nuclear-news

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

Building nuclear plant would increase costs in the need for guards, police and rescue workers

 https://news.err.ee/1609011512/building-nuclear-plant-would-increase-need-for-police-and-rescue-workers 20 June 23

If a nuclear power plant is to be constructed in Estonia, this would lead to an increased need for rescue workers and police officers, according to an analysis by the Ministry of the Interior on nuclear security and emergency preparedness. This is in addition to the specialists, who would be required to ensure all the necessary procedures are in place to safeguard against any potential risks involved.

Earlier this year, a sub-group on nuclear security and emergency preparedness was established under the Ministry of the Interior. The sub-group’s aim is to prepare an analysis and provide an expert assessment of the situation related nuclear security and emergency preparedness for the final Estonian national nuclear energy report.

Estonian Minister of the Interior Lauri Läänemets (SDE) said, that by the end of the year, the report would make it clear what the cost of a nuclear power plant would be for the country.

“In light of this expert assessment, it has to be said that, given the situation with the state budget, finding the money to build a nuclear power plant seems questionable, to say the least,” said Läänemets.

According to Läänemets, the one-off investment needed to build a nuclear power plant would be just shy of €100 million, with millions of additional euros needed each year to cover maintenance costs.

The minister noted, that unless Estonia’s population protection plans are developed, building a nuclear power plant will not be possible.

The issue of human resources would also become increasingly important. “We need experts and nuclear scientists. We need more police officers and Internal Security Service (Kaitsepolitsei) officers. We need to upgrade the rescue teams, and we need to be able to offer them salaries to match. Building a nuclear power station means hiring more staff within the Ministry of the Interior. A lot of money will also be needed when it comes to internal security,” Läänemets said.

Viola Murd, secretary general for rescue and crisis at the Ministry of the Interior, said that Estonia currently does have an emergency plan in case an accident involving nuclear power plant occurs in a neighboring country.

Murd explained, that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has regulated practically everything in advance. Therefore, it would be up to Estonia to abide by these rules and regulations. “As far as security risk management and accident prevention are concerned, the Ministry of the Interior’s would not be able to cope with the tasks foreseen today. Above all, these concern human resources and competences, which the agency cannot provide us with. We would need to create them ourselves and that takes time,” Murd said.

“The construction of a nuclear power plant will require the development of top specialists and experts but also staff throughout the program more broadly. This would include the need to ensure security by conducting background checks, the number of which will increase significantly as the program progresses,” added Murd.

There will also be a need to establish an independent national body with the power to assess license applications and make decisions on safety and security issues.

Ministry of the Interior advisor Aigo Allmäe said, that when it comes to security, Estonia’s main responsibility is to protect nuclear material from theft and sabotage. “We have to provide physical protection and control over the material. Physical protection means surveillance and control. The security of personnel also has to be guaranteed,” Allmäe said.

Allmäe stressed, that there are a number of safety aspects that must be considered when designing and constructing a nuclear power plant in order to minimize any potential risk of an accident taking place.

—

June 21, 2023 Posted by | EUROPE, safety | Leave a comment

A heating world can’t afford a cold war

Mads Flarup Christensen, 19 June 2023,  https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/60291/a-heating-world-cant-afford-a-cold-war/

Bombing a home to pieces is not the path to a peaceful or green world. Yet right now, there are 3844 nuclear warheads deployed worldwide with missiles and aircraft. That’s ten nuclear warheads for every day of the year. Two thousand of these are ready for immediate launch and if that weren’t enough, an additional ten thousand are stacked high in military stockpiles waiting to be used. Most of today’s modern warheads are at least five times more powerful than those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. My home town of Copenhagen is well within range of many of these missiles, like most other places. Casualties would be staggering. 

Missiles of particular note and concern stem from Russia, which has started deploying tactical nuclear warheads a step closer to Europe and into Belarus, its close military ally ruled by “Europe’s last dictator”. This is especially alarming as it is the first time since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 for such weapons to be moved outside of Russia. This has led to the UN Disarmament chief warning that the threat of nuclear weapons use is higher than at any time since the Cold War.

Echoing this dismay is the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). Releasing its annual assessment of the state of international security a few days ago, the independent institute stated “We are drifting into one of the most dangerous periods in human history”. Their research shows that the world’s nine nuclear armed states – the US, Russia, the UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) and Israel – are continuing to grow and modernize their arsenals. According to the  International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), the nuclear nine spent $157,664 per minute on nuclear weapons in 2022. That’s a total of $82.9 billion. Overall, all military expenditure saw a big increase worldwide, reaching a new high of $2240 billion. This is more than twenty times the annual financial goal agreed at the 2009 Copenhagen UN climate talks for adaptation and mitigation, which has never been met. What drove this boost in military spending? Largely, Russia’s full scale invasion of Ukraine.

While the impacts of Russia’s war in Ukraine are deep, tragic and far-reaching, it is not the only major crisis taking place. 2022 saw the sharpest rise in the number of people forcibly displaced due to social and climate crises worldwide. As of mid-2022, an estimated 1 in every 77 people – 108.4 million – had to flee their homes, more than twice as many as a decade ago. The United Nations’ refugee agency says this is the greatest number of forcibly displaced people ever recorded. Many of those people are in or from Ukraine, Syria, Afghanistan and Sudan. Yet conflict is not the only cause, as climate disasters led to 32.6 million internal displacements last year. 

In the face of so much suffering and injustice, as usual there are those who stand to profit at any cost. Arms sales have gone up by 50% leaving manufacturers with blossoming balance sheets. But they are not the only vultures. Big Oil continues to make record war profits, the latest figures being to the tune of more than $200 billion. Added to this brutal bounty, and despite their promises and pledges to transition to renewable energy, governments are doubling spending on fossil fuel subsidies and approving new oil and gas projects. And, as exposed by Greenpeace’s Unearthed and Lighthouse Reports, on the back of a global food crisis that’s pushing millions more people into hunger, the world’s top ten hedge funds made an estimated $1.9bn profit from the food price spike triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Global solutions to borderless problems abound but too many political and business leaders are pushing for dirty profits and hateful division over peace, prosperity and frankly, the planet’s future. We are at a critical juncture where the focus should be on strengthening multilateralism for peace and climate, rather than promoting false solutions and profit mongering. The increase in nuclear weapons does not make our world safer and cannot address today’s challenges, quite the contrary. The Treaty on Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons made history by declaring nuclear weapons illegal under international law, but nuclear armed states have not only failed to ratify it, they are deterring other countries from doing so.

Instead of this race to spend big on destruction, more time and resources could and should go on addressing the root causes of our interconnected environmental and social crises. Climate change is transforming our understanding of security, and beefing up arsenals is a folly against the reality of increasing economic disruption, flooding, disease, famine, drought and crop-failure, migration and intensified competition for food, water and energy in regions where resources are already hugely stretched. The smarter approach would be for the current system’s power brokers to focus on the root causes of today’s discontent alongside diplomacy and sustainable development, instead of cosying up to warmongers and disaster capitalists.

Take action and support the Treaty on Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons here.

June 21, 2023 Posted by | climate change | Leave a comment

NATO arsenals ‘empty’ – Stoltenberg

Continued support for Ukraine will require more industrial production, the military bloc’s chief has said.

https://www.rt.com/news/578307-nato-stoltenberg-arsenals-empty/ 19 June 23

NATO needs a “more robust” industry in order to refill the stocks of weaponry and ammunition emptied by a year of supplying Kiev, the bloc’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said on Monday, at an industrial conference in Germany.

The US-led military bloc “must continue to support Ukraine” as it has done since 2014, Stoltenberg insisted at the Day of Industry in Berlin, hosted by the Federation of German Industries (BDI).

“We also need a more robust defense industry,” the secretary general argued. “Our weapons and ammunition stocks are depleted and need to be replenished. Not just in Germany, but in many countries across NATO.”

He added that he met with representatives of the military industry last week and discussed how best to ramp up production and streamline supply chains, adding that this was “key to sustain our support for Ukraine.”

Stoltenberg also repeated his argument that only a Ukrainian victory on the battlefield can result in a just and lasting peace. Kiev’s forces had attempted a large-scale offensive on the southern front over the past week, with heavy losses in manpower, as well as in weaponry provided by the West.

The US and its allies have sent over $100 billion worth of weapons, equipment and ammunition to Kiev in the last year, after the conflict escalated. They insist this does not actually make them a party to the hostilities with Russia.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has accused the West of direct involvement, not just with the weapons deliveries but also by training Ukrainian troops in the UK, Germany, Italy and elsewhere.

Kiev has complained that a lot of the weapons coming in are in such poor condition they have to be cannibalized for parts. At least a third of Ukraine’s military potential is undergoing repairs at any given time, according to the New York Times.

June 21, 2023 Posted by | EUROPE, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Central Europe’s nuclear plans – fraught with problems

CENTRAL EUROPE’S NUCLEAR PLANS: HOT STUFF

Claudia Ciobanu, Edit Inotai, Tim Gosling and Nicholas Watson, Budapest, Prague, Warsaw, BIRN. June 20, 2023  https://balkaninsight.com/2023/06/20/central-europes-nuclear-plans-hot-stuff/

Since the war in Ukraine, CEE countries have stepped up efforts to build more nuclear power plants and reduce nuclear supply chain dependency on Russia’s Rosatom. Yet the disposal of waste remains an issue and could impact financing of new reactors.

Central Europe has put nuclear power at the forefront of efforts to quit Russian oil and gas and decarbonise economies, yet breaking the region’s dependency on Russia’s giant nuclear holding company Rosatom – for fuel, financing and waste disposal – promises to complicate those efforts.

The region’s reliance on Rosatom is historic. Until last year, all 14 reactors operating in Czechia, Hungary and Slovakia were built by Russia (Slovakia’s third reactor at Mochovce, of Soviet design but not built by Rosatom, started up this year). Furthermore, Rosatom is building two more reactors in Hungary.

That latter project, thrown into some disarray by the war in Ukraine, epitomises this longstanding dependency. Rosatom dominates the global nuclear industry because of its ability to act as a “one-stop nuclear shop”, which is attractive to countries because it can finance the plant; build the plant; provide training, support and maintenance for the plant; dispose of the nuclear waste produced at the plant; and finally decommission the plant.

While Europe is taking steps to reduce its 30 per cent reliance on Russian nuclear fuel – Czech energy company CEZ has signed contracts with US-based Westinghouse Electric Company and French company Framatome – waste disposal will be a much harder nut to crack.

Nuclear energy produces mainly low-level radioactive waste, while high-level radioactive waste, which includes the hot spent fuel, accounts for about 1 per cent of total nuclear waste. Most of this spent fuel – over 60,000 tonnes stored across Europe – is kept in cooling pools located within or near the plants that generated it.

Last year’s EU taxonomy of what it considers green energy makes having existing disposal facilities for low-level waste and a detailed plan to have in operation by 2050 a disposal facility for high-level radioactive waste strict requirements for any new nuclear energy projects to qualify as sustainable investments – a definition needed to keep down the huge financing costs of new reactors. In addition, the technical screening criteria for nuclear energy prohibit the export of radioactive waste for disposal in third countries.

While there are many existing disposal facilities for low-level waste dotted around Europe, Finland is the only country currently constructing a permanent disposal facility for used fuel, the deep geological repository (DGR) under construction at Olkiluoto, which is scheduled to be operational around 2025.

From Rosatom with love

Hungary is pretty much stuck with Rosatom, most experts in Hungary believe. They tend to praise the technology and cooperation provided by Russia, though most are aware that political realities have significantly changed since the war in Ukraine. Yet restructuring the current Paks 1 power plant (four VVER440 reactors) and replacing Rosatom as the main contractor for Paks 2 (two VVER1200 reactors) is regarded as a non-starter by most industry experts. If the EU slaps sanctions on Russia’s nuclear industry, a move currently being debated, it would cause major difficulties for Hungary.

Rosatom is Hungary’s sole provider of nuclear fuel, which since the war in Ukraine began has had to be airfreighted to Hungary across Belarusian and Polish airspace. “The fact is that Russian nuclear fuel is both technologically and economically excellent,” Tamas Pazmandi, head of the Radiation Protection Department of the Centre for Energy Research, tells BIRN.

Pazmandi admits that diversification of the nuclear supply chain is probably necessary, but warns it will take longer than many might hope or expect. “Replacing Rosatom with another supplier would require years, due to the complicated process of development, production and licensing. In a best-case scenario, it would be possible around 2026-2027,” he explains.

Others point out that currently no alternative fuel is even available for the VVER440-type reactors, dismissing speculation that Westinghouse or Framatome could offer an immediate alternative to Rosatom.

Even for the Paks 2 project, where construction work has not started, a switch to a different company would mean starting again from scratch. “If you want to buy a Mercedes, you don’t ask Volvo to manufacture it – it is an entirely different car,” Pazmandi says by way of example. “It is the same with nuclear power plants. This is a Russian-designed plant, with all its licenses. On the supplier level there are possibilities for diversification, but the main design and the main contractor cannot be replaced or you will have a completely different project.”

Government-close experts like Otto Toldi from the Climate Research Institute have argued that Rosatom holds another unique advantage: it takes care of the nuclear waste, which none of its rivals can do. Yet this, it turns out, is not actually true: although the original contract between Hungary and the Soviet Union in the 1980s included a paragraph about the repatriation of nuclear waste, that ceased in the mid-1990s on Russia’s request. When Hungary joined the EU in 2004, it came under Euratom regulations, which basically forbids the export of nuclear waste. Spent fuel is now stored for five years in a cooling pond on-site, and then put in a dry storage facility. Last year, an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) team of experts reported that, “Hungary is moving ahead in the development of a deep geological disposal facility for high level waste.”

Media friendly to the government, however, have been speculating that Rosatom could offer in the case of the Paks 2 project to take back some of the spent fuel and recycle it. Remix technology, which was tested in the Balakovo nuclear power plant in southwest Russia, is based on extracting uranium and plutonium from spent fuel and converting it into new fuel rods. The recycled fuel rods could then be used for nuclear fuel, with the remaining waste sent back to Hungary. Western companies can offer similar technology, called MOX fuel (mixed oxide fuel, consisting of plutonium blended with uranium), with France being one of the pioneers in Europe.

Hungary’s only real alternative to Russian-built reactors would be small modular reactors, or SMRs. Though touted as the future of nuclear energy, the technology is still in its infancy: there are only three SMRs operational in the world – in Russia, China and India – with three under construction and another 65 in design. Hungarian Energy Minister Csaba Lantos said recently SMRs are a viable option for the future.

“In an ideal situation, one-third of Hungary’s electricity demand would be covered by a regular nuclear power plant, one-third by SMRs and one-third by renewables,” Pazmandi says.

June 21, 2023 Posted by | EUROPE, politics international, wastes | Leave a comment

The Loving Truth-Teller That Was Daniel Ellsberg

SCHEERPOST, By Kevin Gosztola / The Dissenter, 20 June 23

Daniel Ellsberg, the whistleblower and peace activist who released the Pentagon Papers that exposed the Vietnam War, has died at the age of 92. He was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer on February 17, and doctors gave him three to six months to live.

He was a subscriber to The Dissenter Newsletter. So it is only appropriate that I share some of my personal memories in honor of who he was and because he meant so much to so many people.

Nearly two weeks after his diagnosis, Dan messaged his friends and supporters. That message was republished by various news media outlets as it circulated.

“I feel lucky and grateful that I’ve had a wonderful life far beyond the proverbial three-score years and ten,” Dan wrote. “I feel the very same way about having a few months more to enjoy life with my wife and family, and in which to continue to pursue the urgent goal of working with others to avert nuclear war in Ukraine or Taiwan (or anywhere else).”

Dan mentioned that his cardiologist had given him permission to abandon his salt-free diet, and that his energy level was high. He had done “several interviews and webinars on Ukraine, nuclear weapons, and first amendment issues.” He had two more scheduled interviews.

One of those interviews was with me. In fact, around the same time that Daniel learned that he had cancer, I contacted him to ask if he would help me with the launch of my book, Guilty of Journalism: The Political Case Against Julian Assange. He already had given me a blurb for the book.

Dan graciously agreed to talk with me once again about the Assange case. He even asked for a hard copy so that he could review the book. My publisher Censored Press quickly mailed a copy to him, and we planned to record on Wednesday, March 1.

That became the day that friends and supporters of Dan were notified by him that he had cancer……………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Seeing Dan’s life announcement, and the warm responses to it, made it easier for me to accept that one of the best human beings I have ever known had come to the end of his life.

Dan was not at peace with the world around him. Wars and the threat of nuclear armageddon motivated him to do several more interviews while he could still speak with reporters. But he did feel joy and gratitude having lived his life unapologetically as a peace activist and truth-teller—someone who embodied the idea of the moral imperative……..  https://scheerpost.com/2023/06/20/the-loving-truth-teller-that-was-daniel-ellsberg/
—

June 21, 2023 Posted by | PERSONAL STORIES | Leave a comment

Czech nuclear problem: Where to store toxic waste?

Prague wants to accelerate plans to store nuclear waste underground, but is running into strong local resistance.

Politico, BY TIM GOSLING, JUNE 16, 2023 

PRAGUE — The Czech Republic is betting big on nuclear as part of a shift away from polluting fossil fuels. But it’s struggling to find the answer to a key question: Where will it dump all of that radioactive waste?

The government’s new long-term energy strategy involves adding up to four new reactors to the six aging units that currently provide around 35 percent of the country’s electricity. The government hopes to finalize a tender for the first in 2024. 

“It is vital” for the Czech Republic “or any country expanding its nuclear fleet, to have a comprehensive strategy for managing the radioactive waste,” said Miluš Trefancová, a spokesperson at the ministry of industry and trade.

Spent fuel from its existing reactors is currently stored at the country’s two nuclear power plants, Dukovany and Temelín. But with the country building out its nuclear fleet, it will need to find a new solution.

Prague is now racing to speed up highly ambitious, decades-old plan to build a deep geological repository that would see the high-level detritus buried half a kilometer underground for the next 100,000 years. Finland hopes to launch the world’s first such facility in the next year or two.

Time is running out for the Czechs, though, with new EU rules on what counts as a sustainable investment demanding that new nuclear projects secure a building permit by 2045 and file detailed plans for storing high-level radioactive waste by 2050 in order to qualify for a green label.

Those deadlines have focused minds in Prague, which lobbied hard alongside like-minded EU countries to have nuclear technology included in the EU’s list of sustainable investments.

The Czech government is already struggling to find a financing model to build new nuclear units, the first of which is widely expected to cost significantly more than the original estimate of €6 billion. A failure to qualify such projects as sustainable investments under the EU rules would make them unfeasible.

Building a deep geological repository is “an essential component” of the country’s energy strategy, said Trefancová. Plans are in place “to accelerate the preparation by 15 years,” she added.

Prague vs. the NIMBYs

Selecting a site has proved to be a major headache. Not only do countless geological, hydrological and other tests need to be undertaken, but the government has run into strong resistance from locals, who are wary of hosting the waste facility.

If the technical evaluation process was the only issue, plans could easily be sped up, but the social dimension is trickier, said Lukáš Vondrovic, head of the state’s Administration of Radioactive Waste Repositories.

The government is now favoring locations close to existing nuclear power plants in the hope that local resistance there will be lower. But the four municipalities shortlisted in 2020 are also putting up a fight, accusing the government of poor planning and a lack of communication. They also say their concerns about the likely impact on the environment, house prices or tourism are being ignored.

“The municipalities are not anti-nuclear,” said Hana Konvalinková from the Platform Against Deep Storage NGO, a group that involves three of the four municipalities. “They understand that the waste must be dealt with, but they want full transparency and participation.”

As part of a bill aimed at accelerating the plans, presented to parliament in May, the government pledged to give municipalities a greater say in the process.

But the NGO is highly skeptical of the move, saying the bill is vaguely worded and has too many loopholes, according to Konvalinková. The municipalities want the right to veto any nuclear waste project, pointing to Finland as the example to follow………………………

 the Czech authorities are wary of allowing the localities the option of blocking decisions. Trefancová said the government “cannot guarantee the right to veto.”

Prague appears determined to push ahead: The ministry now says it hopes a site will be identified by the end of the decade. All of the preparatory and construction work would then likely need to be completed by 2050 to meet the EU’s taxonomy requirements.

Trefancová pointed out that Finland’s Onkalo project took 27 years to build, but suggested that Prague continue its push to convince Brussels to offer flexibility on the deadline. https://www.politico.eu/article/czech-republic-nuclear-power-problem-where-store-toxic-waste/

June 20, 2023 Posted by | EUROPE, wastes | Leave a comment

Daniel Ellsberg’s message to us, and to future generations

Bulletin, By Martin E. Hellman | June 16, 2023

Dan Ellsberg was a brave man. In an effort to end the Vietnam War, he risked spending the rest of his life in jail by leaking the Pentagon Papers. In so doing, he changed history—and our knowledge of our own history.

I’ve been privileged to know Dan for almost 40 years, as a friend and as an activist who is trying to save humanity from our self-created nuclear Doomsday Machine. So it was with sadness and a sense of impending loss that I read his March 2 post, where he revealed that he had been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and had been given less than six months to live. When the Bulletin invited me to write this piece about Dan, I had a conversation with him so he could tell us what he would like to say to us and to future generations, upon his death. (He died on June 16 at his home in Kensington, Calif., at age 92.)

What do you think should be done to bring stated and actual policy in line with one another?

Dan’s laughter was sparked by seeing the goal stated so baldly, especially since both Ronald Reagan and Joe Biden had stated that, “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”

Dan then noted that America’s nuclear posture is “directed toward meeting that mission” (that is, winning a nuclear war), even though such a mission is “infeasible and impossible.” He decried the American nuclear establishment for giving “no importance whatever to expressing in public what their actual aims and interests and options are.” He also noted that Russia does roughly the same thing and that this refusal to acknowledge reality has to change.

In The Doomsday Machine, Dan recommends a two-step process to make the world safer (see pages 335-350). First, he notes, current, bloated nuclear arsenals and unrealistic war fighting plans would destroy the planet if used. He then says that:

… you can’t eradicate the knowledge of how to make nuclear weapons and delivery systems. But you can dismantle a Doomsday Machine [that would destroy the planet]. … the existence of one such machine [does not] compel or even create a tangible incentive for a rival or enemy to have one. In fact, having two on alert against each is far more dangerous for each and for the world than if only one existed.

… the current danger of Doomsday could be eliminated without the United States or Russia coming close to total nuclear disarmament, or the abandonment of nuclear deterrence, either unilaterally or mutually (desirable as the latter would be). …

This dismantlement of the Doomsday Machines is not intended as an adequate long-term substitute for more ambitious, necessary goals, including total universal abolition of nuclear weapons. We cannot accept the conclusion that abolition must be ruled out “for the foreseeable future” or put off for generations.

Our subsequent conversation dealt with a variety of aspects of nuclear risk and how to reduce it.

The Pentagon Papers, Vietnam, and nuclear risk……………………………………………………………………….

Nuclear weapons are a Sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads

Marty: Let’s come back to what you would like to say to future generations—or people right now even.

Dan: Right now, that there is, and has been for 70 years, a very significant danger of the end of civilization: the death of most humans on Earth within a year by the effects of nuclear winter and nuclear fallout. And that almost nothing has succeeded in lowering that probability, although there are many things that could be done and should have been done. But perhaps it is not too late to accomplish those things now.

We are living, as John F. Kennedy put it, “under a sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads.” And that thread has not been strengthened in the slightest over the years.

What is happening now in the new Cold War is that the chance of reducing that risk is vanishing, the door is in the process of closing.

Is it already too late? We don’t know. But I choose to act, and I urge others to act as if it’s not too late. And I can be very specific on what that would mean.

We need coordination of action that also applies to climate change. It is hard to imagine a way of reducing the global emissions of CO2 that does not involve coordinated action between the major emitters like the US, China, India, Russia, and Europe.

Coordinated action of a kind that seems almost impossible after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, exploited as that has been by the West to reintroduce a Cold War in which the aims of the adversary are magnified, in which military solutions are looked for. So the chance of lowering the arms budget has virtually disappeared. But, even more importantly, the chance of doing any of the things that would lower the risk of nuclear winter has been almost eliminated at this point.

For over half a century, the existence on both sides of vulnerable land-based ICBMs[5] has been the hair trigger to the Doomsday Machine. They pose a use-it-or-lose-it mentality which encourages each side to launch its missiles on ambiguous warning, lest they be destroyed—in order to attack the ICBMs of the other side.

Coordinated action of a kind that seems almost impossible after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, exploited as that has been by the West to reintroduce a Cold War in which the aims of the adversary are magnified, in which military solutions are looked for. So the chance of lowering the arms budget has virtually disappeared. But, even more importantly, the chance of doing any of the things that would lower the risk of nuclear winter has been almost eliminated at this point.

For over half a century, the existence on both sides of vulnerable land-based ICBMs[5] has been the hair trigger to the Doomsday Machine. They pose a use-it-or-lose-it mentality which encourages each side to launch its missiles on ambiguous warning, lest they be destroyed—in order to attack the ICBMs of the other side.

The numbers [of nuclear warheads] per se don’t matter so much, except for reducing them down to a level that could not produce Doomsday, could not produce omnicide. The potential for that catastrophe has existed for decades and can be eliminated without giving up deterrence.

Does any nation have the right to threaten to kill billions of people? I would say they don’t, and they cannot possibly justify it by a need to deter nuclear attack on themselves, since much smaller arsenals would serve that purpose.

But it gets very tricky when you add that little thing of deterring a nuclear attack against your allies. That produces a very strong incentive to make it look as though you believe you could lower the damage to your own nation, and God knows we have acted as though we believe that hoax since the ’50s or ’60s.

When it comes to that, it’s a total license, as McNamara found, to build a first-strike weapon, to try and make it credible that you’ll respond to an attack on your ally by initiating nuclear war against a nuclear weapon state. And there’s no limit to what you can spend under that crazy assumption.

In other words, it’s been a madman threat from the very beginning……………………….. How do you move people from a totally insane plan to which they’re committed? ……………….. How do you persuade them away from a plan that is batshit crazy?

The risk of a nuclear war

,………………………………………………………….. My guess is that there is not a high likelihood of nuclear war in the current stalemate in Ukraine, so long as Putin is not confronted with losing Crimea or all of the Donbas. But if American troops or Polish troops or German troops were to maintain those tanks and planes that are being given to Ukraine by the West, or to man them, that would be a very significant change, because it could confront Russia with actually losing the Donbas or Crimea. And I think, in those circumstances, Putin would be strongly tempted, as we would be in similar circumstances, to break through that with “small” nuclear weapons in an effort to bring people to their senses and say, “This can’t go on. You’ve got to negotiate at our terms.” Putin’s use of nuclear weapons in that kind of scenario could succeed, but probably would not.

And another thing that I’ve learned, Marty, and that I think is not sufficiently appreciated, is that men in power are willing to risk world annihilation rather than to accept a short-term loss. And it’s not a question of realism or unrealism, it’s a willingness to gamble. They know it’s not likely to succeed, but that doesn’t mean they won’t do it, because there is a chance that it may succeed, which is enough to get them to gamble the world.

Our presidents have that power every hour of every day.

Dan’s father’s awakening………………………………………………………….

The need for action: a fool’s errand?

Dan: People just don’t realize how big this is. What do they do? They don’t do anything one way or the other. The death of humanity is not something that moves them to vote. They act as if there is no chance to make any difference. As if it’s impossible to change things.

Yet, we all thought the Berlin Wall coming down was impossible. Nelson Mandela becoming president of South Africa without a violent revolution seemed impossible.

In the same way, I currently cannot see any chance of getting rid of ICBMs, or of no-first-use. But miracles do happen. I choose to act as if it makes a difference. And it’s just a choice. I can’t defend that. It’s just a better way to live. It’s the way I choose to live. We can work to prevent the cataclysm.

And I think one aspect of that is, 12 months into this Ukraine war, suggesting anything that involves a chance to end it is seen as being on the wrong side. Yet going on as we have has risks vastly disproportionate to any advantage that would be gained in another 12 months of stalemate. The latest leaks indicate exactly what The Pentagon Papers showed: that the people inside perceive themselves as in a stalemate for at least the next 12 months. So what will the effort to break through the stalemate in the 12 months be likely to accomplish? Very little. And what’s the possible downside? The end of everything, essentially.

And likewise, on Taiwan. It’s outrageous. We are risking everything over the issue of the control of Taiwan. When I say risking everything, I mean we are risking all-out nuclear war. And would people, a thousand years ago, have taken such a risk? I think if they could have, they would have. So we’re not worse than people were. We just have a lot more at stake. This is not a species to be trusted with nuclear weapons.

Concluding the interview

Marty: In your email to me, you said, “Other than dying, I’m okay.” I like your humor.

Dan: Well, we’re all dying. I’m in very good shape. For my best friends, I would not wish better than to have the last month I’m having with my wife and my friends like you.

Editor’s note: A 2018 Bulletin interview with Daniel Ellsberg about his book, The Doomsday Machine, can be found here.

Notes……………………………………………………………………………………. https://thebulletin.org/2023/06/daniel-ellsbergs-message-to-us-and-to-future-generations/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=MondayNewsletter06192023&utm_content=NuclearRisk_DanielEllsberg_06162023

June 20, 2023 Posted by | PERSONAL STORIES, Reference, weapons and war | 2 Comments

Workers, residents, at US site that made Nagasaki A-bomb’s plutonium, are still suffering

after he and a local journalist conducted a survey on surrounding farms in 1985, Bailie began to have doubts. Nearly all the families living nearby suffered from cancer, birth defects, or thyroid disease, he says — health issues that could be attributed to radiation exposure. This led to the area being coined “the death mile” by some journalists at the time.

documents that were declassified in the late 1980s showed that Hanford had contaminated the surrounding farmland, air, farm animals, and crops with unsafe levels of radiation for years.

June 18, 2023 , Mainichi, Japan

HANFORD, Washington (Kyodo) — As cleanup efforts continue in Washington state at a decommissioned U.S. nuclear facility that played a crucial role in the country’s acquisition of the atom bomb in World War II, questions linger over whether the site has caused serious health issues for workers and local residents.

Construction began on the facility, known as the Hanford site, eighty years ago in 1943 and involved the building of the world’s first large-scale nuclear reactor.

Through the Manhattan Project, a U.S. government research and development program for building nuclear weapons, the site’s B reactor, erected on a 580-square-mile stretch of land next to the Columbia River in south-central Washington, produced the nuclear material for one of the only two atomic bombs ever used in an armed conflict.

Codenamed “Fat Man,” the device was detonated over the city of Nagasaki in southwestern Japan on Aug. 9, 1945, effectively ending Japan’s involvement in the conflict.

The 6.2 kilograms of plutonium contained in the nuclear device released energy equivalent to 21 kilotons of TNT, taking the lives of tens of thousands of innocent people while subjecting the surrounding area to deadly radiation, killing countless more.

But citizens of Nagasaki may not be the only victims of Hanford’s plutonium production. During its decades of operation, U.S. residents living near and mainly downwind of the complex experienced severe health effects that they believe stem from the site’s activities.

One such resident is Tom Bailie, 76, who grew up and still resides just miles downwind from Hanford in a farming community.

Reflecting on his upbringing, Bailie recalled during an interview in April that no one ever thought the site at Hanford would cause harm to “patriotic American citizens.”

But, after he and a local journalist conducted a survey on surrounding farms in 1985, Bailie began to have doubts. Nearly all the families living nearby suffered from cancer, birth defects, or thyroid disease, he says — health issues that could be attributed to radiation exposure. This led to the area being coined “the death mile” by some journalists at the time.

Bailie said that his wife, father, and three uncles all had cancer before passing away, while his two sisters also have cancer and take thyroid medicine. The year before Bailie was born, his mother had a stillbirth. Bailie himself was born with birth defects and was on an iron lung when he was 4 years old. He now requires medication for a thyroid problem.

Bailie vividly remembers encounters with “men in space suits,” equipped with dosimeters to measure radiation levels, walking on his farm. The men would collect soil samples and even ask the farmers to send the heads and feet of ducks and rabbits they would kill while hunting to Hanford for analysis.

When he began speaking out about the hardships and health problems that he attributed to the Hanford site, many people from the community dismissed him as “nuts” or “crazy.” Some even mockingly referred to him as the “glow-in-the-dark farmer.”

But documents that were declassified in the late 1980s showed that Hanford had contaminated the surrounding farmland, air, farm animals, and crops with unsafe levels of radiation for years…………………….

Before being decommissioned in 1989, Hanford produced around 74 tons of plutonium, nearly two-thirds of all the plutonium produced for government purposes in the United States. One of the consequences of the site’s work was massive amounts of contamination and dangerous leftover byproducts, most of which remain on the site today.

Currently, 177 underground tanks containing 56 million gallons of highly radioactive waste, contaminated buildings, and cocooned reactors still exist there, alongside multiple other buried waste sites.

The same year Hanford was decommissioned, cleanup efforts began for dealing with the dangerous byproducts left over from the production of plutonium. Efforts to clean the area of waste are anticipated to be astronomically costly and time-consuming.

According to Hanford’s latest estimate, released in 2022, the total cost of the cleanup is projected to range from $319.6 billion to $660 billion, with a completion date not expected until at least fiscal 2078.

But Tom Carpenter, 66, former head of Hanford Challenge, a nonprofit organization dedicated to ensuring the responsible and safe clearing of the Hanford site, argues that using the word “cleanup” is misleading.

Carpenter says complete eradication of contamination from thousands of acres is impossible, and not the goal of the cleanup process. He asserts that the best that can be achieved at Hanford is “the mitigation of some risks.”

Hanford Challenge’s primary goal, he says, is to ensure authorities prioritize a swift cleanup and make sure that no corners are cut, nor workers put in unnecessary danger. This includes fighting for those who are currently working on the site.

Many workers involved in the cleanup of the Hanford site continue to be exposed to toxic chemicals, vapors, and radioactive materials, resulting in debilitating health conditions.

A recent survey of the workers by Washington state revealed more than 50 percent of them had been exposed to radioactive or toxic chemicals. Workers exposed to these dangerous materials and vapors have developed beryllium disease, cancers, organ damage, and occupational dementia.

Until recently, these workers had to prove that their health issues were directly caused by their work at the Hanford site to receive assistance with their medical expenses.

According to former worker and Hanford Challenge director Jim Millbauer, 65, proving this was extremely difficult, costly, time-consuming, and often fruitless, as most occupational illness claims were rejected.

But a recent law has changed this, presuming that any health effects suffered by workers who spend just eight hours working at Hanford are caused by working at the facility, making it easier for sick workers to get their treatment paid for. https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20230616/p2g/00m/0in/069000c

June 20, 2023 Posted by | employment, health, USA | Leave a comment

Putin warns NATO over being drawn into Ukraine war

By Zahid Mahmood, CNN, June 17, 2023

Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned there is a “serious danger” of NATO being drawn further into the Ukraine war if members of the alliance continue to supply military weaponry to Kyiv.

“NATO, of course, is being drawn into the war in Ukraine, what are we talking here,” Putin said at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum on Friday.

“The supplies of heavy military weaponry to Ukraine are ongoing, they are now looking into giving Ukraine the jets.”

The comment appeared to be a reference to the F-16 fighter jets some members of the NATO alliance are making plans to supply Ukraine with.

NATO, or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, was formed in the aftermath of World War II to defend Western nations from the Soviet Union [despite USSR being their ally in WW2 !]and the alliance contains a mutual defense clause where an attack on any one member is considered an attack on all. While Ukraine is not a member of NATO, some NATO members have been supplying Kyiv with tanks, armored vehicles and other weaponry – prompting threats of retaliation from Russia.

German Leopard 2 tanks, British Challenger 2 tanks and American Bradley and Stryker vehicles are among the Western equipment that has been sent to Ukraine.

In late April, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said that NATO allies and partners had delivered more than 1,500 vehicles and 230 tanks to the country.

During his speech in St. Petersburg, Putin said Russia had destroyed tanks “including Leopards” at the front lines.

“And if they are based abroad, but used in fighting we’ll see how to hit them, and where we can hit those means that are used against us in fighting,” Putin said.

“This is a serious danger of further drawing NATO into this military conflict,” he added………………………….. https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/17/europe/nato-danger-ukraine-war-putin-intl-hnk/index.html

June 20, 2023 Posted by | politics international, Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

“Radioactive” is compelling viewing

“Radioactive” is compelling viewing

New film spotlights women’s experiences with the Three Mile Island nuclear accident

By Karl Grossman

Radioactive: The Women of Three Mile Island is the title of a newly-released documentary feature film directed, written and produced by award-winning filmmaker Heidi Hutner, a professor of environmental humanities at Stony Brook University, a “flagship” school of the State University of New York.

With greatly compelling facts and interviews, she and her also highly talented production team have put together a masterpiece of a documentary film.

It connects the proverbial dots of the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear plant disaster—doing so brilliantly.

The documentary has already received many film awards and has had a screening in recent months in New York City—winning the “Audience Award for Best Documentary” at the Dances With Films Festival—and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Sarasota, Florida; Dubuque, Iowa; Long Island, New York; First Frame International Film Festival in New York City; the Environmental Film Festival in Washington D.C., and is soon the featured film at Kat Kramer’s #SHEROESForChange Film Festival in Los Angeles and the Cinequest Film Festival in San Jose, California, as well as the Uranium Film Festival in Rio de Janeiro in Brazil. And there will be tours across the U.S.

Resident after resident of the area around Three Mile Island is interviewed and tells of widespread cancer that has ensued in the years that have followed the accident—a cancer rate far beyond what would be normal. Accounts shared in the documentary are heartbreaking.

A whistleblower who had worked at the nuclear plant tells Hutner of the deliberate and comprehensive attempt by General Public Utilities, which owned TMI, to cover up the gravity of the accident and its radioactive releases, especially of cancer-causing Iodine-131 and Xenon 133.

An attorney, Lynne Bernabei, involved in litigation in the wake of the accident, says the Three Mile Island “cover-up was one of the biggest cover-ups in history.” Meanwhile, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission which is “supposed to protect the public” has then and since been just “interested in is promoting the [nuclear] industry. This is corrupt,” says attorney Joanne Doroshow, now a professor at New York Law School and director of the Center for Justice & Democracy. Many examples of this are presented.

The documentary’s focus on women includes women being far more at risk to the effects of radioactivity than men. Mary Olson, a biologist, founder, and director of the Gender & Radiation Impact Project, says in the film that those setting radiation standards in the U.S. from the onset of nuclear technology in 1942, based impacts on a “25 to 30 years-old” male “defined as Caucasian.” She said, “It has come to be known as the ‘Reference Man.” However, Olson cites research findings that “radiation is 10 times more harmful to young females” and “50 percent more harmful to a “comparable female” than it is to “Reference Man” who is “more resistant” to radioactivity than a woman.

There’s the scientist Dr. Aaron Datesman, who is now pursuing a major chromosomal study regarding the impact of the disaster on the health of people in the area and how people have been harmed despite the denials of the nuclear industry. This study is based on his recent ground-breaking work, “Radiological Shot Noise,” in Nature.

And more and more…………………………………………………………………………. more https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2023/06/18/radioactive-is-compelling-viewing/—

June 20, 2023 Posted by | history, incidents, media | Leave a comment

More trouble at Vogtle

June 19, 2023  https://beyondnuclear.org/more-trouble-at-vogtle/

The nuclear drumbeaters ignore stories like this latest setback out of Georgia because the inconvenient truth of nuclear power is that it is NOT reliable, is far too slow and expensive and of course comes with a myriad of safety problems and no solution to the radioactive waste it generates.

The only US flagship for new reactors is the Vogtle 3 and 4 project in Georgia, which continues to stutter and stumble as it tries to bring two AP 1000 reactors to life, already heralded as a “milestone” with neither reactor yet on line.

Vogtle 3 has already had several setbacks delaying its commercial operation. The most recent is a problem in the hydrogen system that is used to cool its main electrical generator, delaying operations until July (barring other problems that could still arise.)

The twin reactor project is already 16 years in the making and now at least $20 billion over budget. Despite all this and the nuclear poster child for risk that is the 6-reactor Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine, embroiled in a war, the pro-nuclear propaganda machine rolls blindly on.

 https://www.wabe.org/georgia-power-says-vogtle-nuclear-reactor-delayed-another-month-by-turbine-problem/

“……………………………………In Georgia, almost every electric customer will pay for Vogtle. Georgia Power’s 2.7 million customers are already paying part of the financing cost and elected public service commissioners have approved a monthly rate increase of $3.78 a month for residential customers as soon as the third unit begins generating power.

A July operation date means that increase would hit bills in August, two months after residential customers see a $16-a-month increase to pay for higher fuel costs. Georgia Power also raised rates by 2.5% in January after commissioners approved a separate three-year rate plan. Increases of 4.5% will follow in 2024 and 2025 under that plan.

Commissioners will decide later who pays for the remainder of the costs of Vogtle, including the fourth reactor.

June 20, 2023 Posted by | business and costs, USA | 1 Comment

Japan urged to halt release of toxic water

By Xu Weiwei in Hong Kong and Karl Wilson in Sydney, China Daily : 2023-06-19 

Impact of Fukushima nuclear plant discharge plan seen as catastrophic

Environmental and social experts from across Asia have called on Japan to refrain from contaminating the sea with radioactive wastewater after it began test running the equipment to discharge toxic water from a crippled nuclear power plant into the Pacific.

The nuclear-contaminated wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant will contain traces of tritium, a radioactive isotope, and possibly other radioactive traces such as carbon-14, scientists said.

“Nobody wants to dump (radioactive substances) into the ocean,” said David Krofcheck, senior lecturer in the faculty of science at the University of Auckland in New Zealand.

“We need to be aware of the difference between tritium and carbon-14, on one hand, and the radioactive fission products which tend to remain in the human body,” he said, adding that tritium could still enter the food chain throughout its buildup in underwater plants.

“This organically bound tritium still decays with a half-life of 12.3 years, and it stays in the human body for about 10 days, the biological half-life, before excretion.”

Instead of pumping the wastewater into the sea, Japan can dispose of it safely, Krofcheck said, offering an alternative for managing the Fukushima water: to hold it on site in an ever “growing number of water tanks”.


“If the water is properly filtered to leave only tritium and carbon-14, the natural decay of tritium can be used to reduce its radioactivity.

“Since the radioactive half-life of tritium is 12.3 years, holding the water in tanks for seven half-lives would reduce the tritium content to less than 1 percent of its current value.”

This option still leaves the carbon-14 that would still roughly have the same radioactivity because of its 5,730-year half-life, he said.

The potential impact of releasing treated radioactive water from the Fukushima plant into the ocean remains a subject of contention and concern among stakeholders, said Anjal Prakash, clinical associate professor (research) and research director of the Bharti Institute of Public Policy at the Indian School of Business in Hyderabad.

“The ocean release decision itself has sparked opposition, leading to ongoing debates on alternative water management strategies. The decision-making process weighs safety, public perception, regulations and potential impacts on industries and trade.”

While the Japanese government and the Tokyo Electric Power Company, operator of the crippled plant, say there is minimal risk, differing opinions persist, Prakash said, adding that factors such as ocean currents, distance, dilution and treatment efficacy will determine the impact on neighboring areas, including South Asia, Pacific Island countries, Australia, New Zealand and the rest of the world.

Long-term effects and bioaccumulation concerns remain, he said. “Evaluating the precise impact is complex, necessitating considerations of various factors and ongoing scientific research.”

Despite continuing opposition from domestic experts, civic groups and fishery organizations, Japan has been rushing to dump the nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean, which has also spurred protests from neighboring countries and communities within the Pacific Islands.

Firm opposition

In April the Fijian government reaffirmed its opposition to Japan’s plan to discharge nuclear-contaminated wastewater into the Pacific Ocean.

Fiji’s Deputy Prime Minister Manoa Kamikamica said earlier that the Pacific Ocean should not be seen as an easy and convenient dumping ground for unwanted and dangerous materials and waste that larger countries produce but do not want to use in their own ecosystem, local media reported.

“The social and economic impact of this irresponsible behavior is catastrophic, particularly on our vulnerable communities,” he said.

Environmental groups have argued that the move sets a bad precedent and poses a serious danger to Pacific communities that depend on the ocean for their livelihoods…………….

Many people are asking why, if the wastewater treated by Japan’s Advanced Liquid Processing System is so safe, Japanese are not using such water for alternative purposes, in manufacturing and agriculture for instance.

According to a report issued by Tokyo Electric Power Company on June 5, the radioactive elements in the marine fish caught in the harbor of the Fukushima plant far exceed safety levels for human consumption. In particular, the content of cesium-137, a radioactive element and a common byproduct in nuclear reactors, is said to be 180 times that of the standard maximum stipulated in Japan’s food safety law.

Kalinga Seneviratne, a visiting lecturer at the University of the South Pacific in Fiji, said: “The contamination will affect the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty (adopted in 1986) areas as well when it eventually flows there. Also, since fish stocks are migratory, contaminated fish could be caught within the treaty area.”…………………………. https://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202306/19/WS648f8421a31033ad3f7bce66.html

June 20, 2023 Posted by | ASIA, oceans, politics | 1 Comment

“Nuclear is CLEAN” Trumpets Westinghouse’s Uranium Fuel in Cumbrian Press Adverts

“Nuclear is CLEAN” Trumpets Westinghouse’s Uranium Fuel in Cumbrian Press Adverts

 https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2023/06/18/nuclear-is-clean-trumpets-westinghouses-uranium-fuel-in-cumbrian-press-adverts/

Name: Anita Stirzaker Ad type:Brand/product: Westinghouse Electric Company

Your complaint:
Advert in the Whitehaven News (and other regional papers?) for Westinghouse “Shaping Tomorrow’s Energy to deliver a carbon-free future in the UK. Westinghouse is shaping the future of clean energy in the UK.”

The advert talks about the AP1000 “ready for deployment in the UK” – this is not the case – the AP1000 has not been given licence approval for any sites in the UK as far as I know and there are no operational AP1000 reactors anywhere in Europe as far as I know. The AP1000 would not be “carbon free” as the uranium fuel requires fossil fuel at every stage from mining to looking after the wastes. The Westinghouse plant at Springfields itself uses enormous amounts of gas to manufacture uranium fuel and has I believe its own dedicated gas pipeline into the site. Sellafield is where the fuel from Springfields ends up and this has its own gas plant on site called Fellside. Westinghouse itself in its 2022 Sustainability report (https://www.westinghousenuclear.com/Portals/0/about/Westinghouse%202023%20ESG%20Report.pdf) says it has a “net-zero” carbon emissions target by 2050″ note this is the more slippery accounting of “net-zero” which is definitely not “carbon free” as the advert in the Whitehaven News claims.

The advert claims that Westinghouse is shaping “clean energy”. this is not the case – the Springfields site itself uses lots of freshwater in all its processes – far more I believe than the fracking industry would have done in the Preston area. The fresh water use is enormous especially if the leaching of uranium fuel from the grounds of foreign countries is included along with cooling the hot nuclear wastes at Sellafield.

The nuclear industry cannot legitimately claim to be clean while radioactive and chemical emissions are routinely dumped to the environment. Then there is the possibility of catastrophic accident. What other industries have such large Emergency Zones in the case of accident ? At the lancaster canal alongside the Springfields plant there are Westinghouse notices saying “if you hear a loud, continous siren (like an air-raid siren) you should leave this area as quickly as possible”.

There is another conflicting notice saying “Go inside your boat and stay inside until instructed otherwise. Close all windows and doors. Switch off all heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems. Tune to the local radio station and listen for announcements telling you what to do.”

That is not a “clean” industry!

From Springfields Westinghouse site there are a cocktail of radioactive an chemical wastes going into the landfill at Clifton Marsh – the latest plan is to open an incineration plant on the Westinghouse Springfield site to take in nuclear waste (including intermediate nuclear wastes) from Europe and burn it there.

That is not a “clean” industry.

If Shell has been taken to task for its “clean” claims then the nuclear industry cannot be allowed to get away with this greenwashing of its fossil fuel use alongside its radioactive and chemical emissions to land, rivers,sea and air. The nuclear industry is not fully insured for good reason – it is uninsurable.

June 20, 2023 Posted by | spinbuster, UK | Leave a comment

Zelensky admits that there was an ongoing civil war prior to the Russian invasion, claims Russia will attack a NATO member

Zelensky Slams Trump for Saying He Would End the War in Ukraine

The Ukrainian leader admitted that there was an ongoing civil war prior to the Russian invasion.

By Kyle Anzalone / Antiwar June 18, 2023

In an interview with NBC News, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky attacked former President Donald Trump’s pledge to end the war. He argued that if Kiev does not defeat Moscow, Russia will attack a NATO member state and force the US into a direct conflict.

Zelensky was asked about Trump’s claim he would immediately engage the Kremlin in talks and bring the war to a negotiated settlement. “Are they ready to start a war to send their children? Are they ready to die?” he said in the interview that was published on Thursday. “If Russia occupies Ukraine, they will move on to the Baltic countries, to Poland, to any NATO country, and in that particular case the U.S. will have to choose between dismantling NATO or fighting.”

Kiev and hawks in Washington have asserted that Ukraine is a bulwark, protecting members of NATO from Moscow’s expansionist ambitions. However, there is no evidence that the Kremlin eyes attacking another country. Russian President Vladimir Putin views Ukraine as a unique security threat to his county and says seizing territory protects Moscow against the expanding NATO alliance.

Ukraine hopes to be added as a member of the alliance once the war is over. “We need an invitation, and it needs to be clear that after this war, if we are ready, and if the Ukraine army is ready to NATO standards, then after the war we will be invited to join.” Zelensky continued, “It’s very important to hear the truth and not tell us lies.”

In 2008, Ukraine was told it would one day receive full NATO membership. At the time, Moscow denounced the proposal, saying it violated red lines and, from the Russian perspective, would create a significant security threat.

Despite the Russian objections, NATO maintains its doors are open to new members, but Ukraine does not currently meet the requirements. As Kiev is currently at war with Moscow, admitting Ukraine into the alliance will put NATO in direct confrontation with Russia.

At times, Kiev appears to be frustrated with NATO refusing to make a formal commitment to Ukraine. Zelensky is threatening to sit out a coming meeting of the North Atlantic alliance in July because Ukraine will not receive a pledge to become a member at the end of the war.

Zelensky went on to slam Trump, claiming he was unable to end the war in Ukraine while he was in office. “Why didn’t he do that earlier? He was president when the war was going on here,” he explained. “I think he couldn’t do that. I think there are no people today in the world who could just have a word with Putin and end the war.”

The statement appears to be an admission from Zelensky that the war in Ukraine began before the Russian invasion in 2022. Prior to the Russian invasion, Ukraine was embroiled in an eight-year-long civil war. Washington and NATO justify their support for Kiev by saying the Russian invasion was “unprovoked.”

The Minsk Accords were agreed to by Ukraine, Russia, Germany and France with the intention of ending the civil war. However, Zelensky was unable to get neo-nazi paramilitaries fighting for Ukraine to comply with the agreement. In the days before the Russian invasion, there was a surge in fighting between Ukrainian forces and rebels in the Donbas region.

June 20, 2023 Posted by | politics international, Ukraine | 3 Comments

Global biodiversity crisis

Nature is in crisis. Soils are being depleted faster than they can
regenerate, wildlife populations have crashed by two thirds in 50 years,
bird species are vanishing, a quarter of all plant and animal species are
dying out and their rate of disappearance is accelerating.

We are living through the sixth mass extinction in the planet’s history. For the first
time we are the cause. It’s not a distant threat but an immediate one. We
have had our free lunch building, poisoning, extracting, dredging,
harvesting, rapaciously demanding all the natural world can offer us. We
are treating the planet’s life as an infinitely exploitable, adaptable
resource. It isn’t. We are killing the web of growing things on which our
own survival depends.

Times 16th June 2023

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a-thousand-little-acts-can-help-save-nature-0lcflzwgf

June 20, 2023 Posted by | environment | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »