication of Lebanon: Israel Blows up Nabatieh City Hall, kills Mayor and Aid Workers

Juan Cole, 10/17/2024

Ann Arbor (Informed Comment) – The Israeli military has begun giving southern Lebanon the Gaza treatment. Some 25% of Lebanese are under “evacuation orders,” which is to say that Israel is expelling them from their homes in preparation for further military operations against the Hezbollah Party-Militia.

The U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator for Lebanon, Imran Riza, said Wednesday, “Health care facilities, mosques, historical markets, residential complexes, and now government buildings are being reduced to rubble. Displaced families continue to feel at risk, even after fleeing to safe areas.”

Lebanon is a small country of perhaps 4 million citizens and nearly 2 million refugees. The UN says that some 1.2 million people have been displaced, with 275,000 people leaving for Syria. This latter number includes both Lebanese leaving their own country and Syrian refugees in Lebanon returning to the Baathist dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad. The equivalent of such a vast displacement of residents in the United States would be 51 million internal refugees. It is unimaginable.

We saw this movie in Gaza. It is total war.

Even the humanitarian aid workers attempting to help people get through the violence and displacement are being targeted by the Israeli military. Humanitarian Coordinator Riza added, “This morning a devastating attack claimed the lives of yet more civilians and local authorities working to provide relief, with the strike occurring just as a crisis meeting was convening at the municipality of Nabatieh in South Lebanon. I deplore and mourn the deaths of Ahmad, Sadeq, Mohammed, Qassem – members of a relief team with whom the UN and humanitarian partners have been working for more than a year – and all other victims of this conflict that must stop, urgently.”

The attack referenced by the UN official was an Israeli airstrike on the City Hall of the Lebanese city of Nabatieh, which is a civilian object, not a military one. The Israelis killed the mayor, Ahmed Kaheel, council member Sadeq Ismail, photographer Mohammad Baytar, and employees Qasem Hijazi and Mohammad Zohri. Sadeq Ismail and Qasem Hijazi, along with Mayor Kaheel, were the humanitarian relief team to which the UN official referred to above. The Lebanese Ministry of Health (and no, it isn’t “Hezbollah controlled”) said that the strike killed 16 persons in total and wounded 52.

Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Miqati condemned the bombing, noting that the city council had been meeting about humanitarian aid issues before they were blasted to smithereens……………………………….

Nabatieh is majority Shiite Muslim, and Israel’s targeting of its municipal building may be a manifestation of the increasing hatred of Shiites visible in Israeli social media, which sometimes sound like Sunni extremists such as ISIL. The city, however, also has substantial Maronite Christian and Eastern Orthodox Christian communities and many churches and mosques………………….https://www.juancole.com/2024/10/gazafication-lebanon-nabatieh.html

October 22, 2024 Posted by | Atrocities, Israel | 1 Comment

SCOTT RITTER: Iran’s Bomb is Real — and It’s Here

20 Oct 24, By Scott Ritter, Consortium News,  https://consortiumnews.com/2024/10/20/scott-ritter-irans-bomb-is-real-and-its-here/

For months now, the world has focused on the danger of nuclear war between the United States and Russia. But Iran and Israel could beat them to it.

The outbreak of conflict between Iran and Israel appears to have changed Iran’s stance against possessing a nuclear weapon as Israel is poised to strike after Teheran’s retaliation with two major attacks of drones and ballistic and cruise missiles.

Iran has issued at least three statements through official channels since April that has opened the door to the possibility of religious edicts against Iran acquiring nuclear weapons being rescinded.

The circumstances which Iran has said must exist to justify this reversal appear to have now been met.

No mere threats, these statements issued by Teheran should be viewed as declaratory policy indicating Iran has already made the decision to obtain a nuclear weapon; that the means to do so are already in place and that this decision can be implemented in a matter of days once the final political order is given. 

The religious fatwa against possessing nuclear weapons was issued in October 2003 by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. It reads:

“We believe that adding to nuclear weapons and other types of weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical weapons and biological weapons, are a serious threat to humanity…[w]e consider the use of these weapons to be haram (forbidden), and the effort to protect mankind from this great disaster is everyone’s duty.”

However, the Shia faith holds that fatwas are not inherently permanent, and Islamic jurists can reinterpret the scripture in accord with the needs of time.

Shortly after Iran launched Operation True Promise against Israel in April, Ahmad Haghtalab, an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commander responsible for the security for Iran’s nuclear sites, declared:


“If [Israel] wants to exploit the threat of attacking our country’s nuclear centers as a tool to put pressure on Iran, it is possible and conceivable to revise the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear doctrine and policies to deviate from previously declared considerations.”

In May, Kamal Kharrazi, a former foreign minister who advises the Supreme Leader, declared: “We [Iran] have no decision to build a nuclear bomb, but should Iran’s existence be threatened, there will be no choice but to change our military doctrine.”

And earlier this month Iranian lawmakers called for a review of Iran’s defense doctrine to consider adopting nuclear weapons as the risk of escalation with Israel continues to grow. The legislators noted that the Supreme Leader can reconsider the fatwa against nuclear weapons on the grounds that the circumstances have changed.

These statements, seen together, constitute a form of declaratory policy which, given the sources involved, imply that a political decision has already been made to build a nuclear bomb once the national security criterion has been met.

Has the Capability

Iran has for some time now possessed the ability to manufacture and weaponize nuclear explosive devices. Using highly enriched uranium, Iran could construct in a matter of days a simple gun-type weapon that could be used in a ballistic missile warhead.

In June Iran informed the IAEA that it was installing some 1,400 advanced centrifuges at its Fordow facility. Based upon calculations derived from Iran’s on-hand stockpile of 60 percent enriched uranium hexaflouride (the feedstock used in centrifuge-based enrichment), Iran could produce enough highly enriched uranium (i.e., above 90 percent) to manufacture 3-5 uranium-baed weapons in days.

All that is needed is the political will to do so. It appears that Iran has crossed this threshold, meaning that the calculus behind any Israeli and/or U.S. attack on Iran has been forever changed.

Iran has made no bones about this new reality. In February, the former chief of the Atomic Energy Organization, Ali-Akbar Salehi, stated that Iran has crossed “all the scientific and technological nuclear thresholds” to build a nuclear bomb, noting that Iran had accumulated all the necessary components for a nuclear weapon, minus the highly enriched uranium.

Two weeks later, Javad Karimi Ghodousi, a member of the Iranian parliament’s National Security Commission, declared that if the supreme leader “issues permission, we would be a week away from testing the first [nuclear bomb]“, later adding that Iran “needs half a day or maximum a week to build a nuclear warhead.”

A simple gun-type nuclear weapon would not need to be tested — the “Little Boy“ device dropped on Hiroshima by the U.S. on Aug. 6, 1945 was a gun-type device that was deemed so reliable that it could be used operationally without any prior testing.

Iran would need between 75 and 120 pounds of highly enriched uranium per gun-type device (the more sophisticated the design, the less material would be needed). Regardless, the payload of the Fatah-1 solid-fueled hypersonic missile, which was used in the Oct. 1 attack on Israel, is some 900 pounds—more than enough capacity to carry a gun-type uranium weapon.

Given the fact that the ballistic missile shield covering Israel was unable to intercept the Fatah-1 missile, if Iran were to build, deploy, and employ a nuclear-armed Fatah-1 missile against Israel, there is a near 100 percent certainty that it would hit its target.

Iran would need 3-5 nuclear weapons of this type to completely destroy Israel’s ability to function as a modern industrial nation.,

Consequences of Pulling Out of Iran Nuclear Deal

This situation came about after President Donald Trump in 2017 withdrew the U.S. from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — the JCPOA, better known as the Iran nuclear deal. The driving factor behind the negotiation of the JCPOA, which took place under President Barack Obama, was to shut down Iran’s pathway to a nuclear weapon. As Obama said,

“Put simply, under this deal, there is a permanent prohibition on Iran ever having a nuclear weapons program and a permanent inspections regime that goes beyond any previous inspection regime in Iran. This deal provides the IAEA the means to make sure Iran isn’t doing so, both through JCPOA-specific verification tools, some of which last up to 25 years, and through the Additional Protocol that lasts indefinitely. In addition, Iran made commitments in this deal that include prohibitions on key research and development activities that it would need to design and construct a nuclear weapon. Those commitments have no end date.”

Early on in his administration, in June 2021, after Trump had already pulled the U.S. out of the deal, President Joe Biden declared that Iran would “never get a nuclear weapon on my watch.”

The director of U.S. National Intelligence said in a statement released Oct. 11 that, “We assess that the Supreme Leader has not made a decision to resume the nuclear weapons program that Iran suspended in 2003.”

In the aftermath of Trump’s precipitous decision to withdraw from the JCPOA, Iran took actions which underscored that it no longer felt constrained by any JCPOA limits.

Iran has expanded its nuclear program by installing advanced centrifuge cascades used to enrich uranium and scaled back International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) monitoring of its nuclear program. In short, Iran has positioned itself to produce a nuclear weapon on short order.

While the ODNI currently believes that the Supreme Leader has not made the political decision to do so, an assessment published in July contains a telling omission from past assessments of Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

The February 2024 ODNI assessment noted that, “Iran is not currently undertaking the key nuclear weapons-development activities necessary to produce a testable nuclear device.”

However, this statement went missing from the July 2024 assessment, a clear indication that the U.S. intelligence community, due in large part to the reduction in IAEA inspection activity, lacks the insight into critical technical aspects of Iran’s nuclear-related industries.

Senator Lindsey Graham, after reading the classified version of the July 2024 ODNI report on Iran, said he was “very worried” that “Iran will in the coming weeks or months possess a nuclear weapon.”

What Confronts the US & Israel

This is the situation confronting Israel and the United States as they decide on an Israeli retaliation against Iran for the Oct. 1 missile attack.

Iran has indicated that any attack against its nuclear or oil and gas production capabilities would be viewed as existential in nature. That could trigger the reversal of the fatwa and the deployment of nuclear weapons within days of such a decision being made.

President Joe Biden told reporters on Friday that he knows when and where Israel will strike but refused to say. Leaked U.S. intelligence documents in recent days showed the limits of U.S. knowledge of exactly what Israel plans to do. 

The United States and nuclear-power Israel have long said that a nuclear-armed Iran was a red line which could not be crossed without severe consequences, namely massive military intervention designed to destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

That line has been crossed — Iran is a de facto nuclear power, even if it hasn’t taken the final steps to complete the construction of a nuclear bomb.

The consequences of attacking Iran could prove fatal to the attackers and possibly the whole region.

October 22, 2024 Posted by | Iran, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Leaked US Intelligence Documents Outline Israeli Preparations to Strike Iran

Reportedly, the leak comes courtesy of a US intelligence source

by Connor Freeman October 19, 2024 https://news.antiwar.com/2024/10/19/leaked-us-intelligence-documents-outline-israeli-preparations-to-strike-iran/#gsc.tab=0

Leaked top secret documents from the Pentagon and the National Security Agency (NSA) outline Israeli preparations for a major attack against Iran, CNN reported on Saturday. The documents were published Friday on a Telegram channel, said to be affiliated with Iran, named “Middle East Spectator” that claims it received the information from a source within a US intelligence agency.

Besides the US, these documents, dated October 15 and 16, were only meant to be viewed by officials in Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand, Washington’s “Five Eyes” allies. CNN cites “three people familiar with the matter,” including one that confirmed the documents’ authenticity. The documents can be viewed here and here.

The documents, including a visual intelligence report from the Pentagon’s National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, details ongoing activities being carried out in anticipation of the attack in Iran at Israeli Air Force (IAF) bases.

The US has observed, “IAF exercises using air-launched ballistic missiles (ALBMs), air-to-surface ballistic missiles, fighter jets, UAVs, and refueling tankers previously used during Israeli strikes on Houthi sites in Yemen… The IAF has handled at least 16 Golden Horizon ALBMs and 40 IS02 (Rocks) ALBMs since October 8,” reports Times of Israel.

According to CNN, one of the documents reveals that Israel maintains a nuclear weapons arsenal which, for decades, has been an open secret. This is highly controversial, as amendments made to US foreign assistance laws by US Senators Stuart Symington and John Glenn in 1976 make Washington’s huge military aid to Israel illegal because Tel Aviv is not a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. But successive US presidents since Richard Nixon, including Joe Biden most recently, have agreed with their Israeli counterparts to never acknowledge Israel’s approximately 90–300 nukes.

US officials are telling the media that the leak is “extremely serious.” At the same time, officials emphasize that it will probably not affect Israel’s plans. Without commenting further, the Pentagon as well as the Office of the Director of National Intelligence have not disputed the documents’ authenticity. The US has apologized to Tel Aviv for the leak, an Israeli source told Haaretz.

Washington is expected to be involved with the Iran assault either by providing intelligence support to Israel, or less likely by pursuing direct military action. Earlier this week, the US bombed Houthi targets in Yemen using B-2 long-range stealth bombers, which haven’t seen combat since 2017, in a message to the Islamic Republic.

Israel’s attack is being framed as retaliation against Tehran for Iran’s October 1 barrage of roughly 200 ballistic missiles which targeted Israeli military sites. That missile attack came in response to a litany of Israeli provocations, amidst its genocidal war against the Palestinians, including the assassination of Hamas political chief Ismail Haniyeh while he was visiting the Iranian capital this summer.

Earlier on Saturday, reports surfaced of a drone attack on a home belonging to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. According to Israel’s Channel 12, an official said this will imply “greater legitimacy for a wider range of targets” concerning the upcoming Iran strike. Netanyahu has fingered Hezbollah for the drone attack, although the group has not claimed responsibility.

October 22, 2024 Posted by | Israel, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Nuclear Missile Submarines Collided (Armed with Hundreds of Nuclear Weapons)

The two submarines were nuclear-powered. Thus, these boats could have become like Chernobyl under the waves. 

the need for stealth is naval engagements should be well understood but it must also be stressed that, in the nuclear age, such secrecy could lead to truly devastating consequences unless some form of modus vivendi is crafted between Washington and Beijing to deescalate certain crises. 

In February 2009, the British HMS Vanguard and French Le Triomphant, both nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, collided in the Atlantic Ocean during routine patrols. The incident raised serious concerns about naval safety protocols and the lack of communication between allied nations operating stealth vessels in close proximity.

The National Interest, by Brandon J. Weichert, October 20, 2024 

What You Need to Know: In February 2009, the British HMS Vanguard and French Le Triomphant, both nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, collided in the Atlantic Ocean during routine patrols. The incident raised serious concerns about naval safety protocols and the lack of communication between allied nations operating stealth vessels in close proximity.

-Whistleblower William McNeilly later alleged that equipment failures and crew errors aboard the Vanguard contributed to the collision and that a cover-up ensued. This event underscored the potential catastrophic consequences of submarine collisions, especially between nuclear-armed vessels.

-The article also draws parallels to recent incidents involving U.S. and Chinese submarines, emphasizing the need for improved communication to prevent escalations that could lead to environmental disasters or even war.

The Collision

The collision happened in the early hours of 3 February 2009. The two subs were conducting routine patrols. At some point, in the mid-Atlantic, the two nuclear-powered submarines crossed paths and crashed into each other. 

This catastrophe was the result of a combination of factors, but the most damning one of all comes from a Royal Navy submariner, William McNeilly, who decided to become a whistleblower. According to this whistleblower, the accident was likely the result of the British submarine which had been subject to “massive equipment failures, crew errors, and lax standards” onboard the HMS Vanguard.

Indeed, the official account provided to the public by the British government (and backed up by the French government), according to McNeilly, was far less caustic than the event actually had been. In fact, according to the whistleblower testimony, the British nuclear submarine was mere moments away from exploding (which would have ignited the ship’s nuclear reactor, causing all kinds of problems for the world).

The whistleblower account details how the FNS Le Triomphant had bashed out a “massive chunk” from the HMS Vanguard after which the French sub “grazed down the side of” the Vanguard. From there, “compressed air bottle groups had been dislodged by the collision and ‘were hanging off and banging against the pressure hull.’ The submarine had to return to base slowly because ‘if one of the [High Pressure Air] bottle groups exploded it would’ve created a chain reaction and sent the submarine plummeting to the bottom.’”

A “massive cover-up of the incident” soon followed. 

According to McNeilly the Vanguard had become the poster child in the failing British Royal Navy (an issue about which this author has documented repeatedly in these pages) of mismanagement, lax discipline, and poor seamanship. 

Before its collision with the Le Triomphant, there was another cover-up involving the Vanguard pertaining to a “deep depth incident” in which the HMS Vanguard “dived far beyond a normal safe depth. A combination of high-water pressure and the submarine’s low speed made it difficult for the submarine’s hydroplanes [to] generate enough lift to raise the submarine, and ballast water could not be pumped out fast enough to allow the submarine to rise.” 


In essence, well before the 2009 collision, the Vanguard was almost lost due to poor seamanship. Yet, the Royal Navy, rather than address the problems, chose to cover it up and continue operating as though everything were normal.

Thankfully, the incident led to a review of submarine operations and safety protocols by both the British and French navies. It further highlighted the need for improved communication and coordination between allied nations operating in the same waters. 

Although, the presence of a “massive cover-up” being enacted immediately upon the Vanguard’s return to port is unacceptable and begs the question as to whether the Royal Navy and French Navy really learned the right lessons or if they just figured out how to downplay things better.

The Subs Involved

Britain’s HMS Vanguard was the lead boat in the Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarine. ………………………………………………………………………….

On the other end of the collision was France’s Le Triomphant, the lead boat of the French navy’s Triomphant-class ballistic missile submarine. ………………………………………

The Triomphant carried 15 M45 ballistic missiles and had four torpedo tubes for F17 torpedoes.

This incident on the High Seas between two allied nations that simply were not aware that each other had submarines operating in the same Area of Responsibility (AOR) could have been far worse than it was. The two submarines, as you have read, were nuclear-powered. Thus, these boats could have become like Chernobyl under the waves. 

Thankfully, that fate was avoided. But this incident was a clear wake-up call………………………

Implications for Sino-American Interactions Beneath the Sea

Just recently, in fact, the USS Connecticut is believed to have crashed into an undersea mountain (seamount) in the crowded South China Sea while it was possibly conducting a covert surveillance mission of China’s secretive naval base at Hainan Island. 

It was a major source of embarrassment for the US Navy because, the incident not only revealed what the Connecticut was up to but it also put a dent in the Navy’s limited Seawolf-class fleet. 

the need for stealth is naval engagements should be well understood but it must also be stressed that, in the nuclear age, such secrecy could lead to truly devastating consequences unless some form of modus vivendi is crafted between Washington and Beijing to deescalate certain crises. 

This was done throughout the Cold War……………………………..

A Sino-American collision, which is likely to occur given the tension and interactions thus far between the two powers, could either lead to an environmental catastrophe. Or worse, it could lead to a world war.  https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/2-nuclear-missile-submarines-collided-armed-hundreds-nuclear-weapons-211587

October 22, 2024 Posted by | incidents, oceans | Leave a comment

Zelensky aide reveals secret clauses of ‘victory plan’

RT, Wed, 16 Oct 2024,  https://www.rt.com/russia/605823-ukrainian-plan-secret-clauses/

The classified component details attack plans on Russia and a weaponry wish list, according to Mikhail Podoliak.

The secret component of the “victory plan” unveiled by Vladimir Zelensky on Wednesday includes Kiev’s targets for long-range attacks on Russian soil, Mikhail Podoliak, a top aide to the Ukrainian leader, has revealed.

The parts of the plan that were not disclosed to the public consist of a list of targets, a plan of action, and a detailing of the weapons needed to carry out such attacks against Russia, Podoliak told RBC Ukraine in an interview on Wednesday.

“There, in the appendices, it is precisely said what kind of weapons should be used to destroy logistics very far from the front line… what targets will be hit and how many weapons are needed for this.”

Zelensky revealed the so-called “victory plan” earlier in the day in an address to the country’s parliament. The Ukrainian leader toured Western capitals in recent weeks to show the plan to his backers in private and try to generate support for it.

The public part of the plan largely consists of a number of demands made of Ukraine’s Western supporters. Kiev requested an immediate invitation to join NATO, a lifting of restrictions on the use of Western-supplied long-range weapons for strikes on Russia, as well as the deployment of “a comprehensive non-nuclear strategic deterrence package” on Ukrainian soil.

The plan, particularly its cornerstone NATO accession demand, appears to have elicited a mixed reaction in the West. Washington’s envoy to NATO, Julianne Smith, for instance, said that while the bloc remains committed to Kiev’s “irreversible path of membership,” actual accession was not a “short-term” matter.

Moscow dismissed the plan as a set of “incoherent slogans,” with Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova condemning it as “bloody foam on the lips of a neo-Nazi killer.”

She also dismissed the NATO aspirations long-touted by Kiev, suggesting the only place the West actually deems fit for Ukraine in its “security architecture” is “in a coffin and Ukrainian citizens in graves.”

October 22, 2024 Posted by | Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »