French Polynesia’s anti-nuclear organisation Association 193 criticises France for downplaying impact of tests

Walter Zweifel, RNZ Pacific Reporter walter.zweifel@rnz.co.nz https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/490142/anti-nuclear-group-criticises-france-for-downplaying-impact-of-tests 17 May 23
French Polynesia’s anti-nuclear organisation Association 193 has criticised the latest French report about the impact of the French nuclear weapons tests.
France’s National Institute of Health and Medical Research evaluated additional declassified data from the tests at Mururoa and found that radiation from them had a minimal role in causing thyroid cancer.
The Association’s president, Father Auguste Uebe-Carlson, told the AFP news agency there was a tendency by the French state and the Institute to minimise the impact of the nuclear fallout.
He said the French Committee for the Compensation of Victims of Nuclear Tests refused to recognise the files of victims born after 1974, when the military carried out its last atmospheric test.
But Uebe-Carlson said there was an argument to also recognise cancer sufferers born since 1974.
According to Uebe-Carlson, the Institute would one day have to explain why there were so many cancers in French Polynesia.
He has repeatedly accused France of refusing to recognise the impact of the tests, instead using propaganda to say they were clean or a thing of the past.
He said health problems were now being attributed to poor diet and lifestyle choices.
Three years ago he said he carried out survey in Mangareva, which is close to the former weapons test sites, and found that from 1966 onward all families reported cases of still-born babies.
Call for release of scientific data
The president of the test veterans’ organisation Moruroa e tatou said the release of the scientific data was not enough.
Hiro Tefaarere told La Premiere it was “absolutely necessary” for his organisation to get from the French state the register of the cancer patients and cancer deaths during the testing period.
He said it was “imperative” that these files be given to Moruroa e tatou.
Tefaarere said this research, if the state agrees to release it, would give his organisation the essential elements to consolidate the complaints which have been filed.
President to take report into account
An assembly member Hinamoeura Cross, who suffers from leukemia, said she was outraged that reports were still being published downplaying the tests’ effects.
The new president, Moetai Brotherson, said he would take the latest report into account when he enters into discussions with the French government.
French Polynesia has for years been trying to get France to reimburse it for outlays for cancer sufferers.
Its social security agency CPS said since 1995 it had spent almost $US1 billion to treat 10,000 people suffering from cancer as the result of radiation from the tests.
In 2010, Paris recognised for the first time that the tests had had an impact on the environment and health, paving the way for compensation.
Between 1966 and 1996, France carried out almost 200 tests in the South Pacific, involving more than 100,000 military and civilian personnel.
Paris has refused to apologise or the tests, but President Emmanel Macron said France owed ‘a debt’ to French Polynesia’s people.
Former world leaders urge G7 to get nuclear arms control back on track
Letter calls on US and Russia to isolate weapons agreements from other disputes
Patrick Wintour Diplomatic editor 18 May 23 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/17/former-world-leaders-urge-g7-to-get-nuclear-arms-control-back-on-track
A global array of former world leaders and defence ministers, nuclear experts and diplomats have called on the leaders of G7 countries at their meeting in Hiroshima, Japan, not to let progress on nuclear arms control continue to be the victim of growing geopolitical conflict, including the conflict between the west and Russia over Ukraine.
The Japanese prime minister, Fumio Kishida, who is from Hiroshima, chose the G7 venue to lend seriousness to his personal call to world leaders to at least agree a roadmap to resume nuclear arms control talks.
In February, Russia pulled out of the 2010 New Start treaty, a pact that sets limits on the deployed strategic nuclear arsenals of the world’s two largest nuclear powers, although Moscow said it would nevertheless abide by the limits for the moment.
Kishida intends to take world leaders arriving this week for the summit to the harrowing Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, where they will see graphic depictions of the US attack in 1945.
An open letter signed by six former heads of state, 20 cabinet-level ministers and experts from 50 different countries including China, Russia and the US lends momentum to Kishida’s G7 theme by saying the world needs more nuclear arms control, not less.
The letter says: “United States-Russia strategic stability talks are in limbo and the New Start treaty, which has played an indispensable role in ensuring reciprocal security, is now in question.
“As the only existing nuclear arms control agreement between the United States and Russia, the world’s two largest nuclear-armed countries, the treaty’s collapse or expiration without a replacement would threaten a destabilising arms race.”
Worsening big-power competition is making nuclear war more likely, the leaders warn, and “failure to agree on a new nuclear arms control framework to replace New Start before it expires in February 2026 would also make it more difficult to bring China, France and the United Kingdom into multilateral arms control, as all three are not ready to consider limits on their nuclear arsenals until the United States and Russia bring down their nuclear stockpiles”.
The letter was organised by the European Leadership Network and Asia-Pacific Leadership Network and signed by former world leaders, including Ernesto Zedillo, the former president of Mexico, Helen Clark, the former prime minister of New Zealand and Ingvar Carlsson, the former prime minister of Sweden.
In Russia, the signatories include Alexei Arbatov, the director of the International Security Center at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations; Pavel Palazhchenko, the head of the international centre at the Gorbachev Foundation, and Sergey Rogov, who until March last year, was a member of the scientific council of the national security council and a former adviser to the Duma international affairs committee.
One of the most prominent signatories in China is Prof Chen Dongxiao, the president of Shanghai Institutes for International Studies. China has been clear in warning Russia not to use nuclear weapons in the Ukraine conflict, a threat that has repeatedly been made by Moscow, including by transferring nuclear weapons to Belarus.
UK signatories include the former head of MI6 John Scarlett, the former foreign secretaries Malcolm Rifkind and David Owen, as well as the former defence secretaries Des Browne and Tom King.
The 256 signatories acknowledge they all have different views about geopolitical competition but say “we all agree that it is long past time to start prioritising nuclear arms control and taking unilateral, bilateral and multilateral actions”.
The letter urges Russia and the US to compartmentalise nuclear arms control and isolate it from other disputes by confirming that they will not exceed the New Start limits on deployed nuclear forces, which thus far have not been violated, as well as agreeing to remove the obstacles to full implementation of their New Start obligations.
It also calls for the resumption of the work of the Bilateral Consultative Commission, the body that agrees details of US and Russian inspections of each others’ military sites under the terms of the New Start treaty. The body has not met for nearly two years.
France holds up EU energy agreement over nuclear power

Paris withdraws support for renewable targets law as it seeks inclusion of hydrogen produced with atomic power
Ft.com Alice Hancock in Brussels and Sarah White in Paris 17 May 23
France is leading a coalition of countries holding up agreement on EU-wide targets for renewable energy, as it makes a fresh drive for better treatment of its nuclear industry. The move comes amid a broader pushback against the bloc’s climate agenda as the realities of what is required for the green transition become increasingly apparent. The EU’s 27 member states were due to agree an overall target of 42.5 per cent of renewable power in the bloc’s energy mix by 2030 on Wednesday.
But France, which relies on nuclear power for the majority of its electricity, signalled that it would not support the text, citing concerns that “low-carbon” hydrogen generated with electricity from atomic power plants would not be counted as part of the targets.
“It must be possible for nuclear-derived electricity to coexist with renewable electricity without discrimination,” a French diplomat said. The vote, which was pulled from the agenda of an ambassadors’ meeting at 11.30pm on Tuesday night, would have paved the way for the targets to become EU law following their approval in the European parliament.
……………………….. Other member states said that having the bloc’s two largest countries push for last-minute changes to green legislation set a dangerous precedent for the EU’s policymaking process and could affect its path to achieving an overall target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 55 per cent by 2030 compared with 1990 levels.
The EU commission said it remained committed to a “rapid rollout” of renewable energy as a critical element of the bloc’s goal to reach zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and to reduce its dependence on Russian fuels. “The new rules need to be adopted and implemented as swiftly as possible.”……………………………
Six pro-nuclear countries, including the Czech Republic, Bulgaria and Hungary, followed Paris’s lead on Wednesday and withheld support for the directive. Meanwhile, anti-nuclear governments, including in Germany and Austria, have been strongly opposed to recognising nuclear power as a clean fuel. Earlier this week, Paris convened a meeting of ministers from 14 countries with nuclear energy capacity along with the EU’s energy commissioner, Kadri Simson……………………………………………. https://www.ft.com/content/b0d3e7e3-a8ae-457b-9482-3282d32973be
Siting new nuclear power stations — an unsustainable geography

https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/siting-new-nuclear-power-stations-an-unsustainable-geography/ 16 May 23 ‘The government’s ambition to achieve energy and environmental security by ramping up the development of nuclear power stations faces a significant obstacle — the lack of sites on which to build them.
As Andrew Blowers points out in the latest issue of Town & Country Planning, the Journal of the Town and Country Planning Association, the need for suitable and acceptable sites on which to deploy a variety of new nuclear power stations, ranging from big GW (gigawatt) behemoths to Small (or not so small) Modular Reactors (SMRs), is a pressing, although much neglected issue.
There is a presumption in government and the nuclear industry that sites in suitable locations will be available and ready for development. But, in reality there are only a handful of sites, eight to be precise, deemed ‘potentially suitable’ in the government’s outdated and unrevised National Policy Statement of 2011. And only one of these, Hinkley Point, has secured all the necessary planning and environmental permits and regulatory licences necessary for its go-ahead.
In truth, the geography of nuclear power has barely changed, frozen in aspic since it was first established over half a century ago. There is an increasing disjunction between the ring of coastal sites on which the early generations of big power stations were built and the present-day absence of sites that are suitable for the varied fleet of nuclear stations in prospect in an era of climate change.
Without a new siting strategy. there is a severe danger that new nuclear power stations with attendant radioactive waste stores will be located in places that are wholly unsuitable and unsustainable during the century or more that dangerous radioactivity will remain on sites.
n the article, Andrew Blowers, Emeritus Professor of Social Sciences at the Open University and former member of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM), traces the history of nuclear siting in Britain from its origins shrouded in military secrecy in obscure locations, notably Sellafield in West Cumbria and Dounreay in the far north of Scotland. The age of civil nuclear energy was ushered in by the White Paper A Programme of Nuclear Power in 1955. The first generation of Magnox stations was constructed during the 1950s and 1960s at coastal sites providing cooling water, suitable land and remoteness.1 By 1971, with Wylfa in North Wales coming on stream, there were 11 stations, all bar one in coastal and estuarial locations.
This pattern was reinforced and slightly extended by the second-generation AGR (Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor) stations completed mainly during the 1970s, either alongside Magnox stations or at new but still coastal sites (Hartlepool, Heysham, and Torness). By the end of the 1970s the geography of nuclear power in Britain was complete.
Since then only one station, Sizewell B, has come on stream. The abortive ‘nuclear renaissance’ proclaimed by Tony Blair gave birth to one solitary project, the controversial, expensive and late-running Hinkley Point C. By 2020 the programme for development on eight ‘potentially suitable’ existing sites had begun to look dead in the water. But, once again nuclear is rising Phoenix-like in the form of a truly enormous and quite unattainable programme for 24GW of electricity from nuclear power stations large and small conjured up by Boris Johnson.
Nuclear operators have been eyeing up existing sites. But there is no overall plan, there are no sites immediately available, and several of the existing sites identified as ‘potentially suitable’ face trenchant opposition or are quite unsuitable.
Four observations can be made. First, existing sites were established long ago at a time when environmental concerns were subordinate. Second, the attempts to revive nuclear power during this century have confirmed the existing pattern of sites. Third, the criteria of site selection require fundamental revision in the light of the dire prospects for several existing sites in an era of accelerating impacts of climate change. But, fourth and most perversely, attempts at strategic site planning have proved no constraint on the prospects for existing sites to be appropriated by government and the nuclear industry.
In short, strategic siting of nuclear power stations is a case of retrospective legitimation of sites selected under quite different economic, technical and, above all, environmental conditions to those pertaining today. It is possible that sites that reflect a bygone age may yet survive into the unmanageable conditions of the future.’
Note 1: The Magnox stations were at Calder Hall and Chapel Cross (dual-use military and civil) and Bradwell, Sizewell, Dungeness, Berkeley, Oldbury, Hinkley Point (in England), Wylfa (Wales) and Hunterston (Scotland). Trawsfynydd in Snowdonia was the only inland location.
Links to related articles……….
Cop28 host UAE’s approach is ‘dangerous’, says UN’s ex-climate chief

The United Arab Emirates’ approach to the Cop28 climate summit it will
preside over in November is “very dangerous” and a “direct threat to
the survival of vulnerable nations”, according to the UN’s former
climate chief. Christiana Figueres, who was pivotal to the delivery of the
landmark Paris climate agreement in 2015, also said the country holding the
presidency of the UN summit could not put forward its own position and had
to be neutral.
Guardian 16th May 2023
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/16/cop28-host-uae-climate-united-arab-emirates
Fukushima fishermen speak out against nuclear-contaminated wastewater dumping plan
Global Times, Xu Keyue and Xing Xiaojing in Iwaki May 17, 2023
Located at the confluence of cold and warm currents, the coastal area of Fukushima Prefecture, Japan, has a rich variety of sea life and a long history of local fishing.
In the 12 years since the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, the fishing industry in the area has started to recover thanks to the efforts of local fishermen and other groups.
However, the Japanese government and the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) have gone back on their promises and arbitrarily decided to release nuclear-contaminated wastewater into the sea, in a big blow to the Fukushima fishing industry and the prefecture’s revitalization.
As the scheduled plan to dump the nuclear-contaminated wastewater from Daiichi plant approaches, Global Times reporters went to Fukushima. In this second installment of this field investigation, the Global Times reveals the helpless fishermen who are speaking out.
Silenced Fukushima fishermen
Fishermen in Fukushima were banned from fishing after the March 11 earthquake and tsunami in 2011, which caused leaks at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. In 2015, the Japanese government, TEPCO, the Fukushima Prefectural Federation of Fisheries Cooperative Associations, and the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperative Associations of Japan signed an agreement, stating nothing would be done “about the nuclear-contaminated water from Fukushima without the understanding and consent of the relevant people.” However, in April 2021, the Japanese government blatantly broke its promise and announced that it had decided to dump the nuclear-contaminated wastewater from the Daiichi plant into the sea in two years, which has sparked strong dissatisfaction from fishery associations and the wider public.
As the most direct stakeholders, the voices of Fukushima fishermen are indispensable in the opposition to the disposal of nuclear-contaminated wastewater. However, when contacting them before the trip to Fukushima, Global Times reporters were surprised to find that the local fishermen were not allowed to speak.
Global Times reporters contacted industry groups such as the Fukushima Prefectural Federation of Fisheries Cooperative Associations and Fukushima Prefecture’s Soma Futaba Fisheries Cooperative Association for help in reaching fishermen in their areas, but were told that “individual fishermen are not allowed to give interviews.” Toshimitsu Konno, president of the Soma Futaba Fisheries Cooperative Association, told the Global Times that fishermen have different views and need to unify their opinions to form a single position on behalf of the association before negotiating with the Japanese government and TEPCO.
The voices of fishermen are at the heart of a series of field investigations into the issue of nuclear-contaminated wastewater at Fukushima. Global Times reporters tried other ways to contact the fishermen for interviews, but were either rejected or ignored.
It is understood that Japan’s trade associations are highly hierarchical and an extremely closed society. If members are excluded for offending the trade associations, it is equivalent to losing their jobs. When asked for an interview, one fisherman said, “we have to fish here for generations.”
The voices of fishermen are at the heart of a series of field investigations into the issue of nuclear-contaminated wastewater at Fukushima. Global Times reporters tried other ways to contact the fishermen for interviews, but were either rejected or ignored.
It is understood that Japan’s trade associations are highly hierarchical and an extremely closed society. If members are excluded for offending the trade associations, it is equivalent to losing their jobs. When asked for an interview, one fisherman said, “we have to fish here for generations.”
However, Haruo Ono, a fisherman from the town of Shinchi in Fukushima, said he was willing to be interviewed. He had something to say about the dumping of nuclear-contaminated wastewater.
The town is the northernmost part of Fukushima’s coastline, where rivers run eastward into the Pacific Ocean. Since Iwaki city where the Global Times reporters stayed is in the southernmost part of Fukushima Prefecture, to interview Ono, they set out early and drove north through towns of Hirono, Tomioka, Futaba and Namie, near the Daiichi and Daini nuclear power plants, and through Minamisoma and Soma cities, for more than 100 kilometers before arriving at Shinchi……………..
After the accident, fishermen were unable to fish normally for a long time and have not fully recovered until now. For years, Ono has been pressing for answers from the Japanese government and TEPCO…………………………………
the 71-year-old walked briskly, holding forth without waiting for a reporter’s question.
“When will Fumio Kishida, the Japanese prime minister, come and listen to our voices? When can he come to know the real situation in Fukushima?” asked Ono, speaking quickly in the Fukushima dialect.
“Does the government think that by issuing leaflets telling people that the nuclear-contaminated wastewater is OK, it can be released into the sea? Is that really safe? The sea is not a dustbin! In Japan, where people are fined for throwing rubbish into the sea, how can the wastewater containing radioactive materials be discharged into the sea? It is really strange that the Japanese government and TEPCO chose the easiest and cheapest way to throw out the wastewater when there were other options,” Ono said with a puzzled face………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Global Times reporters also visited seafood shelves in local supermarkets and found many imported products from areas such as the US, Chile and Russia, but those from Fukushima were nowhere to be found……………………………………………………….
“There is no change in the Fukushima fisheries association’s clear stance against the discharge plan,” Sawada said, stressing that he will continue to express his opposition to the plan to the Japanese government and TEPCO in collaboration with the national fishery association and other organizations.
………………………… World’s responsibility to protect the sea
Why would the association prohibit individual fishermen from speaking out when it also opposes the dumping plan? What is the “unified position” of the association, and how did the negotiations with the Japanese government go?……………………………………..more https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202305/1290843.shtml
UK and Netherlands agree ‘international coalition’ to help Ukraine procure F-16 jets
Guardian 17 May 23
Rishi Sunak and Mark Rutte announced plans a day after Volodymyr Zelenskiy said Kyiv could soon receive fighter jets
Prime minister Rishi Sunak and Dutch leader Mark Rutte have agreed to build an “international coalition” to help procure F-16 fighter jets for Ukraine, the British government has announced.
A Downing Street spokesperson said Sunak and Rutte “would work to build an international coalition to provide Ukraine with combat air capabilities, supporting with everything from training to procuring F-16 jets”.
“The prime minister reiterated his belief that Ukraine’s rightful place is in Nato and the leaders agreed on the importance of allies providing long-term security assistance to Ukraine to guarantee they can deter against future attacks.
“The leaders agreed to continue working together both bilaterally and through forums such as the European Political Community to tackle the scourge of people trafficking on our continent.”
The statement on Tuesday came a day after Ukraine’s president hinted that Kyiv could soon receive F-16 fighter jets, saying he was hopeful of “very important” decisions on the subject with the help of the UK……………………………
At the meeting, Britain also promised to supply “hundreds of attack drones”.
The UK said in February that it would begin training Ukrainian pilots in standard Nato techniques, and No 10 repeated that on Monday, saying the plan was to help “build a new Ukrainian air force with Nato-standard F-16 jets”.
Britain does not use F-16s, which are made by the US defence firm Lockheed Martin in South Carolina…………
Both countries will have to persuade the US if Ukraine is to receive F-16s. Asked later on Monday if the US had changed its position on supplying the jets to Ukraine, John Kirby, a spokesperson for the White House’s national security council, gave a one-word reply: “No.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/16/uk-and-netherlands-agree-international-coalition-to-help-ukraine-with-f-16-jets
Finance for renewable energy
The lessons learned from scaling up wind and solar technologies from an
expensive niche option to arguably the cheapest option for new electricity
generation can act as a framework for the continued growth of the energy
transition and its expansion to emerging economies. This is the conclusion
from a new report published this week by the International Renewable Energy
Agency (IRENA) launched in partnership with the Indian G20 Presidency
entitled “Low-Cost Energy Transition Finance”. The report focuses on
the need for low-cost finance to support the development of newer renewable
energy technologies such as green hydrogen, energy storage, and offshore
wind in both emerging market economies and advanced economies.
Renew Economy 17th May 2023
Stanford-led research finds small modular reactors will exacerbate challenges of highly radioactive nuclear waste

Small modular reactors, long touted as the future of nuclear energy, will actually generate more radioactive waste than conventional nuclear power plants, according to research from Stanford and the University of British Columbia.
BY MARK SHWARTZ, 30 May, News Stanford
Nuclear reactors generate reliable supplies of electricity with limited greenhouse gas emissions. But a nuclear power plant that generates 1,000 megawatts of electric power also produces radioactive waste that must be isolated from the environment for hundreds of thousands of years. Furthermore, the cost of building a large nuclear power plant can be tens of billions of dollars.
To address these challenges, the nuclear industry is developing small modular reactors that generate less than 300 megawatts of electric power and can be assembled in factories. Industry analysts say these advanced modular designs will be cheaper and produce fewer radioactive byproducts than conventional large-scale reactors.
But a study published May 31 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has reached the opposite conclusion.
“Our results show that most small modular reactor designs will actually increase the volume of nuclear waste in need of management and disposal, by factors of 2 to 30 for the reactors in our case study,” said study lead author Lindsay Krall, a former MacArthur Postdoctoral Fellow at Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC). “These findings stand in sharp contrast to the cost and waste reduction benefits that advocates have claimed for advanced nuclear technologies.”
…………………………………. In the U.S. alone, commercial nuclear power plants have produced more than 88,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel, as well as substantial volumes of intermediate and low-level radioactive waste. The most highly radioactive waste, mainly spent fuel, will have to be isolated in deep-mined geologic repositories for hundreds of thousands of years. At present, the U.S. has no program to develop a geologic repository after spending decades and billions of dollars on the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada. As a result, spent nuclear fuel is currently stored in pools or in dry casks at reactor sites, accumulating at a rate of about 2,000 metric tonnes per year.
Simple metrics
Some analysts maintain that small modular reactors will significantly reduce the mass of spent nuclear fuel generated compared to much larger, conventional nuclear reactors. But that conclusion is overly optimistic, according to Krall and her colleagues.
“Simple metrics, such as estimates of the mass of spent fuel, offer little insight into the resources that will be required to store, package, and dispose of the spent fuel and other radioactive waste,” said Krall, who is now a scientist at the Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company. “In fact, remarkably few studies have analyzed the management and disposal of nuclear waste streams from small modular reactors.”
Dozens of small modular reactor designs have been proposed. For this study, Krall analyzed the nuclear waste streams from three types of small modular reactors being developed by Toshiba, NuScale, and Terrestrial Energy. Each company uses a different design. Results from case studies were corroborated by theoretical calculations and a broader design survey. This three-pronged approach enabled the authors to draw powerful conclusions.
“The analysis was difficult, because none of these reactors are in operation yet,” said study co-author Rodney Ewing, the Frank Stanton Professor in Nuclear Security at Stanford and co-director of CISAC. “Also, the designs of some of the reactors are proprietary, adding additional hurdles to the research.”
Neutron leakage
Energy is produced in a nuclear reactor when a neutron splits a uranium atom in the reactor core, generating additional neutrons that go on to split other uranium atoms, creating a chain reaction. But some neutrons escape from the core – a problem called neutron leakage – and strike surrounding structural materials, such as steel and concrete. These materials become radioactive when “activated” by neutrons lost from the core.
The new study found that, because of their smaller size, small modular reactors will experience more neutron leakage than conventional reactors. This increased leakage affects the amount and composition of their waste streams.
“The more neutrons that are leaked, the greater the amount of radioactivity created by the activation process of neutrons,” Ewing said. “We found that small modular reactors will generate at least nine times more neutron-activated steel than conventional power plants. These radioactive materials have to be carefully managed prior to disposal, which will be expensive.”
The study also found that the spent nuclear fuel from small modular reactors will be discharged in greater volumes per unit energy extracted and can be far more complex than the spent fuel discharged from existing power plants.
“Some small modular reactor designs call for chemically exotic fuels and coolants that can produce difficult-to-manage wastes for disposal,” said co-author Allison Macfarlane, professor and director of the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia. “Those exotic fuels and coolants may require costly chemical treatment prior to disposal.”
“The takeaway message for the industry and investors is that the back end of the fuel cycle may include hidden costs that must be addressed,” Macfarlane said. “It’s in the best interest of the reactor designer and the regulator to understand the waste implications of these reactors.”
Radiotoxicity
The study concludes that, overall, small modular designs are inferior to conventional reactors with respect to radioactive waste generation, management requirements, and disposal options.
One problem is long-term radiation from spent nuclear fuel. The research team estimated that after 10,000 years, the radiotoxicity of plutonium in spent fuels discharged from the three study modules would be at least 50 percent higher than the plutonium in conventional spent fuel per unit energy extracted. ……..more https://news.stanford.edu/2022/05/30/small-modular-reactors-produce-high-levels-nuclear-waste/?fbclid=IwAR3hUe5R3zYb25eJ-8dJzM_vXATq4Du7Hk_XEhdeED_BTvwCqm0XLo3mE8o
Zelensky plotted attacks deep inside Russia – Washington Post

https://www.rt.com/russia/576237-zelensky-hungary-russia/ 15 May 23
The Ukrainian leader reportedly wanted to “occupy” Russian cities to gain leverage over Moscow
Despite public assurance that he would limit military action to his own country’s 1991 borders, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky formed plans to conduct attacks deep inside Russia and suggested that Kiev “destroy” the industry of Hungary, the Washington Post reported on Saturday, citing leaked Pentagon documents.
Citing US intelligence reports recently published on a gaming server, the Post described how Zelensky suggested at a meeting in January that his troops “conduct strikes in Russia,” while moving across the border to “occupy unspecified Russian border cities” in order to “give Kiev leverage in talks with Moscow.”
Less than two months later, the Ukraine-based Russian Volunteer Corps launched a cross-border raid that left two civilians dead in Russia’s Bryansk Region. A member of the group told Western media that Kiev had approved the attack, and further assaults have taken place since.
With Ukraine’s Western backers reluctant until recently to provide him with long-range missiles for fear he would use them against targets within Russia, Zelensky suggested to his top military commander, General Valery Zaluzhny, that he use drones to “attack unspecified deployment locations in Rostov” in February, the Post reported.
Prior to and after the alleged meeting, Ukrainian forces used drones to attack infrastructure in Rostov Region, which borders the formerly Ukrainian territory of Lugansk.
In a meeting with Deputy Prime Minister Yulia Svridenko in February, Zelensky reportedly suggested that Ukraine “blow up” the Druzhba oil pipeline, which transports Russian oil to Hungary. According to the US report cited by the Post, Zelensky suggested that “Ukraine should just blow up the pipeline and destroy…Hungarian [Prime Minister] Viktor Orban’s industry, which is based heavily on Russian oil.”
American spies listening to his meeting with Svridenko concluded that Zelensky was issuing “hyperbolic, meaningless threats.” Nevertheless, the Druzhba pipeline has come under attack on several occasions since the meeting, most recently when it was hit by drone-dropped explosives on Wednesday.
The Post’s article corroborates a CNN report last month claiming that US spies have been intercepting Zelensky’s communications.
Contacted by the newspaper, Zelensky dismissed the incidents described in the report as “fantasies,” and claimed that “no one in our country has given orders for offensives or strikes on Russian territory.”
Contacted by the newspaper, Zelensky dismissed the incidents described in the report as “fantasies,” and claimed that “no one in our country has given orders for offensives or strikes on Russian territory.”
Washington Post censors its own report of interview that showed President Vladimir Zelensky in a poor light

https://www.rt.com/russia/576284-zelensky-wapo-transcript-deleted/ 15 May 23 Washington Post deletes ‘treason’ quotes from Zelensky interview
The Ukrainian president reacted angrily when confronted about his own intelligence agents’ supposed “dealings” with Russia’s Wagner Group
The Washington Post has cut a large segment from an interview with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, in which he pushed the newspaper to reveal alleged traitors in his ranks and angrily accused its reporters of aiding Russia by publishing information from leaked documents.
The Post published a transcript of a lengthy interview with Zelensky on Saturday. After a discussion of a Ukrainian counteroffensive against Russian forces, the newspaper asked whether his military intelligence agency – the GUR – had “back-channel contact” with Yevgeny Prigozhin, head of the Russian private military company Wagner Group.
Citing recently leaked Pentagon documents, the Post explained to Zelensky that American spies noted a meeting between the president and GUR chief Kirill Budanov in February in which Budanov told him that he had learned of a Wagner plan to “destabilize Moldova,” but could counter this alleged plan by exposing his own “dealings” with Prigozhin, thus portraying the Wagner boss as “a traitor who has been working with Ukraine.”
Zelensky responded angrily, first asking who within his government had handed this document to the Post. Whoever it was, he said, was committing “treason,” which “is the most severe felony in our country.”
Despite being told that the document did not come from Kiev, but from Washington, Zelensky asked his interviewer to reveal “with which Ukrainian official did you talk?”
The Post has not yet published a story based on the document, and when informed that he was the first Ukrainian official the newspaper had spoken to, Zelensky urged his interviewer not to run the story, arguing that doing so would “demotivate Ukraine,” and accusing them of “playing games with me.”
“You are right now playing with, I think, things that aren’t good for our people,” he warned, asking the Post’s reporter “is your goal to help Russia?” When the reporter said that it was not, Zelensky countered “well, it looks different.”
By Sunday, however, the explosive exchange – during which Zelensky did not dispute that the meeting with Budanov had happened – was missing from the Post’s transcript. The entire 1,400-word back-and-forth about the document was removed, with no explanation given.
The Post’s edit is not the first incident in which Western governments or media outlets have scrubbed information potentially embarrassing or damaging to Kiev. Back in December, the European Commission deleted a video and its associated transcript in which Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said that the Ukrainian military had suffered 100,000 fatalities since Russia’s military operation began ten months earlier.
Kiev keeps its losses a closely guarded secret, and when asked by the Washington Post to comment on this policy, Zelensky sniped “if you have the relevant documents, maybe you can tell us how many people have died…and what their names were.”
The Women of Three Mile Island
CounterPunch BY KARL GROSSMAN 12 May 23
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.
………………………………… Hutner, in speaking about the focus on women in Radioactivity: The Women of Three Mile Island, explains: “Following health and safety disasters, it is often women on the ground fighting back, and over and over throughout nuclear history, these women are gaslighted, silenced, called hysterical and ‘radiophobic.’ The result of such silencing: we lose significant information about nuclear history, science, and health.”
Hutner goes on: “What I have dug up after over 20 years of ecofeminist research is shocking—Dr. Alice Stewart’s research on the danger of X-rays to fetuses in the womb; Rachel Carson’s writing about radiation and bioaccumulation; Dr. Helen Caldicott’s warnings about the dangers of nuclear weapons and her peace and vital medical health advocacy as a physician (she has been attacked mercilessly and unfairly by male critics on sexist grounds); Mary Olson’s study of the alarming danger of radiation to girls and women, Leona Morgan’s decolonization activism to protect indigenous communities from uranium extraction and poisoning, and the dumping radioactive waste on native lands; poet activist Kathy Jetnil-Kijner’s story-telling about the suffering of women miscarrying in the Marshall Islands after the 67 nuclear test-bombing by the U.S. There are endless stories such as these.”

“By erasing such women’s voices, by gaslighting these women, men have erased significant human stories, science, research,” says Hutner. “This is a classic sexist maneuver. Call women and those who speak up about the dangers of nuclear technology as radiophobic, hysterical, and incapable of understanding science. As the women in Radioactivity explain, when they spoke at the Nuclear Regulatory Hearings and meetings, asking intelligent questions about the verity of the nuclear company’s and NRC’s claims, and armed with detailed information regarding their corruption and cover-ups—what really happened—the women were laughed at, mocked, told to ‘go home and bake cookies.’”
“That’s why we made Radioactive. The public needs to know and understand how they are being lied to, how key aspects of nuclear disasters and radiation impacts have been swept under the rug. And at what cost. This is life and death. An so we focus on buried women stories, and in subsequent film projects we hope to make as part of a series, we will bring in the silenced voices of black, brown, and women’s indigenous groups impacted unequally by nuclear disasters.”
She adds: “The film could not come at a more important time for a number of reasons. With nuclear power being discussed in some circles as an ‘answer’ to our climate crisis, we believe anyone seeing this film will walk away with the unmistakable conclusion that nuclear power must be off the table. TMI is one of a long list of environmental disasters and cover-ups that have caused serious harm to surrounding communities, which will last decades. It was and continues to be the lesson of what happens when a corporation and industry lacking integrity, regulated by an agency completely captured by that industry, is put in charge of people’s lives. TMI happened 44 years ago. But when it comes to systems meant to protect the public’s health and safety from nuclear hazards, nothing has changed and in fact, has only gotten worse.”
Comments about the documentary include:………………………………………………………………………………………..
The documentary website is: https://radioactivethefilm.com/. There you will find listings for upcoming screenings.
Hutner says: “We made Radioactive: The Women of Three Mile Island because the issue of nuclear dangers has ‘died’ as an important cause. It was once a global movement. Front page news. One million people marched in Central Park and so did millions around the world. The big screen popped with blockbusters on the topic. Today: few know or care about nuclear dangers—historical or in the present.”
“Sadly,” Hutner continues, “younger folks are taught nothing in school about nuclear history except a brief lesson (if they are taught anything) on how great nuclear energy is. My students are shocked and aghast at what they learn in my classes (in-depth history and present information). They’ve heard a little bit about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and they have heard of Chernobyl (barely). They haven’t a clue about anything else. They don’t know what nuclear power is or how it functions. They don’t think about nuclear weapons and the potential for nuclear obliteration.”
“The nuclear industry has won its plan to silence this history and science. They’ve invested heavily in painting a pretty picture, erasing facts, and denigrating concerned citizens, particularly women, as I have explained. There’s no recognition of the great harm done to fetuses, babies, children—especially girl children. There’s a complete disregard for the poisoning of communities of color. Dr. Robert Bullard, the father of the environmental justice movement, and Winona LaDuke, a leading indigenous ecofeminist activist, call this environmental racism.”
“Pronuclear films by Bill Gates, Oliver Stone, Robert Stone, leave out essential information — real experiences of real people who live next to reactors, live with and in disaster zones and highly toxic areas,” Hutner notes. “From what I can see—these guys (note their gender and color) have not spoken with or met the people who live with high rates of cancer and multigenerational cancers in disaster locations. They don’t visit and spend time in these communities. Childhood cancers. Heart disease. Infertility. Deformed babies. Miscarriages. Infertility. On and on.”
“These pro-nuke guys,” Hutner continues, “do not address the science that shows the dangers of radiation exposures or the future of inevitable meltdowns. They blackball this science. They don’t discuss radioactive waste—where and how it’s maintained (poorly—putting all life at risk for thousands of years). And the location of the waste? Mostly indigenous lands and always poorly stored. Waste right on-site at the nuclear facilities, leaving communities located next to and near power plants at risk for thousands of years. They dump nuclear waste in waterways.”…………………………………………………………………………… more https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/05/12/the-women-of-three-mile-island/?fbclid=IwAR0PdDIrL2eXpRa9KFGN2aL7xSLkUwNYVIZFotFrfpKHlRmi8kQSeNCxKUQ
No more Hibakusha: Nuclear Free Local Authorities urge PM to make peace pledge at Hiroshima Summit

On the eve of a summit of G7 world leaders being hosted in Hiroshima by Prime Minister Kishida of Japan, the Chair of the UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities has written to Rishi Sunak to urge the Prime Minister to use this unique opportunity to pledge the UK Government to work for a nuclear-weapon free world.
The Japanese port city of Hiroshima was utterly devastated by the explosion of an atomic bomb equivalent in force to 15,000 tons of the conventional high explosive TNT in the morning of the 6 August 1945. Most buildings were totally destroyed by the blast and a fireball consumed the city centre. 70,000 inhabitants died on that day, many of them high-school students, and a further 70,000 by the end of that year, being the victims of blast, heat and radiation. Prime Minister Kishida is a son of that city and a second-generation Hibakusha, A-bomb survivor, having many relatives who died as a result of the explosion; consequently he is totally opposed to nuclear weapons.
The Federation of Scientists have estimated there are approximately 12,500 nuclear weapons possessed at this time by nine states in the world(1). They are many more times powerful that the bomb which destroyed Hiroshima. An all-out nuclear war could extinguish all life on Earth.
Rishi Sunak will be the first British Prime Minister to attend a summit in that city which will be held on the weekend of 19 to 21 May. The NFLAs, being conscious that the summit is being held in the world’s first A-bombed city and at a time when the world is again faced with the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons as a consequence of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, wrote to the Prime Minister asking him to visit the Peace Memorial Museum and the Peace Park, and to meet with the Hibakusha, the Japanese A-bomb survivors, who, despite their advanced age, continue to speak out against nuclear weapons.
In 1968, the United Kingdom was one of first signatories to the UN Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (the NPT). As a nuclear weapon state, the UK pledged under Article VI to ‘pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament.’
Mindful of the fact that 55 years on, the UK has yet to honour these obligations as a nuclear nation, NFLA Chair, Councillor Lawrence O’Neill, also requested Prime Minister Sunak ‘use this Summit to publicly recommit this nation to these pledges and then return home to earnestly begin work to achieve them’.
The NFLAs’ sister organisation, Mayors for Peace, is based in the city after being established by Hiroshima Mayor Araki at the United Nations in 1982. Over 8,200 mayors from across the world now represent an international coalition opposed to nuclear weapons, including 101 in the UK and the Republic of Ireland. Some of these UK/Ireland members are also Nuclear Free Local Authorities. Hiroshima Mayor Matsui currently serves as President of Mayors for Peace and the Secretariat has recently issued an Open Letter to world leaders. For information, this is also reproduced below. [on original]
Nuclear’s Dangerous Waste Is ‘Rapidly Catching Up’ With Industry

Jonathan Tirone, Bloomberg News, 15 May 23
- World faces a wave of decommissioning in coming decades: IAEA
- That will create streams of long-lasting, radioactive waste
Swelling inventories of radioactive waste need to be dealt with more effectively if nuclear energy is to become a key tool in combating climate change, the International Atomic Energy Agency said.
While nuclear power stations don’t emit planet-warming greenhouse gases, they do create streams of long-lasting, hazardous waste. It takes engineers and regulators years to plan and execute the decommissioning of a single site, with costs sometimes running into the billions of dollars.
“Even as we look into the future, the past is rapidly catching up,” IAEA Director-General Rafael Mariano Grossi said Monday at a conference in Vienna, where hundreds … (subscribers only) more https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/nuclears-dangerous-waste-is-rapidly-catching-up-with-industry
France to host pro-nuclear meet to push for EU recognition of climate benefits

Yahoo Sport Kate Abnett and America Hernandez. Mon, 15 May 2023
BRUSSELS (Reuters) -France will host a meeting of ministers from 16 pro-nuclear European states on Tuesday aimed at coordinating expansion of atomic power and urging the EU to recognise its role in meeting climate goals for 2050, the country’s energy ministry said.
The meeting in Paris will include EU Energy Commissioner Kadri Simson and representatives from 14 EU countries including France, Belgium and the Netherlands, plus Italy as an observer and the United Kingdom as a non-EU invitee………………………
Yves Desbazeille, director of EU lobby group Nucleareurope, will also give a presentation, including figures on potential job creation and investment.
A draft of the post-meeting statement seen by Reuters said the countries would encourage the commissioner to integrate nuclear energy into the EU’s energy policy by recognising nuclear alongside other green [?] energy technologies in EU decarbonisation goals.
The talks will cover the EU Net Zero Industry Act, the Hydrogen Bank, definitions of low-carbon hydrogen and hydrogen import strategies among other topics, the French official said.
The draft document also calls for the publication of an EU communication on small modular reactors.
……………………………. EU opponents of nuclear energy – among them Germany, which switched off its last reactors last month, Luxembourg and Austria – cite concerns including waste disposal and maintenance issues that have plagued the French fleet in recent years.
Austria and Luxembourg are taking the EU to court over its decision to officially label nuclear investments as “green”. https://au.sports.yahoo.com/france-host-pro-nuclear-meet-133145776.html
-
Archives
- November 2026 (84)
- October 2026 (302)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS






