nuclear-news

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

Japanese government seeks to allow nuclear reactors to operate for 80 years

Japanese authorities on Wednesday proposed that the safety of nuclear
plants aged 30 years or older be checked at least once a decade to obtain
approval for continued operation.

The proposal from the Nuclear Regulation
Authority came as the government seeks to scrap a rule that limits the
operating life of reactors to a maximum of 60 years. The regulator said the
proposed mandatory safety checks should also be applied to nuclear reactors
in use for more than 60 years.

It means that if the safety is confirmed,
Japan may be able to authorize nuclear plants to run for 80 years, as in
the United States. “The (proposed) regulations will be much stricter than
the current system,” Shinsuke Yamanaka, chairman of the nuclear watchdog,
said at a press conference. “It is our responsibility to regulate
properly.”

Japan Today 3rd Nov 2022

https://japantoday.com/category/national/update1-japan-aging-nuclear-plants-may-be-checked-at-least-once-a-decade

November 3, 2022 Posted by | Japan, politics | Leave a comment

Australia’s $multibillion submarine madness and the phoney China threat

According to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, the cost of eight would be $171 billion after inflation. More recent estimates are over $200 billion.

 https://johnmenadue.com/australian-submarine-madness/ By Brian Toohey, Nov 4, 2022

Nobody knows what military threats to Australia from China or anyone else will exist in 2050. In these circumstances, it is folly to commit to spending over $200 billion on acquiring eight US designed nuclear attack submarines to deploy in support of the US on the China coast.

This is particularly extravagant when modern conventionally powered submarines are much cheaper and far harder to detect. Nuclear submarines are noisy because they rely on a reactor to power a steam engine with cooling pumps, turbines, reduction gears and steam in the pipes. They also expel hot water that can be detected, as can the wake on the surface when travelling at high speeds.

Modern battery powered submarines, which Australia perversely has no plans to get, maintain near silent operation with what’s called air independent propulsion (AIP) supplied by a hydrogen fuel cell in Singapore’s German submarines, a Sterling engine favoured by the Swedes or in the case of the latest Japanese submarines, by advanced batteries with long endurance.

These submarines have the great advantage of making the crew far safer than noisy nuclear ones while leaving funds over for much needed improvements in Australian’s health, education, and social security systems as well as for tackling climate change.

Yet the Albanese government has a 350 strong task force in Defence planning the big changes needed to build nuclear powered submarines in Adelaide. In contrast, a prize-winning essay published in the US Naval Institute’s magazine Proceedings in June 2018 said the US Navy would do well to consider acquiring “some quiet, inexpensive and highly capable diesel-electric submarines. It said, “The ability of AIP was demonstrated in 2005, when HMS Gotland, a Swedish AIP submarine, ‘sank’ many U.S nuclear fast-attack subs, destroyers, frigates, cruisers, and even the USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier in joint exercises”. However, the Australian Navy somehow sees a great advantage in getting US nuclear attack subs such as the Virginia Class that were sunk in the exercise.

One of the US’s most highly regarded defence analysts, Winslow Wheeler, recently pointed out that these subs have been available only 15 times in 33 years for their six-monthly deployments. This suggests fewer than two of Australia’s eight nuclear submarines would be operationally available, on average, each year. According to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, the cost of eight would be $171 billion after inflation. More recent estimates are over $200 billion.

Australia could build ten of the latest German submarines operated by Singapore for about $10 billion. They also have an outstanding maintenance record, as well as being well suited to the shallow waters in Australia’s region. A similar figure could apply to the latest Swedish ones, but they may not be so readily available. Japan’s new Taigei class would cost roughly the same to buy, but more to operate its bigger crew. The Japanese government would be reluctant to build it in other than in its own shipyards.

These figures suggest that the job of defending Australia could be performed for a reasonable cost, particularly if greater use were made of modern, low-cost, drones. The trend for low-cost drones to become more useful is only likely to grow by 2050 when Australia might be getting its first operational nuclear submarine.

At some stage, a reality check needs to apply to the barrage of claims about increased Chinese aggression or the China threat. The last major war involving China was in Korea in 1950. China argues its rapid arms build-up reflects how it’s surrounded by potential enemies, including the US, which has been in many more aggressive wars and spends much more on its military.

The Pentagon 2021 annual report to Congress on China acknowledged it had withdrawn six land claims to settle border disputes with neighbours. Contrary to the common assumption that it is ready to invade Taiwan, the Pentagon said “There is no indication it is significantly expanding its force of tank landing ships and landing craft – suggesting a traditional large-scale direct beach assault operation requiring extensive lift remains aspirational”.

China could settle some of the extreme territorial sea claims that were originally made by the Communist Party’s political opponent, the Nationalist Party, before 1949. Taiwan also makes these claims. Although abrasive, nobody has been killed. By 2050 the US, with Australia tagging along, may have extended its well-established history of killing people by engaging in international aggression in violation of the rules. Alternatively, in 2050 China could engage in its first major war since 1950 by attempting to invade Australia, except no one no one has suggested any plausible motive.

Although Australian nuclear submarines will not be available, many Australian pundits see a need to go to Taiwan’s aid if secret intelligence analysis says China is about to attack it. Following the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 based on concocted intelligence, the Challis chair of international law at Sydney University, Ben Saul, said it’s important to ask if a war over Taiwan would be legal. He wrote in the Lowy Institute’s The Interpreter, “The conventional legal answer favours China. Only a state has the right to use military force in self-defence against an armed attack by another state – and to ask other states to help it to defend itself.”

The Australian Foreign Affairs department says Taiwan is not a state. Saul adds, “In a world with a plurality of different political systems, states are not permitted to use force simply to protect democracy or ‘freedom’ abroad. The US backed Taiwan even when it was a military dictatorship until the 1990s; its defence has never really been about freedom.”

November 3, 2022 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Six Reasons Why Americans Should Care That US Troops Are In Ukraine


Andrew Korybko, Nov 2 2022,  https://korybko.substack.com/p/six-reasons-why-americans-should

This is a big deal for more than just the obvious reason that it could push that declining unipolar hegemon closer to a hot war with Russia by miscalculation.

An unnamed senior military official revealed during a press briefing on Monday that US boots are on the ground in Ukraine as part of the Pentagon’s efforts to inspect and track weapons shipments to that crumbling former Soviet Republic according to a transcript published by the Department of Defense. This is a big deal for more than just the obvious reason that it could push that declining unipolar hegemon closer to a hot war with Russia by miscalculation.

Here are the six other reasons why Americans should care that US troops are in Ukraine:

The Deployment Proves That The Ukrainian Conflict Is Indeed A Proxy War On Russia

The US-led West’s Mainstream Media (MSM) nor the SBU’s anti-Semitic and fascist global troll network (“NAFO”) can no longer deny that the Ukrainian Conflict is indeed a NATO proxy war on Russia, which was obvious to all objective observers but has hitherto not been acknowledged by those two forces.

* America Is Indisputably Leading The Abovementioned Effort

Building upon the above, there’s no question that America is leading this multinational proxy war effort against that newly restored world power as evidenced by this latest deployment, which further confirms what Russia’s been saying this entire time about Washington’s direct involvement in the conflict.

* Public Pressure Might Have Played A Role In The Pentagon’s Accountability Mission

CBS News’ bombshell report in early August revealing that only around 30% of all foreign military aid to Ukraine actually reaches its destination provoked unprecedented public anger and might thus have played a role in the Pentagon’s commencing its accountability mission that its officials just disclosed.

* The US Doesn’t Fully Trust Its Ukrainian Proxies

Another element of the “official narrative” that was shattered by the Pentagon’s confirmation of its limited deployment to Ukraine is that the US supposedly places full trust in its Ukrainian proxies, which clearly isn’t true otherwise it wouldn’t be putting its troops in harm’s way to track weapons shipments.

* Ukrainian-Based Neo-Nazi Terrorist Groups Are A Credible Threat To Europe

Elaborating on the insight that was just shared in the preceding point, it can therefore be confidently surmised that American spy agencies also assess that Ukrainian-based Neo-Nazi terrorist groups are a credible threat to Europe since they’re the only actors who could realistically siphon off those arms.

* The Next Congress Might Use This Deployment As The Pretext For Scaling Down Military Aid

The US will inevitably have to scale down its arms shipments to Ukraine since its military-industrial complex lacks the capability to indefinitely sustain the pace, scope, and scale of this assistance, yet the next Congress might use this deployment as the pretext for doing so instead of admitting that fact.

The remainder of the analysis will summarize the six reasons that were just shared.

Americans should care that their country is leading NATO’s proxy war on Russia through Ukraine, especially since their own government doesn’t trust their local partners to the point where US troops had to be deployed to monitor arms shipments there. Public pressure might already have played a role in commencing this accountability mission so it therefore follows that subsequent such pressure could facilitate the next Congress’ potential plans to scale back aid to that country and hopefully foster peace.

November 3, 2022 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

‘Will they, won’t they – great uncertainty over government go ahead for Sizewell C.

It has been a day of mixed messages with reports in the national press and on the BBC that government funding for Sizewell C may be axed being contradicted by a statement issued from the Prime Minister’s office.

The Nuclear Free Local Authorities would sincerely like the costly Suffolk white elephant culled and the money spent instead on insulating cold and damp British homes to reduce energy demand and lower fuel bills. In a letter to Jeremy Hunt MP last month, the organisation urged the Chancellor to ‘leave Sizewell C well-alone’ and to withdraw from the £700 million commitment made by outgoing Prime Minister Boris Johnson and from the concordat agreed between Prime Minister Truss and President Macron to each take a 20% stake in the project.

As the estimated cost to completion is at least £30 billion, this represents a tremendous commitment of taxpayers’ cash, and there is considerable doubt over whether operator EDF Energy, already in huge debt, will be in a financial position to complete the plant or if private-sector players will step in to take the remaining 60% share. Nuclear power projects are notorious for being delivered late and massively over budget so the risk is great that Sizewell C will represent both a lumbering folly and a financial bottomless pit for beleaguered consumers, who would have to pick up the tab through a ‘nuclear tax’ levied through electricity bills.

For the NFLA then, there was great disappointment when in his response to the letter, Climate Minister Graham Stuart, said that ‘commercial discussions have been constructive but are ongoing, and no decisions have been made’ and in a statement made today, a spokesperson for the Prime Minister said ‘Britain’s Sizewell C nuclear power plant project is not being scrapped and negotiations on its funding are progressing’.

So optimistic noises that the project is on track, but there has been speculation that there is an ongoing internal conflict between Whitehall mandarins in the Treasury and the Department of Business Energy and Industrial Strategy as to whether Sizewell C should be in the mix as a project that must be cut alongside HS2 and the Northern Powerhouse Rail as part of the government’s plan to reduce the deficit by £35 billion as Britain enters a new recession.

For the NFLA then, there was great disappointment when in his response to the letter, Climate Minister Graham Stuart, said that ‘commercial discussions have been constructive but are ongoing, and no decisions have been made’ and in a statement made today, a spokesperson for the Prime Minister said ‘Britain’s Sizewell C nuclear power plant project is not being scrapped and negotiations on its funding are progressing’.

November 3, 2022 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

America’s Abandoned Nuclear Power Projects (includes Interactive Map)

THE BIG PICTURE: Abandoned Nuclear Power Projects (Interactive Map), Power, by Sonal Patel Increasing uncertainties concerning low forecasted load; construction financing constraints and reversals; state certification hurdles; and challenges to nuclear profitability posed by the growing share of coal plants beset the nuclear industry in the early 1970s. The nuclear suffered a renewed economic meltdown and fierce public pushback in the aftermath of the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. By 1983, these factors prompted the delay or cancellation of 100 nuclear units—nearly 45% of total commercial capacity previously ordered. An estimated $10 billion (in mid-1982 dollars) had been spent on the scrapped projects. Mounting public opposition from Chernobyl and new safety rules required after Fukushima also affected a number of later projects.

POWER in April 2020 published an infographic showing construction timeframes of completed nuclear reactors: THE BIG PICTURE (Infographic): U.S. Nuclear Lifetimes

A supplement to POWER‘s February 2018 THE BIG PICTURE print infographic, this interactive map offers a sampling of nuclear plant projects that have been abandoned. Double click on the map to activate the zoom function. Click on “Map Overview” to zoom out. Scroll down for an overview. Note: All dollar figures are from the corresponding year. Source: NRC

—Copy, artwork, and interactive feature by Sonal Patel, a POWER senior associate editor (@sonalcpatel, @POWERmagazine)

………………………… A Brief History of Abandoned U.S. Nuclear Projects

1974: Tyrone 2 (1.2 GW)—Wisconsin regulators denied certification of the project being built by Northern States Power (now Xcel Energy) owing to insufficient demand growth and public opposition. Abandonment cost the company $103 million. The Wisconsin Public Utility Commission ordered the company to study a substitute coal-fired plant.

1974: Vogtle 3 and 4 (each 1,113 MW)— While Georgia Power gave this project new life 2013 as AP1000s—and they remain the only two reactors under construction in the U.S.—the company canceled two reactors under construction at the Vogtle site in 1974, citing citizen opposition and regulatory changes, which contributed to rising costs and construction delays. Critics, however, pointed to management issues for the project’s failure.

1977: Surry 3 and 4 (each 882 MW)—Power demand fell dramatically from 1972, when Surry 3 and 4 were planned by Virginia Electric & Power Co. (VEPCO) northwest of Newport News, Virginia, through March 1977, when the units were canceled. VEPCO, which also cited construction delays caused by labor problems, intervention of environmentalists, and tighter NRC controls, said the company had invested $53 million in the projects and had contracts for another $93 million (1977 dollars).

1980: North Anna 4 (907 MW)—In the wake of Three Mile Island, VEPCO abandoned the project when it was only 4% complete. Abandonment of Unit 4 cost it $155 million (1980 dollars). The company had reportedly spent $485 million to build Unit 3 (abandoned two years later) and 4 at North Anna at the time. In 1982, when it scrapped Unit 3 because of a sharp increase in construction costs, VEPCO sought rate increases to cover an estimated $540 million write-off.

1980: Sterling (1.2 GW)—The New York Public Service Commission unequivocally allowed Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. full recovery of costs of the Sterling plant, which had just kicked off construction, estimated at about $129 million.

1980: Jamesport 1 and 2 (1.2 GW)—Long Island Lighting, which had also just entered construction, also recovered abandonment costs of about $120 million.

1980: Forked River 1 (1.1 GW)—Jersey Central Power & Light halted construction at this project in 1974 owing to financial cutbacks and protests, but it resumed construction only to abandon the project which was 5.6% complete owing to “financial difficulties” stemming from the Three Mile Island accidents, and also, uncertainty about whether the NRC would grant a license or put in place costly regulations.

1981: Callaway 2 (1.2 GW)—Construction had barely begun when Union Electric Co. halted the project, citing financial risks to investors posed by uncertainties afflicting the sector.

1981: Hope Creek 2 (1.1 GW)— Public Service Electric & Gas scrapped the unit when it was about 19% complete, but pressed on with Hope Creek 1. The $3.79 billion Hope Creek 1 was already plagued with soaring cost overruns, up from $600 million initially estimated for both units.

1981: Bailly 1 (645 MW)—The U.S. Supreme Court halted Northern Indiana Public Service’s $1.8 billion boiling water reactor (BWR) project owing to questions regarding pilings for the plant. Faced with longer delays for the project already seven years into construction, the company abandoned it.

1981: Shearon Harris 3 and 4 (900 MW each)—Costly safety upgrades and weakening power demand prompted Carolina Power & Light to abandon two of four planned Westinghouse 3 loop reactors under construction. The third 900-MW reactor, Shearon Harris 2, was abandoned in 1983.

1982: Washington Nuclear 4 and 5 (1.2 GW each)—Unit 4 was 25% complete and Unit 5 17% complete when Energy Northwest’s predecessor Washington Public Power Supply System halted construction at the two units after it failed to sell enough bonds to complete five reactors needed to meet projected power in the Pacific Northwest. Abandonment of the two units alone led to the company’s

defaulting on $2.2 billion in municipal bonds. Total costs for all five units planned at the site was estimated to exceed $24 billion.

1982: Phipps Bend 1 and 2 (1.2 GW each)—The Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA’s) board voted to stall construction of Unit 1, which was 29% complete, and Unit 2, 5% complete owing to slacker power demand as aluminum plants in the South closed down. Abandoning the project cost the TVA about $1.2 billion. The site in 2017 became home to a 1-MW solar farm.

1982: Hartsville B1 and B2 (1.2 GW each)—TVA also slowed work at Hartsville, B1 and B2, which were 17% and 7% complete, finally moving to scrap them. The decision cost $718 million.

1982: Cherokee 2 and 3 (1.3 GW)—Economic troubles also prompted Duke Power to abandon two of three reactors it was building in South Carolina. In 1983, Duke Power also scrapped the 1.3-GW Unit 1.

1984: Yellow Creek 1 and 2 (1.3 GW each)—About 30% of the two System 80 pressurized water reactors (PWRs) near Iuka, Mississippi, were complete when TVA moved to abandon them, citing lower power demand and dramatically higher construction costs. TVA estimated Yellow Creek would have cost $10 billion to build.

1984: Hartsville A1 and A2 (1.2 GW each)—On the same day it abandoned Yellow Creek, TVA also scrapped the two remaining Hartsville reactors near Nashville, Tennessee. Completing the Hartsville reactors would have cost $6.5 billion, it said.

1984: Zimmer 1 (810 MW)—When Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. announced cancellation of the project to convert it to a coal plant, it was 97% complete and had so far cost $1.6 billion—up from a the $240 million originally estimated. The decision to scrap the project was rooted in estimates that completing the project would cost an additional $1.5 billion and two more years of construction to satisfy new requirements from the NRC. Just months before, the federal regulatory body repudiated its own probe into a pipe-weld problem at Zimmer, alleging “incompetence” after a whistleblower—29-year-old Thomas Applegate, a private investigator hired by the utility to check possible time-card padding at the plant—brought to light that the NRC’s regional office of inspection and enforcement had never inspected the defective welds in safety-related systems. While Applegate alleged a cover up by the NRC, the NRC rejected its own overall finding, deeming the investigation “unsatisfactory.” Ultimately, it halted construction on several parts of the plant after finding fault with project management and for safety violations. Fallout from the Zimmer project struck the nuclear industry widely—specifically for utilities looking to sell bonds to finance new nuclear—as no company had walked away from a costly nuclear project so close to completion.

1986: Midland 1 (818 MW) and 2 (492 MW)—After 17 years of sporadic construction, hearing and protests, and after project partner Dow Chemical pulled out of the project, Consumers Powers Co.’s board of directors voted to abandon the two reactors in Michigan—even though the project was 85% complete. At the time, the board cited changing safety rules, which it blamed for costly delays, and a refusal by some of Michigan’s major industrial consumers to agree to rate increases. Some critics also alleged project mismanagement. Consumers had spent $4 billion on the two reactors when it abandoned the project. In 1987, it began converting the plant to a natural gas–fired cogeneration facility, and in 2009, after years of high natural gas prices, the company sold its stake in the Midland Cogeneration Venture to New York–based Fortistar.

1988: Bellefonte 1 and 2 (1.2 GW each)—TVA’s board suspended the project when Unit 1 was 88% complete and Unit 2, 58% complete, after a combined $6 billion investment. TVA considered completing the project in 2010, but it ultimately sold the site in November 2016 to Nuclear Development LLC, a firm that has sought federal loan guarantees to complete the project.

1988: Seabrook 2 (1.2 GW)— Public Service Co. of New Hampshire canceled plans for the second of two reactors planned at Seabrook. Unit 2 was 25% complete and the utility had spent $800 million on the project. Unit 1 was completed in 1986.

1989: Shoreham (820 MW)—The Shoreham Long Island Lighting Co. (LILCO) fully completed this GE BWR in 1984, but considerable public opposition after Three Mile Island prompted Suffolk County officials in New York to determine that the county could not be safely evacuated in the event of a serious nuclear accident at the plant. Even though the company received federal permission for low power tests in 1985, the states declined a company-sponsored evacuation plan, effectively barring it from ever opening. In 1992, the Long Island Power Authority bough the plant from LILCO (for $1), and it was fully decommissioned in 1994. In 1965 when LILCO first announced plans for the plant, it said it could be completed by 1973 at a cost of $75 million; by the late 1970s, after LILCO decided to increase the size of Shoreham from 540 MW to 820 MW, costs soared to $2 billion; and by the 1990s, ratepayers were saddled with an enormous price tag of $6 billion for the project, which never produced commercial power.

1990: Grand Gulf 2 (1.3 GW)—Though planned in the 1970s when regional demand for power was rising sharply every year, in 1986, Middle South Utilities—Entergy’s predecessor— suspended construction of the project where work had begun in 1975 after state regulators denied the company’s request for rate increases to pay for the project. Citing a massive debt load and political imbroglio, and though the project was 66% complete and one unit at the plant had been placed in commercial operation in 1985, the company scrapped the project in 1990.

1995: Washington Nuclear 1 (1.3 GW) and Washington Nuclear 3 (1.2 GW)—Only one of five reactors planned by the Washington Public Power Supply System was completed (Columbia Generating Station, in 1984) but the remaining unfinished plants were mothballed against the possibility that construction would be resumed. In 1995, the projects were formally terminated. The company, renamed as Energy Northwest, asked the NRC to extend the construction permit for Unit 1 to 2001, but in 2005, it determined again that the construction permit was no longer needed.

2017: V.C. Summer 3 and 4 (each 1.1 GW)—SCANA Corp. and its partner Santee Cooper scrapped two AP1000 reactors that were 64% complete, claiming completion would cost $9.8 billion. The project, whose construction began in 2013, was dogged by costly delays stemming in part due to new safety rules implemented in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima disaster. In early 2017, delays at the project and two other AP1000s under construction in Georgia forced contractor Westinghouse to declare bankruptcy. The partners spent $9 billion on the project they estimated could cost up to $24 billion to complete.  https://www.powermag.com/interactive-map-abandoned-nuclear-power-projects/#.Y2Sprx1KxHA.twitter

November 3, 2022 Posted by | history, Reference, technology | Leave a comment

U.S. company Westinghouse wants to build a fleet of nuclear reactors in Europe, starting with Poland.

The Council of Ministers has formally approved the decision that the first
nuclear power plant in Poland will use three Westinghouse AP1000 reactors –
with the US company calling it an “historic day” as it looks to build a
fleet of the reactors in central Europe.

World Nuclear News 3rd Nov 2022

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Poland%E2%80%99s-government-confirms-Westinghouse-for-nucl

November 3, 2022 Posted by | EUROPE, marketing | Leave a comment

COP27 in Egypt. Will rich nations fulfil their promises to help poor countries to fight global heating?

Tens of thousands of people will be jetting to an Egyptian holiday resort
beside the Red Sea this weekend in an effort to tackle climate change. It
sounds like a joke, but this latest UN climate summit – COP27 – is reckoned
to be the world’s best hope of progress on the climate issue.

Progress is certainly needed. The global effort to cut emissions is “woefully
inadequate” and means the world is on track for “catastrophe”, the UN
warned last week.

But the meeting in Sharm El-Sheikh is shaping up to be a
prickly and confrontational affair. The Egyptian hosts have set themselves
a tough challenge. Last year’s UN climate conference in Glasgow delivered a
host of pledges on emissions cuts, finance, net zero, forest protection and
more. Egypt says their conference will be about implementing these pledges.


What that really means is it will be all about cash, and specifically
getting wealthy nations to come good on their promises of finance to help
the developing world tackle climate change. So expect the main battle lines
to be between the north and south, between rich and poor nations.

BBC 4th Nov 2022

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63502762

November 3, 2022 Posted by | 2 WORLD, climate change | Leave a comment

When it comes to a nuclear industry project – Europe puts no sanctions on Russia

Despite conflict, Russia sends France giant magnet for nuclear fusion project, Euractiv 4 Nov 22

Russia on Tuesday (1 November) dispatched one of six giant magnets needed for the ITER nuclear fusion programme in France, one of the last international scientific projects Moscow participates in despite the Ukraine conflict.

The ship carrying the Russian-made magnet – or “poloidal field coil” – departed Saint Petersburg on Tuesday under grey skies.

On board, the massive nine-metre-wide coil, which weighs 200 tonnes had been tightly wrapped to withstand a two-week trip to Marseille, southern France.

The ring-shaped magnet built under Russian atomic agency Rosatom’s supervision will make up the top part of the world’s largest “tokamak”.

The tokamak is a magnetic fusion device built in France following the same principle that powers our sun and stars.


The Russian piece was meant to leave in May but sanctions forbidding Russian ships docking in Europe delayed the departure.

Still, the “current situation did not change the fact that we will fullfil our obligations”, Rosatom representative for international projects Viacheslav Perchukov said.

Geopolitical tensions “practically did not affect the realisation of this project”, Perchukov said.

“Without (the Russian coil), the tokamak will not work,” senior ITER centre scientist Leonid Khimchenko told AFP……………………more https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/despite-conflict-russia-sends-france-giant-magnet-for-nuclear-fusion-project/

November 3, 2022 Posted by | EUROPE, politics international | Leave a comment

The new Jewish state in the Levant: A fanatics-led nuclear power

Israel is about to get the most extreme government in the country’s history. But there are limits to what it can do.

Israel’s colonial democracy has given birth to a potentially more extreme type of ‘Jewish state’ akin to a more sophisticated and modern version of the ‘Islamic state’. But unlike ISIL which was conceived in and defeated by war, Israel is the only nuclear power in the Middle East today.

The fanatics, fascists, and far-right fantasists, who won this week’s elections in Israel, are about to form the most openly extreme government in the country’s history. It is sure to include the Jewish state’s new rising star Itamar Ben-Gvir — a violence-spewing, Palestinian-hating radical on whose support the government will stand.

A majority of religious nationalists and ultraorthodox parties in government, the first in Israel’s history, would want to transform the Jewish state towards a theocracy that lives by the Halacha (Jewish law) and finish colonising the entirety of Palestine, come what may.

But could they? What can they do in reality that their predecessors have not done already, in terms of exacting death and destruction, and further expanding the illegal Jewish settlement in Palestine?

Benjamin Netanyahu, who will likely form and lead the new coalition government, knows from his experience as Israel’s longest-serving prime minister that there is a limit on how far Israel can go before it starts to meet fierce Palestinian and Arab resistance. Any further, and Israel could also lose support in Europe and the United States; support that is indispensable to its security and regional standing.

He has previously preferred incremental steps to radical measures that could alienate Israel’s main backers and its new regional partners. Netanyahu may therefore try to curb his partners’ eagerness to annex the occupied West Bank and ethnically cleanse it of its Palestinian inhabitants.

But then again, it is doubtful whether he will be able to tame these religious fanatics, knowing all too well they have a hold over the survival of his premiership; his only guarantee to stay out of prison, after having been indicted for serious corruption charges.

I think the genie is finally out of the bottle.

The elections have opened a Pandora’s box that may well take Israelis to the dark side. They have exposed the fragility of Israel’s peculiar liberality as a colonial state, and unmasked the p

ervasive fanaticism among the majority of the electorate after decades of unfettered military occupation.

The unruly pronouncements of Netanyahu’s scandalous new partners reflect the prevailing beliefs among the majority of Israel’s right-wing parties, including his own Likud, that have ruled the country for the past few decades. But now that they are boasting of Jewish supremacy out in the open, it is harder for Netanyahu’s hasbara to conceal their — or his — racism from the rest of the world.

After all, it was Bibi, as Netanyahu is known, who back in August midwifed the union of two or three small fanatic parties, to ensure they maximise the number of their seats and join his future coalition government. They did exceedingly well: The Religious Zionist Party won 14 seats. Its legislators include Ben-Gvir.

Netanyahu’s two other coalition partners, the ultraorthodox Jewish parties, Shas and UJT, which are as socially regressive and politically fanatic, won 18 seats. Together with the 32 far-right Likud members, they command a comfortable like-minded majority of 64 seats in the 120-member Knesset……………………. more https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/11/4/the-new-jewish-state-in-the-levant-a-fanatics-led-nuclear-power

November 3, 2022 Posted by | Israel, politics | Leave a comment

North Korea fired intercontinental ballistic missile – Seoul

 https://www.rt.com/news/565844-north-korea-icbm-launch/ 4 Nov 22, The launch failed during the second-stage separation, a South Korean military official told Yonhap

North Korea has launched an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) as part of a large-scale show of force against the ongoing war games between the US and South Korea, according to Seoul’s armed forces.

The South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff said the military detected “what is presumed to be a long-range ballistic missile launch from the Sunan area in Pyongyang” early on Thursday morning, noting that two additional short-range missiles followed about one hour later. 

After analyzing details of the launch, the military added that the weapon traveled a distance of around 760km (472 miles) and reached a top speed of Mach 15. However, a defense source later told Yonhap that “the missile seems to have failed in normal flight” after its second-stage separation.

In a statement later on Thursday, the Joint Chiefs said “Our military has beefed up surveillance and vigilance” and would maintain a “readiness posture in close cooperation with the US.”

Thursday’s launch marks the first time Pyongyang has fired an ICBM since May, though it comes amid a record number of missile tests overall this year. The DPRK has also unleashed hundreds of rockets, missiles, and artillery shells into the sea in recent days as a demonstration to Washington and Seoul, which are in the middle of some of their largest air drills ever. 

With tensions soaring on the peninsula, the North has repeatedly condemned the exercises as a rehearsal for a full-scale invasion, even suggesting earlier this week that Washington could be preparing a nuclear attack. The US and South Korea, meanwhile, have denounced each missile launch by Pyongyang as a dangerous provocation and have vowed to continue strengthening military ties.

November 3, 2022 Posted by | North Korea, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Studies on nuclear radiation’s impact on people necessary: BRIN

 https://en.antaranews.com/news/258613/studies-on-nuclear-radiations-impact-on-people-necessary-brin 4 Nov 22, Jakarta (ANTARA) – Environmental and health studies on the impact of radiation exposure on people living in areas of high natural radiation, such as Mamuju, West Sulawesi, are necessary, the National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN) has said.

A researcher from BRIN’s Research Center for Metrology Safety Technology and Nuclear Quality, Eka Djatnika Nugraha, said that in some places in Indonesia, such as Mamuju, people have been exposed to natural radiation that is several times higher than the global average at around 2.4 millisieverts per year.

“This situation may pose a health risk to the public due to chronic external and internal exposure,” Nugraha said in a statement received on Friday.

Mamuju is an area of high natural background radiation due to the high concentration of uranium and thorium in the rocks and soil, he observed.

Thus, studies on the health of people living in such areas could serve as a potential source of information about the effects of chronic low-dose exposure, he added.

In order to obtain scientific evidence on the effects of chronic low-dose radiation exposure on health, it is necessary to conduct a comprehensive environmental assessment of the exposure situation in areas of high natural radiation, he elaborated.

Meanwhile, head of BRIN’s Nuclear Energy Research Organization, Rohadi Awaludin, said that it is important to know and understand the safety and protection measures against nuclear radiation technology, especially for everyone involved or in contact with it.

“Nuclear radiation technology, including ionization, has been used and applied to various aspects, including industry and health, food, and others. This technology is the answer to the problems we have, but there are also risks that (one) must be (aware of) from this technology,” he added. 

November 3, 2022 Posted by | Indonesia, radiation, Uranium | Leave a comment

Doomsday Clock Reveals How Nuclear War Would Decimate Civilization

NewsWeek BY ARISTOS GEORGIOU ON 11/4/22 The organization behind the Doomsday Clock has published a guide that details the potentially catastrophic consequences of a global nuclear war—which could kill hundreds of millions in hours—in what is a “wake-up call” for people around the world, the author told Newsweek.

………….. The Doomsday Clock is a symbolic device designed to warn the public about how close humanity is to destroying itself with “dangerous technologies of our own making,” such as nuclear weapons as well as those that are contributing to climate change.

The clock, which was created in 1947 and is maintained by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists magazine, has been reset 24 times, most recently in 2020 when the minute hand moved from two minutes to midnight to 100 seconds to midnight.

In January 2022, the Science and Security Board of the Bulletin, which decides the clock’s time, announced that the minute hand was staying at 100 seconds to midnight. The board said that Ukraine was a potential flashpoint in an “increasingly tense International security landscape.” After Russia invaded the country in late February, the board condemned its actions.

On October 20, the Bulletin published an article titled “Nowhere to Hide: How a Nuclear War Would Kill You and Almost Everyone Else,” which was authored by François Diaz-Maurin, the magazine’s associate editor for nuclear affairs.

“Clearly, with the war in Ukraine, we were—and still are—concerned that the world could be sleepwalking into nuclear war,” Diaz-Maurin told Newsweek. “As a magazine covering those risks since pretty much when nuclear weapons were created, we had a responsibility to do something. This article is a wake-up call from the Bulletin.”……………………….

By detailing the potentially devastating consequences for humanity, the article was published to try to minimize the threat of such a war breaking out.

“If you are better informed about…the consequences of using nuclear weapons in a war, you are more likely not to go down that path,” Diaz-Maurin said. “There is no small or acceptable use of a nuclear weapon. Any use would put the world into uncharted territory.”

In the article, Diaz-Maurin wrote that hundreds or thousands of detonations would occur within minutes of each other in a nuclear war.

Given the destructive power of nuclear weapons, even a “limited” regional exchange between India and Pakistan—involving 100 15-kiloton warheads launched at urban areas—would result in 27 million direct deaths.

A global, all-out nuclear war between the United States and Russia, based on a scenario involving 4,400 100-kiloton weapons, would very quickly result in a minimum of 360 million deaths around the world from the direct effects alone.

Even though these figures are staggering, the article notes that these deaths would be only the beginning of a massive catastrophe that would affect not only the warring parties and their allies but the entire world…………………..  https://www.newsweek.com/doomsday-clock-organization-creates-guide-showing-impact-nuclear-war-1756945

November 3, 2022 Posted by | 2 WORLD, weapons and war | Leave a comment

USA’s deliberate ambiguity on use of nuclear weapons really means “don’t mess with us or we’ll nuke you”

Basically, the United States is holding the world hostage to its nuclear arsenal, saying that we reserve the right to use nuclear weapons any time we determine under any circumstances so that we have a broader definition of deterrence, meaning that we are deterring. But what are we deterring? You see, with a sole purpose declaration, we’re deterring a nuclear attack against us.

But the current nuclear strategy is to deter something that is ambiguous in nature, meaning we haven’t precisely spelled it out. We’re leaving the world guessing. And what we’re saying is, don’t mess with us, or else we’ll nuke you.

We can never use these weapons, but why are we building them as if they are a viable tool? This is why disarmament is so much better, so much more logical, and ultimately has a more humanitarian basis and national security basis than the continued pursuit of a so-called nuclear deterrent. Disarmament is the only thing that will save mankind. Continuing to pursue a nuclear deterrent could very well be the end of mankind

US Holds World Hostage to Its Nukes, Ex-American Intel Officer Says

Sputnik International, 29.10.2022 

Earlier this week, Pentagon released nuclear posture, which suggests that the US doesn’t rule out use of the nuclear arsenal against non-nuclear threats – which contradicts previous pledges by the Biden administration.

Scott Ritter, a military analyst and former US Marine Corps intelligence officer, explained Sputnik why Washington adopted new nuclear policies and what do they mean for regular Americans.

Sputnik: Why are Russia and Сhina to be blamed for the Biden’s administration failure to reduce nuclear weapons?

Scott Ritter: We have to look for somebody to blame. We can’t blame ourselves. That’s normally what happens. But we are solely to blame. President Biden ran on a platform that said that he would be seeking what’s called the single-use policy for nuclear deterrence. And what that means is its a single-purpose policy. And the single purpose would be that the sole purpose of the US nuclear weapons arsenal is deterrence. And that’s it; that we would never use nuclear weapons under any circumstance other than to respond to somebody using nuclear weapons against us; that we are here to deter a nuclear attack on the United States.

He’s broken that promise. The strategy that he has propagated recently is a strategy that continues the past practice of having deliberate ambiguity about the conditions and circumstances under which America could use nuclear weapons, up to and including a pre-emptive nuclear attack by the United States in response to a non-nuclear incident.

Basically, the United States is holding the world hostage to its nuclear arsenal, saying that we reserve the right to use nuclear weapons any time we determine under any circumstances so that we have a broader definition of deterrence, meaning that we are deterring. But what are we deterring? You see, with a sole purpose declaration, we’re deterring a nuclear attack against us. But the current nuclear strategy is to deter something that is ambiguous in nature, meaning we haven’t precisely spelled it out. We’re leaving the world guessing. And what we’re saying is, don’t mess with us, or else we’ll nuke you.

This has nothing to do with China and Russia. China and Russia have nuclear weapons arsenals. Which would be covered under the sole purpose doctrine. But this is about blackmailing the world. But we can’t tell the world that we’re blackmailing it. We have to blame it on China and Russia. But there’s no linkage whatsoever between the nuclear posture, as published by the Biden administration, and the nuclear arsenals of China and Russia. If that was it, then we’d have a bold purpose doctrine.

Sputnik: What’s the reason for the West to escalate the nuclear rhetoric?

Scott Ritter: That’s a separate question, separate from the issue of the nuclear posture in the National Security Strategy. We have a current situation right now where Ukraine is losing this conflict. The West is recognizing that ultimately Ukraine will lose this conflict and that there’s nothing they can do to forestall this defeat. And so what they’ve done is they have created in terms of an information warfare, propaganda driven exercise, the threat of a Russian nuclear strike against Ukraine. It makes no sense. I think Vladimir Putin addressed this in his presentation to the Valdai conference, that it makes no sense whatsoever to talk about a Russian nuclear weapon used in Ukraine. There’s no reason for this. It’s not part of their doctrine. It isn’t going to happen.

But this isn’t about reality. This is about shaping perception. And so that’s where this nuclear crisis is coming from today – talks of a dirty bomb, talks of a Russian pre-emptive nuclear strike, President Zelensky begging NATO to carry out their own pre-emptive nuclear strikes against Russia, NATO holding an annual exercise that trains the use of the very weapons President Zelensky asked NATO to use against Russia. NATO should have cancelled that exercise or at least postponed it to a later date, but they didn’t. Russia has now responded with its own strategic nuclear exercise. Again, an annual exercise, this one testing not tactical nuclear weapons, but strategic nuclear weapons.

And people are trying to make a linkage between all of this. There isn’t. But this is where the heightened rhetoric and the heightened threat and the heightened crisis comes from. This is independent from the publication of the National Security Strategy. The National Security Strategy isn’t designed to do anything different than what past national security strategies have done, which is to put the world on notice that the United States has a nuclear weapons arsenal, that it will use any time it determines, whether or not the threat is nuclear in nature. We’re holding the world hostage, but we’ve been holding the world hostage for decades.

Sputnik: In the 2022 NPR, the Pentagon refuses to back away from the possibility of using nuclear weapons in response to “significant non-nuclear strategic attacks” – what were the reasons to obliterate main agreements in the sphere of strategic security?

Scott Ritter: This is not a new position by the Pentagon. This is actually a posture that emerged during the presidency of George W. Bush. That was the first time that this notion that we would use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear threat emerged.

The Obama administration talked about walking away from that, but it’s very difficult for presidents to disentangle their desires from the pressures of the establishment. And when we’re dealing with nuclear weapons and the issue of nuclear deterrence, the establishment is extraordinarily powerful because they can always say that you’re weakening. You can tell a president that you’re weakening America, you’re putting American lives at risk…………………………………………………………………………

We can never use these weapons, but why are we building them as if they are a viable tool? This is why disarmament is so much better, so much more logical, and ultimately has a more humanitarian basis and national security basis than the continued pursuit of a so-called nuclear deterrent. Disarmament is the only thing that will save mankind. Continuing to pursue a nuclear deterrent could very well be the end of mankind.  https://sputniknews.com/20221029/us-holds-world-hostage-to-its-nukes-ex-american-intel-officer-says-1102824182.html

November 2, 2022 Posted by | politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

War and Regrets in Ukraine

The truth is Moscow’s redline concerning Ukrainian entry into NATO was always real. Eastern Ukraine and Crimea were always predominantly Russian in language, culture, history, and political orientation. Europe’s descent into economic oblivion this winter is also real, as is support for Russia’s cause in China and India and Moscow’s rising military strength.

Washington may regret its role in the war in Ukraine.

 https://www.theamericanconservative.com/war-and-regrets-in-ukraine/ Douglas Macgregor, Oct 19, 2022

Of the Vietnam War, Henry Kissinger, former national security advisor and secretary of State under Presidents Nixon and Ford, said, “We should never have been there.” Before long, Americans, even the politicians inside the Beltway, will reach the same conclusion about Washington’s Ukrainian proxy war against Russia. 

No one in the White House, the Senate, or the House consciously set out to turn the proxy Ukrainian war with Moscow into a contest of “competitive societal collapse” between Russia and NATO. But here we are. No one imagined that the Biden administration and the bipartisan war party would drive Americans and Europeans into a political, military, and economic valley of death, from which there is no easy escape. Yet that is precisely what is happening.

For the moment, Washington remains blind to these developments. Whether in print, radio, television, or online, the narrative is clear: despite horrific losses—at least 400,000 Ukrainian battlefield casualties including 100,000 soldiers killed in action—Ukrainian forces are winning. Moreover, the narrative says, America’s financial and economic dominance will ultimately overwhelm the deceptively weak Russian economy.

The Ukrainian-victory narrative admittedly benefits hugely from Western media that actively “tune out” opposing views and depict Russia and its armed forces in the worst possible light. The fact that nearly half a century of the Cold War conditioned Americans to think the worst of Russians certainly helps. 

Yet there is also a measure of “true faith” at work, a condition of national narcissism, inside the Beltway that believes Washington can control what happens thousands of miles away in Eastern Ukraine. The message resonates in Congress because it rests on a critical strategic assumption that American citizens have yet to challenge: that American national power is limitless and unconstrained—as though a series of strategic failures, from Vietnam to Afghanistan, never happened.

Given that American politicians are always more preoccupied by domestic affairs than foreign policy, members of Congress are quick to adopt the “true faith.” This faith explains why for the last eight years members thought a future war with Russia was a low-risk affair. Ukrainians would provide the cannon fodder and Washington would provide the expensive weaponry and munitions. 

Predictably, Washington’s governing strategic principles are unchanged from previous U.S. interventions around the world. Muddle through: masses of soldiers—in this case Ukrainians advised by U.S. and allied officers—and huge infusions of cash, equipment, and technology can and will permanently alter strategic reality in America’s favor. 

The stupefying air of self-righteousness the Biden administration assumes when it attacks erstwhile strategic partners such as Saudi Arabia or delivers moralizing lectures to Beijing’s leadership, or when its media surrogates express contempt for the Russian state, is downright dangerous. Political figures in Washington are ready to indulge any transgression if it is committed in the name of destroying Russia. They do not view U.S. foreign policy in the context of a larger strategy, nor do they comprehend Russia’s capacity to hurt the United States, a bizarre judgment of Russia’s actual military and economic potential. 

The result is a toxic climate of ideological hatred making it hard to imagine a contemporary U.S. secretary of State ever signing an international agreement renouncing war as an instrument of U.S. national policy, as Secretary of State Frank Kellogg did in 1928. But as one of Shakespeare’s characters in the Merchant of Venice warned, “The truth will out.” 

The ongoing buildup of 700,000 Russian forces with modern equipment in Western Russia, Eastern Ukraine and Belorussia is a direct consequence of Moscow’s decision to adopt an elastic, strategic defense of the territories it seized in the opening months of the war. It was a wise, though politically unpopular choice in Russia. Yet, the strategy has succeeded. Ukrainian losses have been catastrophic and by November, Russian Forces will be in a position to strike a knockout blow. 

Today, there are rumors in the media that Kiev may be under pressure to launch more counterattacks against Russian defenses in Kherson (Southern Ukraine) before the midterm elections in November. At this point, expending what little remains of Ukraine’s life blood to expel Russian forces from Ukraine is hardly synonymous with the preservation of the Ukrainian state. It’s also doubtful that further sacrifices by Ukrainians will assist the Biden administration in the midterm elections.  

The truth is Moscow’s redline concerning Ukrainian entry into NATO was always real. Eastern Ukraine and Crimea were always predominantly Russian in language, culture, history, and political orientation. Europe’s descent into economic oblivion this winter is also real, as is support for Russia’s cause in China and India and Moscow’s rising military strength.

In retrospect, it is easy to see how Congress was beguiled by the denizens of think tanks, lobbyists, and retired generals, who are, with few exceptions, people with a cocktail level of familiarity with high-end conventional warfare. Members of the House and Senate were urged to support dubious strategies for the use of American military assistance, including reckless scenarios for limited nuclear war with Russia or China. 

For some reason, U.S. politicians have lost sight of the reality that any use of nuclear weapons would overwhelm the ends of all national policy.  

November 2, 2022 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Carbon-14: Another underestimated danger from nuclear power reactors

   https://beyondnuclear.org/carbon-14-another-underestimated-danger-from-nuclear-power-reactors/ 1 Nov 22,

There are a number of radionuclides released from nuclear energy facilities. This paper highlights carbon-14 for a number of reasons:

  • Carbon-14 is radioactive and is released into air as methane and carbon dioxide.
  • Before 2010, carbon-14 releases from nuclear reactors were virtually ignored in the United States. Today only estimates are required and only under certain restrictive circumstances.
  • There is no good accounting of releases to date, so its impact on our health, our children’s health, and that of our environment remains unknown, yet environmental measurement is possible, but can be challenging under certain conditions.
  • Carbon-14 has a half-life of over 5700 years and the element carbon is a basic building block for life on earth. Therefore, “it constitutes a potential health hazard, whose additional production by anthropogenic sources of today will result in an increased radiation exposure to many future generations.”
  • Like tritium, it can collect in the tissues of the fetus at twice the concentration of the tissues in the mother, pointing to its disproportionate impact on the most vulnerable human lifecycle: the developing child.

November 2, 2022 Posted by | 2 WORLD, climate change, radiation, Reference | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »