nuclear-news

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

Blinken ‘Sentenced Ceasefire Talks to Death’ With Comments on Netanyahu

sources called Blinken’s comments a “gift” to Netanyahu

Sources told Ynet that Blinken’s comments about the negotiations indicate his ‘amateurism, naivety, and lack of understanding’

 https://news.antiwar.com/2024/08/22/blinken-sentenced-ceasefire-talks-to-death-with-comments-on-netanyahu/
by Dave DeCamp August 22, 2024

Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s comments about Gaza ceasefire talks this week sentenced the negotiations to death, Middle East Eye reported Thursday, citing Israeli media.

After meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday, Blinken said the Israeli leader agreed to a new US proposal and that it was now up to Hamas to agree to the deal. However, the US proposal included new demands from Netanyahu that Hamas considers unacceptable. Israeli, US, and Arab sources have all said Netanyahu’s demands are too hardline and will prevent a deal.

Sources speaking to Ynet slammed Blinken for making the comments that portrayed Hamas as the obstacle to a deal. “Blinken made a very serious foul here that indicates innocence, amateurism, naivety, and lack of understanding,” a source said.

They added that Blinken’s positive spin on the ceasefire negotiations was likely an effort to prevent the situation from overshadowing the Democratic National Convention.

“He broadcast optimism from intra-American political considerations, so that the Democratic convention in Chicago would go smoothly, but senior officials of the Israeli negotiating team who listened to his press conference wanted to dispel the speculations,” the source said.

The sources called Blinken’s comments a “gift” to Netanyahu and said the Israeli leader’s continued insistence that Israel must maintain control of the Gaza-Egypt border, known as the Philadelphi Corridor, will prevent a deal.

“There is no deal and there is no summit if the Israeli insistence on deploying forces along the Philadelphi axis continues,” the source said. “What was implied in Blinken’s words is that the US is giving Netanyahu support for IDF forces to remain in Philadelphi, while both the Egyptians refuse and Hamas refuses.”

US and Israeli officials are due to meet again in Cairo this week to discuss the ceasefire, but Arab mediators have said there’s no point in holding talks unless the US puts significant pressure on Netanyahu to back down from his demands and agree to a deal.

August 25, 2024 Posted by | Israel, politics international | Leave a comment

“Final Investment Decision (FID) ” in Sizewell C nuclear station might never happen

There are media reports that a Final Investment Decision (FID) “risks
dragging into 2025″ over negotiations with investors. See Bloomberg’s
report, also New Civil Engineer and Energy Live News. These articles do not
consider whether a FID might not in fact ever happen, but we are keeping up
the pressure. Interestingly, while Bloomberg mentions four of the known
possible investors (see list below on original), USS and Equitix are absent. It’s
unclear what, if anything, this means but we are attempting to find out. If
you have not yet written to these companies to urge them not to invest, now
would be an excellent time to do so.

 Stop Sizewell C 22nd Aug 2024

https://mailchi.mp/stopsizewellc/fid-delay?e=326ee81c22

August 25, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Zelensky’s Misadventures in Kursk

This operation is likely to be working upside-down to what we are reading in corporate media.

Not long prior to the incursion, the Biden regime had given Kiev dispensation to use U.S.–made weapons against Russian targets so long as these were deployed in self-defense and against military targets.

the question remains. What is the point as the Kursk operation continues?

By Patrick Lawrence / Original to ScheerPost, 23 Aug 24

It has been three weeks since ground units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine crossed into the Kursk province in southwestern Russia, surprising — or maybe not surprising — the U.S. and its clients in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Two days later, the AFU began artillery and drone attacks in Belgorod, a province just south of Kursk. It has been a little more than a week since explosions at the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, which lies in what is now Russian territory along the Dnipro River, ignited a fire in one of the plant’s two cooling towers. All six reactors are now in cold shutdown. 


In the still-to-be-confirmed file, BelTA, the Belarusian news agency, reported last weekend that Ukraine has amassed significant forces along the Belarus–Ukraine border. Aleksandr Lukashenko, the Belarusian president, put the troop count at an improbable 120,000. Further out in speculative territory, RT International reported at the weekend that the AFU is “preparing a nuclear false flag—an explosion of a dirty atomic bomb,” targeting nuclear-waste storage sites at the Zaporozhye plant. RT cited “intelligence received by Russia” and a military correspondent and documentarian named Marat Khairullin. 

Hmmm. 

When I began my adventures in the great craft at the New York Daily News long years ago, two of the better shards of wisdom I picked up were, “Go with what you’ve got” and “When in doubt, leave it out.” Let us proceed accordingly as we consider Ukraine’s latest doings in the proxy war it wages. I will leave aside the BelTA and RT International reports pending further developments, but with this caveat: Amassing units along the Belarus border would be entirely in keeping with the AFU’s recent forays into Russian territory. As for the imminence of a dangerous false flag op at the Zaporozhye plant, I would not put it past a regime that has acted recklessly and irrationally on numerous occasions in the past. 

Why, we are left to ask of what we know to be so, did the AFU send troops, tanks, artillery, drone units, and assorted matériel into Kursk on Tuesday, Aug. 6? And then the ancillary operation in Belgorod? Everyone wondered this at first—supposedly everyone, anyway. This is our question, and I will shortly get to the “supposedly.” 

On the eve of the incursion, Kiev was losing ground steadily to a new Russian advance in eastern Ukraine. Critically short of troops, the Ukrainian forces are, indeed, about to lose a tactically significant town, Pokrovsk, on their side of the Russian border. The thought that the AFU would sustain and expand its Kursk operation to bring the war to Russian territory in any effective way is prima facie preposterous. What was the point? Where is the strategic gain? 

In his speech Monday evening at the Democratic Party convention in Chicago, Joe Biden defended his proxy war in Ukraine as a just war waged in the name of democracy and liberty. Oh? setting aside the emptiness of this characterization, the question remains. What is the point as the Kursk operation continues? The AFU now holds one Russian town and six villages, according to the latest reports, which also indicate they have set about destroying bridges critical to Russian supply lines. But where to from here? I do not see a sensible answer. 

There is no question the Russians were caught off guard when the AFU crossed into the border village of Sudzha and proceeded with evidently little initial resistance further into Russian territory. Hundreds of thousands of Russians have been evacuated; the governor of Belgorod quickly declared a state of emergency after the drone and artillery strikes of Aug. 14. 

But we cannot count this as any kind of astute strategic move. I do not pretend to have an inside read as to Russia’s apparent intelligence failure or what looks like its flat-footed response. But I do not think we can correctly mark down events to date to the AFU’s superior strength or the Russians’ weakness or incompetence. Western correspondents are having a fine old time reporting that klutzy, clumsy Moscow is once again stumbling, but I buy none of it. In my view this is probably another case of Russian restraint: The AFU is using U.S. — and NATO — supplied weapons, and the Kremlin has all along been acutely sensitive to the risk of escalation against Kiev’s Western sponsors. 

My conclusion: No one’s script has flipped. This operation is likely to be working upside-down to what we are reading in corporate media. The best explanation they have come up with so far is that Kiev’s plan was to draw Russian forces away from the front on the Ukrainian side of the border. That has plainly not happened, however much The Times indulges in denial on this point. “And now Moscow has begun withdrawing some troops from Ukraine in an effort to repel Kyiv’s offensive into western Russia, Constant Méthuet reported Aug. 14 — before adding “according to U.S. and Ukrainian officials.” Crapulous journalism. Simply crapulous. There is no evidence of this whatsoever—only of further Russian gains as noted above. 

Inversely, the Kursk adventure required a lot of Ukrainian units to get going and more now to sustain. It is Kiev that is wasting resources on what is bound to end in retreat. The Russian military has not marshaled anything approaching its full force. This is likely to end when Moscow decides it should, and in the meantime the Russians appear to wage the same wearing war of attrition that has reduced the AFU to something close to a desperate force on the home front. 

The initial press reports of the Kursk adventure had it that top officials in Washington were caught entirely by surprise and were as perplexed as the rest of us as to the “Why?” of the thing. I do not accept this at face value, either. The Times ran a lengthy report on the Ukrainians’ preparations, featuring residents in the towns bordering Kursk remarking for weeks about the buildup of AFU units and matériel before the operation began. Russian intelligence took note, The Times also reported. And the Pentagon, the intelligence agencies, and the administration were all taken by surprise? To quote an East European emigre I knew in the old days, “Gimme break.”

Not long prior to the incursion, the Biden regime had given Kiev dispensation to use U.S.–made weapons against Russian targets so long as these were deployed in self-defense and against military targets. And the only reason the U.S. is at all interested in Ukraine, we must remind ourselves—forget about freedom and democracy, for heaven’s sake—is for its use in prosecuting the West’s long, varied campaign to subvert “Putin’s Russia.” This remains the ultimate objective. In the matter of Washington’s hand in directing the Zelensky regime from one adventure to another, Biden’s national security people wear more fig leaves than you find on a tree in Tuscany. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Maybe Zelensky wants some Russian real estate as a bargaining advantage in negotiations with Russia he has come to accept as inevitable. It is possible but does not fit with his adamant insistence that the full restoration of Ukrainian territory, including Crimea, is non negotiable — a precondition to any diplomacy. And as in Netanyahu’s case, a settlement would put his political future greatly in doubt. 

In any case, Zelensky chose badly when the AFU crossed into Russian territory at Kursk. The Red Army’s defeat of the Wehrmacht at Kursk, in 1943, was the largest battle in the history of warfare and left roughly 1.7 million Russians dead, wounded, or missing. Along with Stalingrad, it marked a decisive moment in the Allied victory over the Reich.  Russians do not forget this kind of thing, especially when German weapons are part of the AFU’s arsenal. The thought of Ukrainian troops and tanks holding Kursk is another of the miscalculations that litter the story of this war since it began with the U.S.–inspired coup 10 years ago.    https://scheerpost.com/2024/08/22/patrick-lawrence-zelenskys-misadventures-in-kursk/

August 25, 2024 Posted by | Russia, Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

From the NPT to the UN Summit of the Future: Cut nuclear weapons budgets and investments

Aug 22, 2024, m https://nuclearweaponsmoney.org/news/from-the-npt-to-the-un-summit-of-the-future-cut-nuclear-weapons-budgets-and-investments/

Legislators and civil society organizations are using the opportunities of key international events in the latter part of 2024 to elevate calls for cuts in nuclear weapon budgets, an end to investments in the nuclear arms race, and a shift of these resources to better address planetary emergencies including an climate change, threats to biodiversity and an increase in the number and intensity of armed conflicts.

Actions utilizing these opportunities include parliamentary and civil society appeals to the two-week long meeting of States Parties to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty at the United Nations in Geneva (2024 NPT Prep Com) from July 22-August 2, and the UN Summit of the Future from September 22-23.

On July 23, Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer presented a parliamentary appeal ‘Turn Back the Doomsday Clock’ to a plenary session of the NPT Prep Com with nine concrete proposals directed to both the NPT Prep Com and the UN Summit of the Future. One of the proposals calls on governments “cut nuclear weapons budgets and public investments in the nuclear weapons industry, and to re-purpose these resources to instead support public health, peace, climate stabilization and sustainable development.”

More than 80 parliamentarians from 35 legislatures endorsed the appeal, including members of foreign affairs and defence committees; parliamentary delegates to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, NATO Parliamentary Assembly and OSCE Parliamentary Assembly; former Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Defence and Disarmament; and others.

A similar appeal from faith-based organizations and leaders, entitled Pursuing Peace, Security and Nuclear Disarmament through our Common Humanity, was also presented at the NPT plenary session on July 23 by Ayleen Roy, a member of the Transnational working group on faith and values based perspectives. The appeal, which was endorsed by more than 80 faith-based organizations and an additional 180 faith and values based leaders and individuals, highlights principles common to all the world’s major religious and faith-based traditions that are relevant to peace, security and nuclear weapons.

On July 23, Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer presented a parliamentary appeal ‘Turn Back the Doomsday Clock’ to a plenary session of the NPT Prep Com with nine concrete proposals directed to both the NPT Prep Com and the UN Summit of the Future. One of the proposals calls on governments “cut nuclear weapons budgets and public investments in the nuclear weapons industry, and to re-purpose these resources to instead support public health, peace, climate stabilization and sustainable development.”

More than 80 parliamentarians from 35 legislatures endorsed the appeal, including members of foreign affairs and defence committees; parliamentary delegates to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, NATO Parliamentary Assembly and OSCE Parliamentary Assembly; former Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Defence and Disarmament; and others.

A similar appeal from faith-based organizations and leaders, entitled Pursuing Peace, Security and Nuclear Disarmament through our Common Humanity, was also presented at the NPT plenary session on July 23 by Ayleen Roy, a member of the Transnational working group on faith and values based perspectives. The appeal, which was endorsed by more than 80 faith-based organizations and an additional 180 faith and values based leaders and individuals, highlights principles common to all the world’s major religious and faith-based traditions that are relevant to peace, security and nuclear weapons.

Citing the faith-based principle of social responsibility, the appeal notes that “The €90 billion equivalent spent each year on nuclear weapons development, production and deployment is draining resources (human and financial) that are required to eliminate world poverty and achieve the SDGs” and encourages “States to acknowledge their social responsibility by ending investments in nuclear weapons and re-purposing these investments to address basic human needs.”

And in preparation for the UN Summit of the Future, civil society organizations from around the world, cooperating through the facilitation of the Coalition for the UN We Need, have released a Peoples Pact for the Future with a number of recommendations to the Summit of the Future, one of which calls for a commitment to be made at the Summit “to channel domestic and other funds currently utilized for weapons—including nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction—to peaceful use such as environmental protection, sustainable development, peacemaking, rehabilitation, restorative justice, reparations, and building a culture of peace.”

Member organizations of Move the Nuclear Weapons Money were amongst the leaders of these initiatives.

Parliamentarians are also taking actions in their own legislatures to cut nuclear weapons budgets, but these are mostly actions that have not yet received sufficient support to be adopted.

On June 24, for example, US Senator Ed Markey who serves as Co-President of Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament (PNND) and as Co-chair of the bicameral Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control Working Group (NWAC), organized a joint letter from NWAC members to the Secretary of Defense, challenging the US Sentinel Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) replacement program on both financial and policy grounds. The legislators wrote to “remind the DoD that the American people have not granted them a blank check to pursue wasteful, unnecessary programs. As a varied group, our positions on the overall nuclear posture may vary, but we all share a common commitment to preventing government waste, avoiding dangerous nuclear escalation, and promoting peace.”

There are growing calls amongst security experts and civil society organizations for a retirement of all ICBMs in order to cut the bloated nuclear weapons budget and reduce the risks of nuclear war. See, for example, Slash the Pentagon Budget in Half & Abolish ICBMs: Dan Ellsberg on How to Avoid Nuclear Armageddon.

Senator Markey has given voice in the US Congress to these calls in a number of ways including in the Smarter Approach to Nuclear Expenditure (SANE) Act and the Invest in Cures Before Missiles (ICBM) Act that he has introduced, and in direct challenges to nuclear weapons budget items during the Defence Budget Authorization process. See Senator Markey: Shift funds from the military to climate action. And end the nuclear threat!

However, Markey and the Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control Working Group are opposed by a powerful nuclear arms industry lobby and the many legislators whom they support in congress, including members of the the bi-partisan Missile Defence Caucus. See Meet the Senate nuke caucus, busting the budget and making the world less safe. The efforts of Senator Markey and his colleagues are unlikely to succeed in deep cuts to the US nuclear weapons budget unless there is a stronger groundswell of Americans pushing their elected representatives to support their legislative initiatives.

Over in the UK, the possibilities for cutting the nuclear weapons budget do not appear to have improved with the election of a Labour government. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has affirmed that his government is committed to a triple lock for nuclear deterrence, which includes maintaining Britain’s continuous at-sea deterrent (CASD) “24 hours a day, 365 days a year”; building four new nuclear submarines; and delivering “all the needed upgrades” for existing and new submarines in the future. However, there could be dissention to this from some Labour MPs and from the increased number of Liberal Democrats in the House of Commons. (See Reality check: is Keir Starmer’s triple lock on nuclear weapons anything new?)

August 25, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Global disappointment with the most promising energy: ‘The dream is dead’, and we are in ‘big trouble’

by D. García, 08/23/2024   https://www.ecoticias.com/en/fusion-nuclear-energy-dream-dead/5728/?fbclid=IwY2xjawE2PiVleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHfSEEnp1jh9NKYg3N-pZe7YOq421dNO7fCN7ZZKAeigI3n1uZOiemR-I-Q_aem_ePp32l88aWrmHEcGwyKikg

Renewable sources are expanding across the country, but there is a ‘silent enemy’ that is eating away at some of this progress, and that is nuclear energy. Experts have believed for years that they can make it clean and safe, which we simply call a pipe dream. Recently, a prestigious media outlet such as The Guardian collected the opinions of several experts under the reflection ‘The dream is dead’. What has happened so that optimism has turned into global pessimism? A discovery about reactors has left everyone in shock.

It was a promising, non-renewable energy: Now, it’s a dead dream, according to experts

Nuclear fusion, a dream of obtaining a virtually inexhaustible and pollution-free energy, has remained an appealing goal for science and politics for a long time. Still, recent problems and accumulating issues caused some analysts to announce that nuclear fusion as a near-term energy source is indeed dead.

A major dream in energy generation circles has been nuclear fusion – the process that drives the sun and stars. Fusion reactions in which hydrogen atoms are combined to form helium have no complicated, long-lived radioactive waste or greenhouse gases as a by-product. But to maintain controlled fusion on Earth, it has been identified as one of the greatest scientific feats ever.

The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor is the largest fusion experiment in the world, and the project has experienced the problems with time and over budget. Initially designed to start operations in 2025, the current schedule of ITER has now been delayed, and it is not expected that full fusion operations will commence until the 2050s.

Key figures to understanding why this is a global disappointment: We are losing energy at GW-scale

The dominoes began to tumble and affect the overall nuclear energy industry because of the failures of fusion research. While fusion remains experimental, traditional fission-based nuclear power has been on a downward trend in many parts of the world:

  • Worldwide nuclear energy generation has been on the downtrend, with a record in 2006, and Nuclear electricity generation was reduced by 4% between 2019 and 2020.
  • Nuclear power’s contribution to the world’s electricity mix has gone down from a peak of roughly 17%. It went from 5% in 1996 to slightly above 10% in the recent past.
  • Nuclear power’s contribution to electricity generation in the United States has been steady at approximately 20 percent, but the operating reactors are fewer than before, with 93 as compared to 104 in 2012 and 2021.

What’s the reason why nuclear energy is declining? Beyond the fusion process

The nuclear energy sector in America is facing significant challenges:

  • Aging Infrastructure: A majority of the nuclear plants in the United States are either already, or on the verge of, expiring their permits granted for 40 years of utilization.
  • Economic Challenges: Nuclear power is unable to compete with relatively cheaper sources such as natural gas and renewable forms of energy. Some of the plants have been shut down before time due to unfavorable market conditions.
  • Public Perception: Public opinion remains a core issue of discussion since safety, management of waste and probabilities of the occurrence of an accident cannot be fully overlooked when producing nuclear energy.
  • Policy Uncertainty: It is stated that energy policy lacks a long-term vision, which resulted in no clear inspiration for the new nuclear projects.

Is America facing the same situation? Not, here is worse

Several U.S. states have experienced significant losses in nuclear energy capacity:

  • California: All nuclear power will vanish in the state following the shutdown of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in 2013 and the planned Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant in 2025.
  • Massachusetts: The last operating nuclear power plant in Massachusetts shut down operations in 2019, and the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station has been off.
  • New York: While some efforts had been made to carry forward the Indian Point Energy Center, it was extensively shut down in 2021, thus lowering New York’s nuclear power.
  • Pennsylvania: The Three Mile Island plant shut down in 2019, and other plants in the state are also facing financial issues.

Who knows if nuclear fusion energy in America will become a more established source than ever (as Trump said last week) or if it will remain a memory, something like Natrium, Bill Gates’ extravagant invention to resurrect a source that many still believe will be the future. Will we ever “break the dream” and go for a 100% clean and renewable industry? Yes, but without sources with the potential to pollute entire ecosystems for millennia.

August 24, 2024 Posted by | spinbuster | Leave a comment

A new French fairy tale: “Cheap” nuclear electricity in France is not what it appears.

The French public are paying for their nuclear addiction — and will pay even more when the plants need decommissioning. 

By Axel Mayer, 11 Sept 23,  https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2023/09/11/a-new-french-fairy-tale/—

“Bread and games”(Panem et circenses) were the enforcement strategies in the Roman Empire to maintain power. “Cheap petrol, cheap electricity and football” are popular campaign strategies under a democracy, says Axel Mayer, Vice-President of the Trinational Nuclear Protection Association (TRAS).

In France, the nuclear industry is in decline and the nuclear company EDF is heavily in debt. At the same time, President Macron is once again promising cheap nuclear power and wants to have new small nuclear power plants built. A small part of the French nuclear industry’s financial problems is to be solved with EU money.

In this context, the fairy tale of cheap French nuclear power is happily spread in France and also in Germany and the use of nuclear energy is praised as the miracle weapon in the losing war against nature and the environment. However, the price of electricity in France is only apparently cheap.

According to a report of the supreme audit court in France, the research and development, as well as the construction of the French nuclear power plants, cost a total of 188 billion euros. Since in France the “civilian” and the military use of nuclear power cannot be separated, the sum is probably much higher. Retrofitting France’s outdated reactors will cost over 55 billion euros. Liberation magazine reports retrofitting costs of nearly 100 billion euros by 2030.

People of France are paying for expensive nuclear power with their taxes

According to a report by the French Ministry of Economy, the semi-state-owned EDF had debts of about 41 billion euros at the end of 2019, an amount that is expected to be nearly 57 billion euros by 2028. To avoid domestic political problems, EDF is not allowed to raise the price of electricity for political reasons. EDF liabilities are driving up France’s national debt massively. The people of France (and especially their grandchildren) are paying for the seemingly cheap, but in reality expensive nuclear power with their taxes.

This cost does not include the dismantling of the nuclear power plants or any costs of a severe accident. A serious nuclear accident would have devastating consequences in France. A government study estimates the cost at 430 billion euros.

Demolition costs of over 100 billion euros

In France, EDF operates 56 outdated reactors that are now becoming old and decrepit almost simultaneously, but the company has built up almost no reserves for decommissioning. In Germany, the government is very optimistic about a 47 billion euros cost for decommissioning and final storage. The decommissioning of the large number of French nuclear power plants could cost well over 100 billion euros as costs rise, if no savings are made on safety. There is a distinct possibility that the nuclear industry could bankrupt the French state even without a nuclear accident that could happen at any time.

A “European Pressurized Water Reactor” (EPR) has been under construction on France’s Atlantic coast in Flamanville since 2007. The flagship project was originally scheduled for completion in 2012 at a fixed price of 3.2 billion euros. Since then, the start of operation has been postponed again and again, and the Court of Auditors now puts the cost at over 19 billion euros. Whether the EPR can go online in 2024 is questionable. The model reactor will never work economically.

In countries with a functioning market, no new nuclear power plants are building

Swiss nuclear lobbyist and Axpo CEO Christoph Brand puts the kibosh on dreams of cheap nuclear power from new, small nuclear plants. “The production costs for the electricity supplied by new nuclear power plants are currently about twice as high as those of larger wind and solar plants,” Brand said. “No matter how one assesses the risks of nuclear power, it is simply not economical to rely on new nuclear plants,” he said in the pro-nuclear NZZ on Oct. 21, 2021.

In countries with a functioning market, no new nuclear power plants are being built. When in doubt, it always helps to look at EDF’s share price, which has fallen massively over the long term, to assess the market chances of the nuclear renaissance announced by President Macron.

“Bread and games” with artificially low nuclear electricity prices can work in election campaigns. Low-cost, risk-free electricity is generated today with photovoltaics and wind energy. (AM/hcn)

August 24, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, France, politics, Reference | Leave a comment

US crying wolf over China’s ‘nuclear threat’ while expanding nuclear arsenal

Aug 22, 2024  https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202408/1318466.shtml

On Tuesday, a New York Times report caused quite a stir: US President Joe Biden has ordered US forces to prepare for “possible coordinated nuclear confrontations with Russia, China and North Korea.” It sounds like the US president was instructing the military to prepare for doomsday, observers pointed out.

The report revealed that in March, Biden approved a highly classified nuclear strategy plan called “Nuclear Employment Guidance,” which for the first time reorients the US’ deterrent strategy to focus on the so-called threat posed by China’s rapid expansion in its nuclear arsenal. The article states that this shift comes as the Pentagon believes China’s stockpiles will rival the size and diversity of the US’ and Russia’s over the next decade.

With over 5,000 nuclear warheads, the US possesses the world’s largest and most advanced nuclear arsenal. So why does it repeatedly target China in its nuclear threat rhetoric? This can be traced back to a dilemma faced by the US Department of Defense – how to justify maintaining such a massive nuclear arsenal in the post-Cold War world. To secure more defense budgets for the domestic military-industrial complex, the US chooses to constantly manufacture or exaggerate baseless “nuclear threats.” And China has become the best excuse.

What the US truly seeks is to ensure that its power far exceeds that of any other country in the world, allowing it to threaten and coerce other nations at will, without fear of retaliation. As a hegemonic state, US’ security is built on the insecurity of other countries. To maintain its hegemonic status, the US struggles to ensure its absolute superiority in power, with nuclear weapons being a crucial tool in maintaining its global dominance. Therefore, this new nuclear strategy plan is an excuse for expanding its nuclear arsenal and sustaining its military hegemony.

China and the US have fundamentally different perceptions of the strategic role of nuclear weapons. China has repeatedly emphasized that it pursues a nuclear strategy of self-defense, and is committed to the policy of no first use of nuclear weapons. China does not engage in any nuclear arms race with any other country, and keeps its nuclear capabilities at the minimum level required for national security. The notion of establishing an offensive nuclear hegemony or pursuing the so-called goal of rivaling the nuclear arsenal size of the US does not align with China’s strategic logic. As experts pointed out, China’s development of nuclear weapons is aimed at avoiding threats from other nuclear-armed states.

No matter how the US fabricates or exaggerates the so-called China threat narrative, China’s nuclear development follows its own set pace, including a measured increase in the quantity and quality of its nuclear arsenal, which will not be swayed by the US’ interference. This is a necessary measure for China in a complex international environment to safeguard its national security and territorial integrity – a legitimate act of self-defense, Shen Yi, a professor at Fudan University, told the Global Times. 

The US repeatedly harps on the “China nuclear threat” narrative, yet it is, in fact, the one that poses the biggest nuclear threat to the world. In possession of the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, the US follows a nuclear policy that allows first-use of nuclear weapons. In recent years, the US has invested heavily to miniaturize nuclear weapons, lowering the threshold of their use in real-combat, and used nuclear weapons as a bait to hijack its allies and partners. Its irresponsible decisions and actions have resulted in the proliferation of nuclear risks, and its attempts to maintain hegemony and intimidate the world with nuclear power have been fully exposed.

There will be no winners in a nuclear war. We urge the US to abandon Cold War mentality, recognize that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought, reduce the role of nuclear weapons in national and collective security policies, and take concrete actions to promote global strategic stability, instead of doing the opposite. Instead of smearing and hyping up China, the US should reflect on itself and consider how to rebuild mutual trust with China through dialogue and sincerity.

August 24, 2024 Posted by | China, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Putin says Ukrainian forces tried to strike Kursk nuclear plant

The Russian leader does not offer any evidence for his claim but says the UN nuclear watchdog has been alerted.

Aljazeera, 22 Aug 2024

Russian President Vladimir Putin says Ukrainian forces have tried to attack the Kursk Nuclear Power Station in an overnight raid.

The Russian leader did not offer evidence for the claim but said on Thursday that Moscow has informed the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), about the incident.

Ukraine has not responded to Russia’s allegations.

“The enemy tried to strike the nuclear power plant at night. The IAEA has been informed,” Putin said in a televised government meeting.

Putin made the claim as Ukrainian forces continued to fight inside Russia more than two weeks after launching an ambitious cross-border attack, which has become an embarrassing headache for Moscow.

While the strategic aims of Ukraine’s Kursk incursion remain uncertain, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Thursday said the attack is part of an effort to bring the war to an end on terms amenable to Ukraine………………………….  https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/8/22/putin-says-ukrainian-forces-tried-to-strike-kursk-nuclear-plant

August 24, 2024 Posted by | Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Sizewell C seeks permit for ‘water vole displacement activities’.

Sizewell C is seeking a permit to “undertake water vole displacement activities” on two rivers near the development.

Sizewell C seeks permit for ‘water vole displacement activities’.
Sizewell C is seeking a permit to “undertake water vole displacement
activities” on two rivers near the development.

 ENDS 21st Aug 2024

https://www.endsreport.com/article/1885703/sizewell-c-seeks-permit-water-vole-displacement-activities

August 24, 2024 Posted by | environment, UK | Leave a comment

Climate scientist says 2/3rds of the world is under an effective ‘death sentence’ because of global warming

Dr. Deborah Brosnan, a climate and ocean scientist, predicts that Earth could eventually become uninhabitable for humans given the grave state of the planet.

She said about two thirds
of the 8.2billion people who live on this planet are under an effective
“death sentence” as natural disasters will continue to grow more deadly in
the years to come unless human behaviors change. “The point is that climate
change is happening to everyone and in every region of the world,” she
said.

Mirror 19th Aug 2024

 https://www.themirror.com/news/us-news/climate-scientist-says-23rds-world-644615

August 24, 2024 Posted by | climate change | Leave a comment

Report on nuclear power in Wales is so secret the UK Government won’t even disclose its name

21 Aug 2024, Martin Shipton, https://nation.cymru/news/report-on-nuclear-power-in-wales-is-so-secret-the-uk-government-wont-even-disclose-its-name/

A campaigner wanting to find out how power from a possible new nuclear power plant on Anglesey would be channelled into the national grid has been refused all information, including even the name of an official report on the matter.

Dr Jonathan Dean, a trustee of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales, wrote to the UK Government’s Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ), asking: “Please could I get a copy of the evaluation report where it was concluded that Wylfa on Ynys Môn should be selected as the next large nuclear site after Sizewell C.”

His request was rejected. He wrote back stating: ”I wondered if it would be possible to obtain a redacted copy of the report you mention. I have little interest in any commercial details. Ideally the whole report suitably redacted, but at least those sections dealing with the connection to the national grid; use of waste heat as per section 4.8 of national policy statement EN-1; location and area of land considered on Ynys Môn; and means of overcoming the many reasons given by the Planning Inspectorate in their recommendation to the Secretary of State in 2019/2020 to refuse the DCO [Development Consent Order] application made by Horizon Nuclear Power.

“Would it be possible to know the title and any reference number for this report to aid future requests?”

 Confidential information

He was then told: “The report has been withheld in full under regulation 12(5)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and no part of the report is available for disclosure … [The] report does not have a reference number and the title of the report is confidential information.”

Later the Department said it had quoted the wrong section of the regulations as the reason for turning down Dr Dean’s request . The correct section was regulation 12(5)(e), which states: “(The) confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest.”

Dr Dean told Nation.Cymru: “There have been tentative ideas to connect the transmission grid in north Wales to that in the south since at least 2009 that I am aware of. Then the idea was a subsea connection from Wylfa to Pembroke And back in 2012 NGET [National Grid Electricity Transmission] wanted to build a 400 kV transmission line to Lower Frankton from Cefn Coch to service mid Wales wind farms.

“The Offshore Transmission Network Review in 2020 again suggested a subsea connection linking Lancashire to Wylfa to Pembroke, taking in the new Irish Sea wind farms.

“The Holistic Network Design (HND) of 2022 changed things. It brought power subsea from Scotland into Pentir (Bangor) and took power from Pentir to Swansea North substation. Although heavily caveated as just indicating a network need, and not indicating technology or route, it was described as a ‘double circuit’ which could be interpreted as meaning pylons.

“In the ‘Beyond 2030’ report this year the ESO [Electricity System Operator] says that the subsea link into Pentir will be double the capacity (4 GW?) of that in the HND, but interestingly show the extra capacity connecting to Bodelwyddan not Pentir.

“Meanwhile NGET have planned a substation at Gwyddelwern, supposedly for north Wales wind farms, and Llandyfaelog for mid Wales wind farms.

“Last week, the Beyond 2030 Celtic Sea report revealed Llandyfaelog will be one of the landing points for the Celtic Sea wind farms, and that Swansea North substation has no free capacity or space to expand

“Pentir is constrained ‘behind’ both Eryri and the new north east Wales national park (currently Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty). If all the capacity from Scotland came into Bodelwyddan and headed south from there, depending on the final limits of the new national park, there may be no obvious hard constraints to pylons.

“So what might be possible? The line could go down the vale of Clwyd, maybe via the new substation in Gwyddelwern, to Cefn Coch (previously desired substation site) then Newtown (132 kV link), Builth and down the Tywi to the new substation in Llandyfaelog.

“Vyrnwy Frankton wouldn’t be needed, Tywi Usk wouldn’t be needed, and with a bit of re-jigging, Teifi Tywi wouldn’t be needed. Technically it would be a far superior transmission solution (at least the correct transmission voltage!) with up to 6 GW capacity and meet the HND objectives of linking north to south Wales. It would likely be 50m pylons carrying 400 kV double circuits.

“If there wasn’t the desire to extract wind power from mid Wales, the alternative could be a HVDC [High Voltage Direct Current] ‘bootstrap’ from Pentir to Pembroke (as per 2009). The two double circuit lines out of Pembroke can carry 12 GW so can easily accept 6 GW from north Wales (4 GW of it from Scotland) and 3 GW from the Celtic Sea, while still having space for the 2 GW Pembroke power station which will, apparently, be converted to hydrogen and/or carbon capture.

“But this is just my feverish imagination. We will have to wait and see.”

Grid connection

Responding to the UK Government’s secrecy over the transmission link from Wylfa, Dr Dean said: “I have always had an interest in Wylfa as I brought my family to Ynys Môn in the 1960s. I remember going to one of the first public meetings about Wylfa B in 1976 to hear my father talk.

“When Hitachi were developing the last iteration of Wylfa B I was involved with the campaign to have the grid connection put underground or subsea. This campaign was supported by Albert Owen, Rhun ap Iorwerth and then Virginia Crosbie. However Hitachi refused to consider a subsea connection and National Grid refused to consider a buried connection

“The Hitachi proposal was ultimately recommended for refusal by the Planning Inspectorate for multiple reasons. Knowing the north Wales grid will be so constrained by 2030, due to the growth of renewables, so much so that pylons are required from Bangor to Swansea, I was shocked at the announcement of a GW scale station. I had expected a series of SMRs [Small Modular Reactors]. There will be no spare grid capacity in the whole of north Wales for nuclear.

“As trustee of CPRW I was concerned that a new line of pylons would be put through Eryri, against UK planning policy, as there is no way around the national park other than under the sea. The UK. planning policy for nuclear has never considered grid connections, so I assumed that the DESNZ report must have addressed this. A power station without a grid connection would just be an enormous white elephant

“I still don’t understand why such technical details should be withheld from the public, given there was a very clear announcement the power station would happen. The fact the report has a ‘secret’ title, and no reference number, makes me think it doesn’t actually exist! But I cannot believe governments announce new power stations based on no analysis or consideration. Surely not?

“All I want to know is, will it be a subsea cable or more pylons all the way to Connah’s Quay? I really don’t see the need for such secrecy.

August 24, 2024 Posted by | secrets,lies and civil liberties, UK | Leave a comment

Inside the ‘suitably opaque’ response to a toxic sewage spill at Chalk River nuclear lab

Internal communications raise questions about transparency at nuclear organizations amid pollution incident

Brett Forester · CBC News ·Aug 20, 2024 

When a nuclear research facility was directed to stop polluting the Ottawa River with toxic sewage earlier this year, at least one official seemed pleased with the non-transparency of the facility’s public messaging.

“This is suitably opaque,” wrote Jennifer Fry in an April 24 email to Jeremy Latta, director of communications and government reporting at Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL), a Crown corporation.

The two AECL officials were discussing a planned public communiqué from Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) to be released that day. AECL owns the Chalk River nuclear research campus near Deep River, Ont., about 150 kilometres upstream from Ottawa, but outsources site management to private sector corporate consortium CNL.

Chalk River’s sewage plant began failing toxicity tests on Feb. 21, meaning the treated wastewater, or effluent, was confirmed toxic to fish. (One hundred per cent of the rainbow trout directly subjected to the effluent died over a four-day period, records show. A death rate over 50 per cent fails the test.)

And so on April 23, after two months of this toxic water going into the Ottawa River, Environment Canada stepped in, prompting both CNL’s communiqué and AECL’s assessment of it.

“Reads fine to me, not major risks,” Latta had written, “and who knows if it gets traction.”

Those emails are among more than 100 pages of internal communications released by AECL under access-to-information law, which are raising questions about transparency around the pollution incident.

CBC News requested an interview with an AECL spokesperson to discuss the corporation’s handling of the incident based on a review of the records, and Latta agreed to speak last week.

Latta defended the response, maintaining there was no deliberate effort to hide information. He brushed off Fry’s comment as one person’s opinion………………………………………………………………………

“We have absolutely no confidence in the fact that, if there is a major incident, they will disclose it to us,” said Haymond, a vocal opponent of CNL’s plan to build a radioactive waste dump at Chalk River.

“It just really speaks to the challenge in the relationship where they profess to want to have better communications, and said they would make the effort. Time and time again, there’s incidents which demonstrate that that’s not happening.”…………………………………….

CNL ultimately didn’t answer many of CBC’s questions directly at the time, including one explicitly asking whether the effluent was going into the Ottawa River……………………….. https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/chalk-river-sewage-foi-documents-1.7299822

August 24, 2024 Posted by | Canada, secrets,lies and civil liberties | Leave a comment

‘Very serious’ nuclear situation could happen ‘at any moment’ in Ukraine, says IAEA chief

Cathy Newman, Presenter 4 News 20 Aug 24

We spoke to Rafael Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Cathy Newman: Let’s start with Zaporizhzhia, because earlier you said that safety was deteriorating there after this drone strike. How critical would you say it is?

Rafael Grossi: Well, we could have a very serious situation any moment. Because when you see the amount of military activity surrounding the plant………………………….The physical integrity of the facility is being challenged. So, this is why we say that what we see is a deterioration. The condition of the plant, I should say, is that it’s not producing energy at the moment, is in jargon what we call shut down. But there’s a lot of material there, a lot of nuclear material there. There’s a lot of spent fuel there. Fresh fuel. So, things that if impact could trigger the release of radioactivity.

Cathy Newman: So the risk has been minimised, but it hasn’t been removed, clearly. I mean, in theory, another Chernobyl is possible?

Rafael Grossi: ………………………………………… I would say, as I was just mentioning, you have all of this material around and you could have a situation theoretically where because of the loss of external power, which has occurred, we had nine episodes of complete blackouts of the plant. So no cooling function. So if you lose all that, you could eventually have a meltdown.

Cathy Newman: So it’s perilous, clearly. I wonder whether you think the risk of the Kursk plant, ……………. Russia is now fortifying around that plant. I mean, is that potentially more risky because it’s a much more volatile situation.

Rafael Grossi: It is certainly serious and we should take it very, very seriously. We are taking it, the agency at the IAEA, very, very seriously. This nuclear power plant is, I would say, within artillery range already. You have just informed that the incursion of the Ukrainian troops, is a few miles, a couple dozen kilometres into Russian territory and just a few miles, in kilometres is about between 20 and 30 km from the plant itself. And there is a technical aspect here. You were just mentioning Chernobyl. The reactors here, you have six reactors in Kursk. You have two reactors that are being decommissioned. You have two reactors that are operating. No shutdown, operating when you have hot reactors. Anything that could happen there could be maximised in this sense.

And then two other units being built. The two reactors that are operating are of a type called RBMK, which is exactly the type of reactors, an old model type of reactor was the one, like the ones that were in Chernobyl. These reactors have a particularity. Normally when you look at a nuclear reactor is a dome. There is a concrete and metal protection. These two reactors don’t have that, don’t have any of that. The core of these reactors is open. Is like, as if you were here and you could see the fuel elements there. So, God forbid, was there an impact on the plant, we could have a very serious situation…………………………………………………………………………………. https://www.channel4.com/news/very-serious-nuclear-situation-could-happen-at-any-moment-in-ukraine-says-iaea-chief

August 23, 2024 Posted by | Russia, safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Defence Correspondents: The Journalistic Wing of the Military?

There are stenographers – and then there are UK defence correspondents.

DECLASSIFIED UK, DES FREEDMAN, 19 August 2024

An analysis of broadcasters’ online coverage of defence spending and strategy since Keir Starmer won the election shows that reporting is virtually 100% in line with the government’s own priorities. 

Critical voices, where they are included, are entirely from the right.

All 20 articles posted under ‘defence’ since 4 July – 14 from Sky, 5 from the BBC and 1 from ITV – faithfully reproduce the government’s agenda. 

These include its proposals for a defence review, its promise to increase military spending to 2.5% of GDP, its commitment to Ukraine and NATO (described on the BBC by foreign secretary David Lammy as ‘part of Britain’s DNA’).

Its notion that there is a need to restore confidence in the military in order to face up to “rapidly increasing global threats” (as Sky quoted defence secretary John Healey) also features.

The only critical voices that appear are Conservative shadow ministers, hawkish think tank spokespeople and military ‘experts’, all speaking about how vital it is to boost defence spending, which currently stands at £64.6bn a year (2.32% of GDP).

Such spending is apparently necessary to confront what the army’s chief Sir Roland Walker has described as an “axis of upheaval” composed of Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. 

Sky quoted Walker without comment on 23 July as saying that “there was an ‘urgent need’ for the British Army to rebuild its ability to deter future wars with credible fighting power”.

Churnalism

Much of the coverage feels like a press release from the Ministry of Defence, which is hardly surprising given that MoD statements are liberally incorporated – without challenge – into news reports.

For example, ITV News’ report of 16 July on Labour’s “root and branch” review of defence draws heavily on the MoD’s release earlier that day

Its only deviation from government spin is that it also quotes the shadow armed forces minister Andrew Bowie saying that “the country didn’t need another review, and instead ‘we just need to get on and spend more money on defence’.”

Both the BBC and Sky ran lengthy, gushing reports on the speeches given by the defence secretary and General Walker at the Royal United Services Institute’s ‘Land Warfare’ conference on 22/23 July, unambiguously pushing the line that increasing defence spending was crucial to securing peace.

None of these pieces featured comments about the huge political and economic risks of increasing defence spending and a possible acceleration, not reduction, of instability. 

Guns not butter

This isn’t just a matter of excluding voices from the left arguing for a completely different set of priorities. There isn’t even room for mainstream economists like Paul Johnson from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, criticising the way recent governments have presented the proposed hike and making the obvious, if important, point that “[m]ore money for defence means less for everything else”…………………………………………………………………………………………..

‘Pre-war world’

The tone of recent coverage is, however, entirely in line with what has gone on before where news broadcasters have acted more as cheerleaders of the UK government’s strategic defence priorities than impartial journalists.

For example, following a widely reported speech in January by then defence secretary Grant Shapps, committing the UK to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, Sky News launched a series called “Prepared for War?” in April. 

This examined whether the UK was ready for the “possibility of armed conflict” and was based on interviews with defence specialists, former military officers and academics, all of whom were singing to the same pro-war hymn sheet. 

It reported on the emergence of a “national defence plan” to deal with “mounting concerns about Russia, China and Iran” and uncritically embraced the idea that we are now in a “pre-war world”.

This has all the trappings of a drive to war.

Seduced

Broadcasters’ favourite defence-related stories appear to be ones where they can show dazzling images of the latest military hardware. 

As Richard Norton-Taylor, former defence correspondent for the Guardian and now contributor to Declassified UK, has noted: “The MoD knows how to seduce journalists, especially those writing for specialist defence publications – often used as primary sources by mainstream journalists – by showing off new weapons.”

So in January, Sky News ran a puff piece on a new laser system, DragonFire, developed by the MoD to the tune of around £100m, that spoke of its “pinpoint accuracy” taken straight from the MoD’s own press release. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

As always, an uncritical embrace of the UK’s strategic geopolitical interests comes before any commitment to transparency and even to exploring the claim that increasing military spending might not be the best way of de-escalating rising tensions across the globe.

How do we account for this deference on the part of defence correspondents? 

Declassified UK has run several stories examining this question and revealing the preferential treatment of favoured journalists, sanctions against those who ask tough questions, the close contacts between correspondents and defence and security-related officials and indeed the existence of a revolving door between journalism and military PR. 

When it comes to reporting on defence and security, ‘[d]eference, as much as secrecy, remains the English disease’, notes Norton-Taylor.

Indeed, all too often, it’s not a specific strategy so much as ideological congruence between the defence establishment and defence journalists about what is understood to be protecting the “national interest”.

That means that while the UK ramps up its support for Ukraine and continues to stand by Israel in defending it from possible attacks from Iran, British broadcast journalists are operating effectively as part of a coordinated effort to boost defence spending. 

Their silence on stories such as the training of Israeli troops inside the UK or the number of UK military flights from Cyprus to Israel is just as troubling as their more visible and uncritical amplification of successive UK governments’ defence priorities.

This isn’t journalism but public relations  https://www.declassifieduk.org/defence-correspondents-the-journalistic-wing-of-the-military/

August 23, 2024 Posted by | media, UK | Leave a comment

Ukraine could trigger ‘another Chernobyl’ – ex-US Army officer.

A meltdown at the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant would make the region uninhabitable, Stanislav Krapivnik has warned

 https://www.rt.com/russia/602744-ukraine-may-trigger-another-chernobyl/ 21 Aug 24

Ukraine’s armed forces could cause a nuclear disaster that would affect most of Europe if they strike the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant, former US Army officer Stanislav Krapivnik has warned.

In an interview with RT on Saturday, Krapivnik discussed the difference between a dirty bomb and a nuclear bomb, explaining that while a dirty bomb does not have the critical mass or enriched material, it could cause large scale contamination if it hits nuclear waste. 

If the coolant system in an active plant is targeted, it would cause a “nuclear meltdown” which could lead to an incident similar to Fukushima or Chernobyl, he added. Such an event would impact most of Europe, especially at this time of the year “when the wind blows northwest.”

Krapivnik predicted that “if there is enough evidence” of the threat, it would “force a very large reaction” from the Russian government, as a meltdown at the Kursk plant would make the region uninhabitable.

“And the fallout is going to go straight to the northwest into Europe,” he said, adding: “It’s going to hit the Poles, the Germans, the Danes, the Scandinavian countries,” right into the UK. “But apparently the leadership of those nations really doesn’t give a damn.”

On Friday, Russian military journalist Marat Khairullin reported, citing sources, that Kiev is preparing to detonate a dirty atomic bomb targeting nuclear waste at either Russia’s Zaporozhye NPP or the Kursk NPP.

While the nuclear plant in Zaporozhye, the largest such facility in Europe, has been shut down, the plant in Kursk Region is operational.

The Russian Defense Ministry responded to the reports by saying that any attempts to create a “man-made disaster in the European part of the continent” would be met with “tough military and military-technical countermeasures.” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova called on the international community “to immediately condemn the provocative actions prepared by the Kiev regime.”

Kiev has denied the allegations. Neither the UN nor the International Atomic Energy Agency have addressed the threat.

August 23, 2024 Posted by | Russia, Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »