nuclear-news

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

Revealed: ministers’ doubts over nuclear plant at Torness

Torness Rob Edwards, August 12, 2024

Labour and Conservative governments secretly harboured doubts about building a nuclear power station at Torness in East Lothian in the late 1970s, according to internal documents released by the Scottish Government.

Campaigns against Torness won support within the then Scottish Office, and came closer to success than realised. There was a “real risk” of the treasury in London delaying the project, warned one official.

But the nuclear industry fought a fierce behind-the-scenes battle in defence of the power station, and it ended up being built in the 1980s.

Campaigners condemned past decision-making about Torness as a “total sham”. According to one former UK Government adviser, lobbying by the nuclear industry had always been “more influential” than evidence.

The Ferret analysed 11 large government files on Torness in 1978 and 1979 at the National Records of Scotland in Edinburgh. One was only released in 2023 after a request under freedom of information law.

The files reveal that ministers and officials in both James Callaghan’s and Margaret Thatcher’s governments privately raised concerns about the proposed nuclear station at Torness. 

Torness was the target for a series of anti-nuclear protests in the 1970s, initially organised by the Scottish Campaign to Resist the Atomic Menace (SCRAM). There were demonstrations and an occupation of the site in 1978, and in May 1979 more than 10,000 people joined a weekend protest there.

Despite further protests in 1980 and 1981, the nuclear station was built and formally opened by Thatcher in 1989. It is currently scheduled to keep operating until 2028, though there are plans to run it for longer.

Early in 1978 SCRAM made a submission to the Scottish Office arguing that Torness should be subject to a new public inquiry. An earlier inquiry in 1974 had been inadequate because it had not specified the type of reactors to be built, the campaign group argued……………………………………………………………………………………………………

Case for Torness ‘less than convincing’

However, a covering note from an official on 16 May 1979 admitted that the case for Torness was “less than convincing”. The absence of information in support of the plant was “worrying”, the official commented, “because I think there is a real risk in the present climate of the treasury seeking to re-examine or hold up the project”.

In a memo two days later, Fletcher said: “I still have some doubts concerning the advisability of a nuclear station at Torness”. A handwritten note by an official added simply “Amen”.

A memo on 1 June 1979 reported that Torness’s backer, the government-owned South of Scotland Electricity Board (SSEB), was “most despondent” about the lack of investment approval. All the signs were that the project was “slipping out of control”, it said.

In the end, though, the government documents show that the SSEB, backed by its supporters in the Scottish Office, saved Torness. They worked hard to convince the treasury and, ultimately, Thatcher, that it should go ahead because it was needed to sustain the power station industry…………………………………………………………………………

Torness ‘a total sham’

The veteran environmental campaigner and energy author, Walt Patterson, testified at the Torness inquiry in 1974. “Torness was a total sham, and the inquiry had no relevance to the official decision to build it,” he told The Ferret.

“Torness was ordered just to keep the power station building industry busy, not because we could use the electricity.”

Pete Roche, a nuclear consultant who worked with SCRAM in Edinburgh in the 1970s and 1980s, suggested that politicians might have been worried that cancelling Torness would “somehow legitimise protest”. 

He said: “We knew at the time that the case for Torness was collapsing before our very eyes, but it’s a pleasant surprise to learn that both Labour and Tory Ministers had secretly expressed doubts about the plant.”

Dr Ewan Gibbs, a researcher from the school of social and political sciences at University of Glasgow who has studied Torness protests, pointed out that anti-nuclear activists had mobilised tens of thousands of people in opposition to the plant.

“Thanks to these new research findings, we now know that both Scottish Labour and Tory ministers had serious doubts over the nuclear power station project in the late 1970s.”……………………………………….. more https://theferret.scot/torness-nuclear-doubts-ministers/—

August 13, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Iran´s new president reappoints UN-sanctioned official as head of the country’s nuclear agency

By Associated Press, 10 August 2024

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) – Iran´s newly-elected president reappointed a U.S.-educated official who came under United Nations sanctions 16 years ago as head of the country´s nuclear department, state TV reported Saturday.

Mohammad Eslami, 67, will continue his work as chief of Iran’s civilian nuclear program and serve as one of several vice presidents. Eslami’s reappointment by President Masoud Pezeshkian comes as Iran remains under heavy sanctions by the West following the collapse of the 2015 deal that curbed Iran´s nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief.

Pezeshkian had said during his presidential campaign that he would try to revive the nuclear deal.

The United Nations sanctioned Eslami in 2008 for “being engaged in, directly associated with or providing support for Iran´s proliferation of sensitive nuclear activities or for the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems”, when he was the head of Iran´s Defense Industries Training and Research Institute.

He was appointed as the chief of Iran´s nuclear department for the first time by late President Ebrahim Raisi in 2021, before that, from 2018, in moderate former President Hassan Rouhani´s era, Eslami served as Transport and Urban Development Minister.

He has experience working in Iran´s military industries, for years, most recently as deputy defense minister responsible for research and industry……………………

Iran is building two nuclear power facilities to supplement its sole operational 1,000-megawatt reactor at the southern port town of Bushehr, which went online with Russia´s help in 2011. Under its long-term energy plan, Iran aims to reach 20,000-megawatt nuclear electric capacity.

The nation has in recent months faced country-wide power outages.https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-13730505/Iran-s-new-president-reappoints-UN-sanctioned-official-head-countrys-nuclear-agency.html

August 12, 2024 Posted by | Iran, politics | Leave a comment

Analysis of Canadian Nuclear Association (CNA) recommendations for Budget 2025

The lack of new nuclear projects in Canada reflects investor decisions, not excess regulation.  No nuclear project has been assessed since the Act came into force nearly five years ago.

Ole Hendrickson , 10 August 24

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance announced its annual pre-budget consultations process on June 24, 2024.  It invited the submission of written briefs no later than August 2, 2024.  The committee will table a report on these consultations in the House of Commons, with recommendations to be considered by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance in their development of Budget 2025.  On July 30, 2024, the Canadian Nuclear Association (CNA) submitted its recommendations.

Part 1 – “Clean Economy” Investment Tax Credit (ITC) Programs

The CNA brief refers to four “Clean Economy” investment tax creditprograms from Budget 2024.  Three were passed into law in June 2024.

Nuclear projects should not be eligible for investment tax credits.  Nuclear power is not clean.  It produces vast amounts of pollutants and waste, ranging from toxic mine tailings to irradiated fuel rods.  Providing tax credits for nuclear power represents poor economic and environmental policy.  

The only apparent reason for providing investment tax credits for nuclear power is that the Minister of Natural Resources Canada, whose department provides “engineering and scientific guidance” for the ITC programs, has a mandate to promote nuclear power under the Nuclear Energy Act.

1. Clean Technology ITC

Small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) are the only nuclear power projects eligible for the 15% refundable tax credit under this program.  The accepted definition of an SMR is a reactor that has a power capacity of up to 300 megawatts electrical per unit, or roughly 900 megawatts thermal. 

The CNA wants to expand the definition of an SMR to include reactors up to 1400 megawatts thermal, or roughly 470 megawatts electrical. 

There is considerable evidence that SMRs would produce far more expensive electricity than other generating facilities, including larger nuclear reactors. Does the CNA anticipate that the 300-megawatt BWRX-300 reactors that Ontario Power Generation plans to build at the Darlington nuclear site will not be cost-competitive without additional subsidies?

2.  Clean Hydrogen ITC

This ITC program provides refundable tax credits ranging from 15-40% depending on the carbon intensity of the hydrogen produced.  Widespread use of hydrogen as an energy source would require expensive new infrastructure investments. Using expensive nuclear power to produce hydrogen would further increase costs. The CNA wants hydrogen produced by using nuclear power to hydrolyze water to be considered as a qualified clean hydrogen project. The Government of Canada has not provided details on eligible projects under this ITC program.

3. Clean Technology Manufacturing ITC

This ITC program provides refundable tax credits for “clean technology manufacturing and processing.” The CNA wants to see explicit mention of the extraction and processing of uranium as a “critical mineral”, of the manufacturing of nuclear energy equipment and nuclear fuels, and of the manufacturing of “equipment for lifecycle handling of uranium fuel,” as being eligible for tax credits.

All the activities in the nuclear fuel “lifecycle” generate waste that is hazardous to human health and difficult to manage.  The use of robotic equipment to handle the highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel waste is one of the most expensive parts of this “lifecycle”.  A “clean economy” program should not subsidize waste management for a particular industry, particularly when that industry has delayed its decommissioning and waste management activities for decades.

4. Clean Electricity ITC

Under this ITC program, which has not yet passed into law, the CNA wants to “include all components enabling clean electricity assets to continue operating in refurbishment expenditures.” 

Ontario Power Generation and Bruce Power have active reactor refurbishment programs.  The Ontario provincial government already provides a $7.3 billion taxpayer subsidy to hold down electricity rates and shield industrial and household ratepayers from reactor refurbishment costs.  A new federal subsidy for refurbishment of Ontario’s reactors would further hide nuclear costs, and would provide no apparent benefit to Canadian taxpayers in other provinces. 

Part 2 – Policies that “enhance the regulatory framework to expedite project approvals”

The CNA is seeking to restrict the public’s ability to participate in assessments of nuclear projects. This builds on proposals from a Ministerial Working Group on Regulatory Efficiency for Clean Growth Projects, and a review of the Physical Activities Regulations (the “Project List”) by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada.  Policy matters that go beyond the Committee’s request for views on 2025 Budget priorities should be debated by appropriate Parliamentary committees.

1. Exempting nuclear projects from impact assessment

Based on a plan (Building Canada’s Clean Future) created by a Ministerial Working Group on Regulatory Efficiency for Clean Growth Projects, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada wishes to reduce the possibility that future nuclear projects will be assessed under the Impact Assessment Act.  On July 30, 2024, the Agency released a Discussion paper on the review of the Physical Activities Regulations – the so-called “Project List” – with comments due September 27, 2024. 

Proposals in the Agency’s discussion paper mirror those in the CNA’s submission to the Finance Committee, suggesting that the two may have been working together.  The CNA wants to exempt nuclear reactors of any size that are built on “brownfield” sites (e.g., sites where coal- or gas-fired generating stations have been shut down), or on licensed nuclear sites, from assessment.  At present, only reactors of up to 200 megawatts thermal on brownfield sites, or 900 megawatts thermal on licensed sites, are exempt.  The CNA proposal would also limit technical assessments to “First of a Kind” reactors, with only site considerations for future reactors of a similar design.

The CNA also wants to exempt construction, expansion and decommissioning of uranium mines with an ore production capacity of up to 5,000 tons per day.  This would double the current 2,500 tons/day exemption.  And it wants to allow provincial assessments to replace federal assessments.

These are not constructive proposals.  They would increase the likelihood that nuclear projects will generate conflicts and fail to gain social license.  The Act improves the chances that a project will proceed by encouraging public participation in project planning stages, The ability of independent experts to examine technical details brings rigor to the assessment process. 

The lack of new nuclear projects in Canada reflects investor decisions, not excess regulation.  No nuclear project has been assessed since the Act came into force nearly five years ago. 

2.  Putting the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) in charge of impact assessment

If a nuclear project is captured by the Physical Activities Regulations under the Impact Assessment Act, under Section 44 of the Act the Minister of the Environment must create a review panel, set the panel’s terms of reference, appoint the chairperson and at least two other members of the panel, and ensure that they are unbiased and free from any conflict of interest relative to the project. 

The Minister also has the power to designate a project for assessment, even if it is not captured by the Project List.  The CNA wants to remove the Minister’s powers and give them to the CNSC.

An expert panel report, Building Common Ground: A New Vision for Impact Assessment in Canada, noted the long-standing perception of a lack of independence and neutrality of the CNSC because of its close relationship with the industry it regulates, and its promotion of projects it is tasked with regulating.  The panel found that the CNSC has eroded confidence in the assessment process, leading to widespread use of the term “regulatory capture” to describe this body.

Taking away the Ministers’ powers and reassigning them to the CNSC would be a regressive step, leading to further loss of social license for nuclear projects, as has been the case with the proposed Near Surface Disposal Facility at the federally owned Chalk River Laboratories.

3. Amending the Species at Risk Act

Under section 79 of the Species at Risk Act, the proponent of a project must “notify the competent minister or ministers in writing of the project if it is likely to affect a listed wildlife species or its critical habitat.” 

The CNA recommends that section 79 be modified “to align with the Supreme Court of Canada opinion, focusing on federal jurisdiction.”  The Court, in its reference decision on the Impact Assessment Act, considered the Species at Risk Act and found that the protection of migratory birds, fish, fish habitat, and aquatic species should be included in the definition of adverse federal effect in the Impact Assessment Act.  The Court did not discuss amending the Species at Risk Act. 

The Species at Risk Act applies to all wild species found in Canada and has provisions to promote cooperation with other governments and jurisdictions. The CNA recommendation to amend the Act in the context of Budget 2025 would represent an inappropriate use of budget legislation.  

August 10, 2024 Posted by | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

Radioactive Waste Management – Public Attitudes Survey for Scotland

5 August 2024, Director-General Net Zero Directorate, Environment and Forestry Directorate  https://www.gov.scot/publications/radioactive-waste-management-public-attitudes-survey-scotland/

This report summarises findings from a representative survey of the Scottish public that provides new insights into the perceptions and views towards radioactive waste management in Scotland.

Research Context

The Scottish Government commissioned independent researchers, Diffley Partnership, to conduct a public attitudes survey for Scotland exploring attitudes towards radioactive waste management. The primary aim of this study was to design and deliver research that will help develop a deeper understanding of the views of the Scottish public on a range of radioactive waste management issues, including safety and trust in government and industry.

Approach

An online survey was used to measure public attitudes to radioactive waste management. The survey was conducted between 8th and 11th January 2024 and received 2,160 responses. The questionnaire contained both closed questions (analysed quantitatively) and open response questions (analysed qualitatively).

Key Findings

Knowledge of Radioactive Waste Management

Self-reported levels of knowledge of radioactive waste management among respondents were limited. The vast majority (89%) of respondents reported that they were either not very well informed or not at all informed about radioactive waste management in Scotland.

There was a mixed appetite for more information, with just over half of respondents (55%) indicating they would like to know more about radioactive waste management.

Respondents placed the most trust in scientists/academics to provide information on radioactive waste management over other bodies and institutions such as the nuclear industry, the Scottish Government and the media.

The majority of respondents believed that the regulators of the Scottish Nuclear Industry (82%), the Scottish Nuclear Industry itself (81%) and the Scottish Government (79%) should do more to educate the public about radioactive waste management.

Attitudes towards Radioactive Waste Management

Most respondents agreed that public education is important in the management of radioactive waste (70%).

Overall, there was clear recognition that it is vital for Scotland to have a robust strategy for radioactive waste management (84%). This was linked with concerns about the impact of radioactive waste management on the environment (72%), future generations (68%) and health (55%).

Priorities in Radioactive Waste Management

The protection of human health was the biggest priority in radioactive waste management among the respondents, followed closely by the protection of the environment and the security of radioactive waste management facilities.

Safe containment of radioactive waste (64%) and the protection of the environment (67%) were the highest perceived benefits in the creation of new facilities for managing radioactive waste.

Potential for radioactive leaks (72%) was one of the main concerns about the development of new facilities, along with the possible environmental effects (73%) and health impacts (71%).

Decision-Making in Radioactive Waste Management

Most respondents felt that they have no influence over decision making processes relating to radioactive waste management, either locally (75%) or nationally (67%).

Respondents who stated that they have no influence over decision making felt this way because they felt decisions are made without talking to people (61%), that they have no opportunity to have an influence (48%) and they don’t know how to influence decision making (39%).

There was a mixed appetite for wanting to be involved in decision making with just under half of respondents (47%) wanting to be involved.

 

August 9, 2024 Posted by | public opinion, UK | Leave a comment

Canada’s future generations: affordable clean energy vs. legacy nuclear debt?

For the sake of today and tomorrow’s young, Canada needs to follow a ‘sustainable renewables path to net zero’ using all of our people and financial resources.

Our government must not saddle the generations to come with the debt for nuclear ‘white elephants’ when affordable, clean, renewable power can meet our needs now and theirs in future, writes Gail Wylie.

BY GAIL WYLIE | August 1, 2024,  https://www.hilltimes.com/story/2024/08/01/canadas-future-generations-affordable-clean-energy-vs-legacy-nuclear-debt/429822/

Canadians concerned about climate change want Canada to meet its obligations to future generations by addressing climate change rapidly and responsibly. This requires us to implement current technologies for efficiency, renewable power, modern storage, and electrical grid options.

Instead, the federal government has placed inordinate bets on nuclear power expansion. This includes tens of millions of dollars in funding and loans for experimental small modular reactors, and $50-million in federal predevelopment funding to assess new generation opportunities for Bruce Power’s facility. Nuclear expansion, however, fails Canada’s decarbonization goals of speed and affordability, and takes limited resources away from lower cost, proven climate solutions.

On affordability, Ontario’s lowest cost decarbonized power sources are: efficiency 1.6 cents per kWh, solar plus storage 10 cents per kWh, onshore wind plus storage 10.5 cents per kWh and Quebec water power 5.2 cents per kWh. Nuclear falls among higher costs at 10.5 cents per kWh in 2024, rising to 13.7 cents projected with refurbishments for 2027, and future new nuclear reactors 24.4 cents per kWh.

Ontarians are still paying down the original $38.1-billion in debt and liabilities from Ontario Hydro in 1999 when its finances were over-extended during the period of expanded nuclear power facilities. 

The lengthy approval and construction times and costs for new nuclear are a further caveat highlighted by the World Nuclear Industry Status Report. France renationalized Électricité de France in 2023 facing $70-billion in debt, including the Flamanville reactor at 19.1 billion euros and 17-year completion for 2024. The United Kindgom’s Hinkley Point C which began in 2018 is delayed to 2027 projecting costs of $44-billion. The first of two Vogtle U.S.A. reactors, going live in 2023, took 10 years at $35-billion in cost estimate for the pair. International banks have rebuffed plans by 22 countries at COP28 to “triple nuclear power by 2050,” indicating the lack of a business case for such investment.

The hope of faster, cheaper small modular reactors (SMRs) is fading as the lead developer, NuScale, lost its Utah Utilities investor as projections rose from $3-billion in 2015 to $9.3-billion in 2023. Two SMR designs in New Brunswick are also unlikely to be commercialized.

Future generations who will pay for the power capacity being built in this decade cannot afford these unnecessary financial risks and delays of expanding nuclear assets. The young urgently need affordable housing with energy prices ensuring ‘affordable to heat, cool, and cook-in housing.’

The federal government falsely claims “no path to net zero without nuclear.” The industry mantra of nuclear reliability over renewables “when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow” has been debunked by science-based modelling studies. The Suzuki Foundation’s report, Shifting Power: Zero-Emissions Electricity Across Canada by 2035, and Mark Jacobson’s work at Stanford University, A Solution to Global Warming: Air Pollution, and Energy Insecurity for Canada, both outline the mix of solutions for reliable, affordable, rapid decarbonization across this country by 2035 without new nuclear. The International Renewable Energy Agency’s 2024 analysis confirms that affordable, worldwide transition is attainable with renewables. 

Shrinking battery costs for power storage (kWh in 2022 costing US$159 down as low as $59 currently) and modern electrical grid technologies facilitate renewables’ reliability as reflected in energy strategist Michael Barnard’s analysis. Outages at New Brunswick’s Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station during peak winter periods in 2021 and 2022/23, and its 2024 extended maintenance, reflect nuclear’s vulnerability.

Dealing with nuclear waste is the other elephant in the room with financial and environmental impacts for generations in perpetuity. Phasing out nuclear power—not expanding it—reduces future costs.

So why is Canada not on a renewables path to net zero? Are we too balkanized to co-operate, leading Ontario to expand gas and nuclear power after rejecting Quebec’s 2019 20-year offer of five cents per kWh hydro power?

Or is this the ‘siren song’ of the nuclear lobby, funded with ratepayers’ money, seducing governments with the caché of ‘top tier’ status in the international nuclear club?  Nuclear-armed club members—U.K., France, the United States, and Russia—need civil nuclear as a ‘nuclear supply chain.’ Canada does not!

August 8, 2024 Posted by | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

Majority of Americans support more nuclear power, but future of large-scale nuclear is uncertain

 A majority of U.S. adults remain supportive of expanding nuclear power in
the country, according to a Pew Research Center survey from May. Overall,
56% say they favor more nuclear power plants to generate electricity. This
share is statistically unchanged from last year. A line chart showing that
a majority of Americans continue to support more nuclear power in the U.S.


But the future of large-scale nuclear power in America is uncertain. While
Congress recently passed a bipartisan act intended to ease the nuclear
energy industry’s financial and regulatory challenges, reactor shutdowns
continue to gradually outpace new construction.

Americans remain more
likely to favor expanding solar power (78%) and wind power (72%) than
nuclear power. Yet while support for solar and wind power has declined by
double digits since 2020 – largely driven by drops in Republican support
– the share who favour nuclear power has grown by 13 percentage points
over that span.

 Pew Research 5th Aug 2024

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/08/05/majority-of-americans-support-more-nuclear-power-in-the-country/

August 8, 2024 Posted by | public opinion, USA | Leave a comment

What do Americans really think about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Bulletin, By Scott D. Sagan, Gina Sinclair | August 5, 2024

In mid-August 1945, within weeks of the end of World War II, Americans were polled on whether they approved of the atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  An overwhelmingly high percentage of Americans—85 percent—answered “yes.” That level of approval has gone down over the years, with (depending on the precise wording of the question) only a slim majority (57 percent in 2005) or a large minority (46 percent in 2015) voicing approval in more recent polls.

This reduction in atomic bombing approval over time has been cited as evidence of a gradual normative change in public ethical consciousness, the acceptance of a “nuclear taboo” or what Brown University scholar Nina Tannenwald has called “the general delegitimation of nuclear weapons.” 

This common interpretation of US public opinion, however, is too simplistic. Disapproval has indeed grown over time, but most Americans remain supportive of the 1945 attacks, albeit wishing that alternative strategies had been explored. These conclusions can be clearly seen in the results of a new, more complex public opinion survey, conducted for this article, that asked a representative sample of Americans about their views on the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, examined alternative strategies for ending the war, and provided follow-on questions to determine how the public weighs the costs and benefits of different strategies. 

Scratch beneath the surface, and the American public today, as in 1945, does not display an ethically based taboo against using nuclear weapons or killing enemy civilians, but rather has a preference for doing whatever was necessary to win the war and save American lives…………………………………………………………………………………………….

US public opinion in 2015 and 2024. A 2015 replication of the 1945 Roper poll found that 14.4 percent of Americans felt the United States should not have used atomic bombs at all, that 31.6 percent thought a bomb should have been dropped in a demonstration strike on an unpopulated area, but that almost no one (less than 3 percent) wanted to use more bombs before Japan had a chance to surrender.

For this article, we replicated the 1945 Roper poll again with a representative sample of 2,000 Americans on June 21, 2024, but then asked follow-on questions to help us determine what the public really meant when answering the survey. Such follow-on questions are necessary to understand the public’s deeper set of commitments and preferences. Did those opposing any use of the atomic bombs really support such a policy even if it meant ending the war without a Japanese government surrender? Or would they support dropping the bomb if Japan did not surrender? Would those who favor a demonstration strike today support bombing cities if the demonstration strike failed to compel Tokyo to surrender, or did they oppose atomic attacks against Hiroshima and Nagasaki under all circumstances? In short, what do Americans really think, now, about using nuclear weapons in 1945?

Options and alternatives. The percentage of respondents who said that the United States shouldn’t have used any atomic bombs at all increased from 4.3 percent in 1945, to 14.4 percent in 2015, to 36.7 percent in 2024. The percentage of respondents who preferred the demonstration strike option decreased from 31.6 percent to 20.9 percent. Public support for use of the two bombs, as the United States did in 1945, followed the same general trend, decreasing to 19.4 percent.  But what do these trends reveal about US opinion? Our follow-on questions were designed to measure the public’s true willingness to use nuclear weapons and kill enemy civilians…………………………………………………

In short, when reminded of the Japanese refusal to surrender, the strong majority (82.33 percent) of those who originally favored the demonstration strike then accepted nuclear or conventional attacks on Japanese cities.

Why these preferences? The basic finding that over 36 percent of Americans said today that the United States should not have used any atomic bombs cannot reasonably be interpreted as an indication of a widespread nuclear taboo. It may be a positive trend, but it is not a robust opinion. Indeed, less than half of those respondents maintained that position after they were reminded (as was the case in 1945) that Japan had not accepted unconditional surrender prior to the atomic bomb attacks.

Instead, our 2024 Roper Poll replication provides three valuable insights about American public opinion. First, much of US public is, in fact, still supportive of the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Adding the answers from the different follow-on questions, reveals that 41.3 percent of all respondents were ultimately willing to use a nuclear bomb on one or more cities, and many more Americans (over 25% of all respondents) reported that they didn’t know what their preferences were in this wartime scenario. These findings are inconsistent with the existence of a nuclear taboo and underscore that large hawkish instincts lurk within the U.S. public.

A second novel finding relates to the public’s willingness to attack cities and thereby violate the basic law of armed conflict and the just war principle of non-combatant immunity. While only 41.3 percent of respondents were ultimately willing to use nuclear weapons against cities, many other respondents favored continuing the conventional bombing of Japan. Reasons given by respondents who had at first stated that they opposed nuclear attacks, but then favored continued conventional bombing once reminded that Japan had not accepted unconditional surrender included: “Because if humane tactics don’t work, then you gotta do what you Gotta do;” “Since they refuse to heed to the warning, then they deserve war;” and “If Japan doesn’t surrender than it’s time to show them what we can do.”

Altogether, adding advocates of conventional bombing with advocates of nuclear attacks, 51.25 percent of all respondents chose to attack Japanese cities and kills civilians on a massive scale. This shows that the non-combatant immunity principle, contrary to the claims of some experts, does not have strong “stopping power” at least among the public. These findings challenge the theories of scholars such as Charli Carpenter, Alexander Montgomery, Steven Pinker, Neta Crawford, and Ward Thomas, who posit that a decrease in willingness to use nuclear weapons is a result of broader acceptance of the just war principle of non-combatant immunity.

………………………………………………….. many responses in the 2024 Roper Poll revealed something else: a notable percentage of respondents (15.92 percent) cited their beliefs on the importance of US isolationism and avoiding any engagement in foreign affairs.

……………………………………………These findings about contemporary views of the 1945 atomic bombing are consistent with previous research demonstrating that large segments of the American public are willing to contemplate the use of nuclear weapons in a war against Iran, in order to avoid US military fatalities, or against a terrorist organization planning chemical weapons attacks on the United States. …………………………………

The American public does not hold a strong nuclear taboo and indeed, may be more of a goad than a constraint on any future president who is contemplating the use of nuclear weapons in trying wartime conditions. While the laws of armed conflict and just war doctrine may still be a constraint on nuclear use, their powers are more likely to exercised by the moral compass of individual political leaders or the legal training of senior military officers, not through the deeply problematic instincts of the American public. https://thebulletin.org/2024/08/what-do-americans-really-think-about-the-bombing-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=DayNewsletter08052024&utm_content=NuclearRisk_WhatAmericansReallyThink_08052024

August 7, 2024 Posted by | public opinion, USA | Leave a comment

US Congressmen Say ‘No War With Iran!’

“Israel’s dramatic escalation is completely compatible with its past efforts to drag the U.S. into another war,” one expert said of the Israeli assassination of a Hamas leader in Iran.

Jessica Corbett, Aug 04, 2024

Amid mounting fears of a regional war in the Middle East, a pair of Democratic congressmen joined the growing chorus warning against the U.S. engaging in an armed conflict with Iran.

In response to U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) introducing a resolution to authorize the use of U.S. armed forces against Iran, Congressman Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said on social media Saturday that “the U.S. must not be dragged into a war with Iran.”

“The Iraq War was the biggest American blunder of the 21st century,” Khanna added. “Every candidate running this cycle must be clear on where they stand on this.”

U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) said early Sunday: “I agree with Ro Khanna. No war with Iran! Let’s all get on record with this.”

Hassan El-Tayyab, legislative director for Middle East policy at the Friends Committee on National Legislation, urged Khanna to introduce a related war powers resolution, arguing that “we really could use a clear vehicle like this to increase the pressure for no U.S. military intervention in a disastrous war with Iran.”

“We’re a miscalculation or a miscue away from an event that could draw the U.S. and Iran into a direct military conflict.”………………………………………………………………………………………………………. more https://www.commondreams.org/news/us-iran-war

August 6, 2024 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

‘Nuclear weapons money could tackle climate change’- Martha Wardrop, Scottish Greens

It is clear that nuclear weapons are the most inhumane and indiscriminate weapons
that have ever been developed. They cause severe environmental damage, as
well as undermine global security, and divert vast public resources away
from climate action.

It was seven years ago when history was made at the
United Nations when the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was
adopted by 122 nations. This was achieved after a global push to finally
and categorically ban nuclear weapons under international law.

Through being a Nuclear Free Local Authority, Glasgow can continue to work with
other local councils to gain support from the UK Government to minimise the
risk from nuclear hazards, increase public safety and support clean energy
projects. We can all send a strong message to the UK Government about the
need to sign up to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Glasgow Times 3rd Aug 2024

https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/24495605.martha-wardrop-nuclear-weapons-money-tackle-climate-change/

August 5, 2024 Posted by | politics | Leave a comment

Kamala: We need a ceasefire and arms embargo NOW!

 https://www.codepink.org/kamalastopisrael 2 Aug 24

Over the past weeks, we’ve seen Vice President Kamala Harris’s image being portrayed as more sympathetic to Palestinians in comparison to Joe Biden. But in reality she repeats so many of the same anti-Palestinian talking points and hasn’t done anything to move us towards a ceasefire. It’s time to put pressure on the VP! Sign the petition below!

Vice President Kamala Harris, 

As Vice President of the United States, your job is to serve the people, and the majority of Americans want a permanent ceasefire and an end to U.S. arms sales to Israel. We are disgusted with how our hard-earned money is being used to annihilate innocent people in Palestine! 

You have strategically presented yourself as distinct from President Biden, especially with regard to Israel’s genocide campaign in Gaza, though you are part of the same administration. We have not been fooled, and we know you are not powerless. We know you can take significant action to stop Israel’s genocide, and you haven’t.

We will not blindly praise you — as others have — for calling for a ceasefire “for at least six weeks” in March of 2024. At that point, 30,000 Palestinians had already been murdered by Israel and we were five months into the genocide. 

In the past, you have had no problem meeting with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), taking in hundreds of thousands of Zionist campaign contributions, and speaking at their events. We understand the true purpose of this lobby group is to ensure continued U.S. funding of Israel’s occupation of Palestine and imperialism in the Middle East. We reject the influence of foreign governments in American politics and see your relationship with AIPAC as a stark contradiction to your supposed support of a ceasefire in Gaza. 

Most recently, you condemned protests in D.C. opposing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Congress — the man spearheading the worst genocide we’ve seen in recent history. Policing Americans who are rightfully angry about war crimes and the mass murder of innocent children was a true display of your immorality, and proved your alignment with Biden’s policies on Israel. What’s worse is that you characterized these protests as anti semitic, showing us your complete lack of understanding for what’s really happening. 

Sharing stories of how you as a young girl helped plant trees for Israel is a deliberately tone-deaf attempt at greenwashing Israel’s occupation, given the ecological devastation the IOF have waged on the Palestinian people, land, water and vegetation for 76 years, culminating in the utter devastation of Gaza in recent months. How can you be so selfishly blind to the reality on the ground?

Considering your stances, we have no reason to believe you are not following Biden’s policies on Israel. In order to salvage what political credibility you may have left, it is imperative that you use your capacity as Vice President to push for a ceasefire and an end to U.S. arms sales to Israel. We demand you release a statement explicitly distancing yourself from Biden’s support for genocide, and call for an arms embargo on Israel. 

August 4, 2024 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Generic Design Assessment Step 1 of the Holtec SMR: statement of findings

 Holtec International’s SMR-300 small modular reactor design has
completed Step 1 of the UK’s generic design assessment (GDA) process and
will now progress to Step 2, which is expected to last for 14 months. The
Environment Agency, the Office for Nuclear Regulation, and Natural
Resources Wales announced on 1 August that they are progressing to the next
phase of their assessment of the design.

Holtec has now launched a comments
process, enabling anyone to submit comments and questions about the reactor
design to the company for its response.

 Nucnet 1st Aug 2024

https://www.nucnet.org/news/holtec-s-smr-300-nuclear-plant-completes-first-step-of-generic-design-assessment-8-4-2024

August 4, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Trump could win back the nuclear codes. Biden should put guardrails on the nuclear arsenal—now.

By Tom Z. Collina | July 30, 2024, https://thebulletin.org/2024/07/trump-could-win-back-the-nuclear-codes-biden-should-put-guardrails-on-the-nuclear-arsenal-now/?utm_source=Newsletter+&utm_medium=Email+&utm_campaign=ThursdayNewsletter08012024&utm_content=NuclearRisk_GuardrailsNuclearArsenal_07302024

On January 6, 2021, then-President Donald Trump inspired a mob attack on the US Capitol to try to prevent the peaceful transfer of power to the Biden administration. Not only was this an unprecedented attack on American democracy, but it represented a serious national security threat. Many saw and see this as one of many examples of an unstable President Trump acting in dangerous, irrational ways. And throughout his time in office, Trump—like all presidents in the nuclear age—had the unilateral authority to launch the US nuclear arsenal.

At any moment, Trump could literally have ended the world with a phone call. Congressional approval is not needed, and the secretary of defense cannot stop a presidential order to unleash the US nuclear arsenal. The system is built for speed, not deliberation. The whole process, from presidential order to the launch of one or hundreds of nuclear warheads, would take just minutes.

The danger that Trump would do something catastrophic was so acute that then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi desperately looked for ways to prevent the “unstable president from … accessing the launch codes and ordering a nuclear strike,” according to a letter Pelosi wrote in January 2021 to House Democrats in the wake of the January 6 attack on the Capitol. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley was convinced that Trump had suffered “serious mental decline in the aftermath of the election” and took the extraordinary step of ordering his staff to come to him if they received a nuclear strike order from the president. “No matter what you are told, you do the procedure. You do the process. And I’m part of that procedure,” Milley reportedly told the officers. “You never know what a president’s trigger point is.”

Pelosi and Milley had plenty of reasons to worry that Trump could start a nuclear war. In August 2017, in a thinly veiled nuclear threat, Trump warned North Korea that it would be “met with fire and fury and frankly power, the likes of which this world has never seen before.” Trump mocked Kim Jong Un, the North’s leader, writing “I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!” According to then-White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, Trump privately discussed the idea of using a nuclear weapon against North Korea and suggested he could blame a US strike on another country.

Actually, however, Milley was not correct when he told his staff that he was part of the formal procedure to launch nuclear weapons. As former Defense Secretary William J. Perry and I wrote in our 2020 book, The Button, policy established during the Cold War puts decisions about the use of nuclear weapons solely in the hands of the civilian president, not Congress and above all not the military. All the president need do is call the Pentagon’s War Room—using the nuclear “football” or some other means—and identify himself and give the order to launch. The president may choose to consult with senior advisors such as Milley but is not required to.

Milley broke these rules, as others broke them before him. During the Watergate crisis, then-Defense Secretary James Schlesinger was so concerned about President Richard Nixon’s mental state and alcohol consumption that he told military commanders that if Nixon ordered a nuclear strike, they should check with him or Secretary of State Henry Kissinger first. Sen. Alan Cranston phoned Schlesinger, warning him about “the need for keeping a berserk president from plunging us into a holocaust.”

Should Milley, Schlesinger, or any military leader, let a clearly unstable president start a nuclear war just to follow protocol? Of course not. But officials should not have to break the rules to do the right thing. The United States needs to change the policy that put Milley and Schlesinger in an impossible spot.

With just six months left in office, President Biden can fix the system for himself and all future presidents. To do so, Biden should announce the White House will share authority to use nuclear weapons in any first strike with a select group in Congress. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war, not the president. The first use of nuclear weapons is clearly an act of war. In a situation where the United States has already been attacked with nuclear weapons, the president would retain the option to act unilaterally.

President Biden would have to make such a policy change by executive order. Passing congressional legislation would be more durable but is unlikely in the current political environment. If Trump wins the election, he would likely reverse Biden’s order. But if Vice President Kamala Harris wins, the new policy could be strengthened over time with legislation.

Such a policy would provide clear directives for the military to follow: A launch could be ordered only if the United States had already been attacked with nuclear weapons or if Congress had approved the decision, providing a constitutional check to executive power. This would be infinitely safer than our current doctrine.

As an important part of his legacy, President Biden must put guardrails on presidential authority to start nuclear war now before the next dangerous leader gets elected—whomever and whenever that may be. We must never again entrust the fate of the world to just one fallible human. This is not about whose finger should be on the button. This is about making good policy that can keep Americans—and people around the world—alive, regardless of whom US voters happen to put in the White House.

August 3, 2024 Posted by | politics, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Blank Checks for War: Congress Has Abdicated Its Power From Tonkin to Gaza

As the 60th anniversary of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution approaches, it’s time to reflect on how Congress solidified its long-standing deference to the presidency on foreign policy and how the people can make their voices heard.

Christian Appy Aug 01, 2024, Common Dreams

With the U.S.- backed carnage in Gaza continuing and the threat of growing violence looming throughout the region (in Lebanon, Iran, and who knows where else), we need to think more deeply than ever about how the American people have historically been excluded from foreign policy decision-making. An upcoming anniversary should remind us of what sent us down this undemocratic path.

Sixty years ago, on August 7, 1964, U.S. Congress handed President Lyndon B. Johnson the power to wage a major war in Vietnam, solidifying its long-standing deference to the presidency on foreign policy. Not once since World War II has Congress exercised its constitutional responsibility to vote on declarations to decide if, when, and where the United States goes to war.

The Tonkin Gulf Resolution of 1964 flew through Congress, in part because most members trusted the president’s assurance that he sought “no wider war.” Their trust was misplaced. The Johnson administration kept secret and lied about its plans for future military escalation in Vietnam. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Congress, for its part, continues to enable an ever more imperial presidency that decides when and where the U.S. goes to war. It almost never uses the power of the purse to reduce U.S. militarism or to cut funding for unpopular wars. The nearly trillion-dollar Pentagon budget is rubber-stamped every year……………………………………………

We have seen, in the last 10 months, an unprecedented outpouring of American protest in support of Palestinian rights. For good reason. Nearly 40,000 Palestinians in Gaza, most of them civilians, and many of them children, have been killed by the Israeli military’s indiscriminate and disproportionate response to the Hamas killing of some 1,100 Israelis on October 7, 2023. Around 1.7% of the Gazan population (2.3 million) have been killed and at least 90% displaced from their homes (many have had to flee multiple times). A recent study by the medical journal The Lancet, estimates that the death toll in Gaza could reach 186,000 even if there is a cease-fire today.

For most Americans, this level of suffering is unimaginable. Yet we must try to imagine it. If we were Gaza, at least 5.7 million of us would be dead, the vast majority women, children, and other civilians. Many millions more would be among the uncounted dead and dying—buried, lost, sick, starving. More than 300 million of us would be forced from our homes, on the road seeking shelter, food, and water under ongoing military attacks and perils beyond description.

That is the reality in Gaza.

In the end, only a mass democratic movement has the potential to dramatically change U.S. foreign policy. The first challenge is to overthrow the baseless claim that the United States is the greatest force for good in the world, the “indispensable nation” that stands for the rule of law, freedom, and democracy. Our record does not warrant such a delusion. Only when that ideology and naïve faith is broadly undermined can we hope to chip away at the long-standing infrastructure of U.S. militarism—the over 750 military bases on foreign soil, the annual military exercises in two-thirds of the world’s nations, and the “defense” budget that equals the next nine most militarized nations combined.

Ellsberg and Morse were right. The people must know the truth. But we have long had more than enough evidence to demand fundamental changes in U.S. foreign policy. We can’t wait for Congress to represent us faithfully. The people’s voice must be heard.  https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/congress-blank-checks-war

August 3, 2024 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Behind a Nuclear Cooperation Agreement With Washington -Singapore not committed to nuclear power

 Energy Intelligence Group Aug 2, 2024. Author,Phil Chaffee, New York

Singapore this week became the fourth Southeast Asian country to sign a nuclear cooperation agreement (NCA) with the US, although Singaporean government ministers emphasized that the wealthy city-state is by no means committed to launching a civil nuclear power program. Singapore is one of a number of countries across the region that are exploring potential moves into nuclear energy, though all face populations wary, at best, of nuclear energy………………………. (Subscribers only) more https://www.energyintel.com/00000191-1022-d8c8-a3d5-3ce2d4890000

August 3, 2024 Posted by | ASIA, politics | Leave a comment

UK – the Ed Milliband Nuclear Nonsense Show

Great British Nuclear’s life started out as a Boris Johnson publicity stunt to get some cheap headlines, and it’s been downhill since then. It took two years to set up (civil servants at DESNZ kept asking what this particular Bojo wet dream was all about, and are still waiting for an answer), has no proper governance arrangements, is run by a bunch of nuclear non-entities, and so far has had only one task: to run “the competition “to see who will be the recipient of pots of taxpayers’ money to bring forward our “world-beating” Small Modular Reactor programmes.

Jonathon Porritt, Sustainability Campaigner and Writer, 31 July 24

1 I’m loving the Ed Miliband Show! The curtain went up on July 5th, and it’s been one reveal a day since then………………………………….

On Friday, he brought forward the Bill to establish Great British Energy (GBE), a cornerstone of Labour’s manifesto and its Net Zero ambitions.  The one thing that grabbed everyone’s attention was the new partnership between GBE and the Crown Estate to unlock £60 billion of private investment in offshore wind – with a view to securing 30 GW of electricity before 2030 (enough to provide electricity for 20 million homes). To help make this happen, another Bill was introduced to overcome some of the barriers that the Crown Estate currently faces in expediting investment at that scale. Serious stuff!

The GBE Bill also referenced another partnership – with Great British Nuclear, with the emphasis on “exploring how Great British Energy and Great British Nuclear will work together”. And end more of the same kind of meaningless blather!

Let me elaborate a bit by way of contrasting these two strategic partners.

1. The Crown Estate

This is a powerful organisation that knows what it’s doing, does it with a real sense of purpose, and has been leading the charge on offshore wind for the last decade. It has a tried and tested CEO (Dan Labbad), formerly CEO of property developer Lend Lease here in the UK), a proven sustainability champion, deal-maker and job-creator.

Other big players in the energy sector get this kind of proposition and are already coming forward with their “in principle” commitments.

2. Great British Nuclear

Great British Nuclear’s life started out as a Boris Johnson publicity stunt to get some cheap headlines, and it’s been downhill since then. It took two years to set up (civil servants at DESNZ kept asking what this particular Bojo wet dream was all about, and are still waiting for an answer), has no proper governance arrangements, is run by a bunch of nuclear non-entities, and so far has had only one task: to run “the competition “to see who will be the recipient of pots of taxpayers’ money to bring forward our “world-beating” Small Modular Reactor programmes.

It’s struggled with this somewhat limited remit (already nine months behind schedule, with at least another six months to go), even though everybody already knows that the Government’s favoured SMR black hole will be Rolls Royce – there’s nothing worse for ministers than having Tufan Erginbilgic (Rolls Royce’s powerful, whining bully of a CEO) making trouble for you.

So, Ed, where are you going to go with all this? Both the Crown Estate and Great British Energy will, theoretically, help you “de-risk” prospects for critical private sector investors. The Crown Estate will do it for real, reducing the cost of capital, smoothing planning consents, securing supply chains, creating jobs – and, in due course (if not before 2030) – making offshore wind significantly cheaper. Exactly as has happened in Denmark. Great British Nuclear will suck you in, suck you dry, and do none of that…………..

The Treasury has always been less enthusiastic about nuclear power than the rest of government. It won’t object to a few more tens of millions bunged at Rolls Royce or a few more well-paid nuclear wastrels at Culham (emphasising the links with our inconceivably costly nuclear weapons establishment).

But the tens of billions that will be required to de-risk private sector investment in Sizewell C – that’s another matter. This is the time, surely, to let Sizewell C die under the weight of its own monstrous irrelevance.

Sizewell C will obviously make literally zero contribution to the 2030 target that Labour has for decarbonising the grid. As it happens, Ed shouldn’t really be worrying too much about 2030 anyway. This isn’t going to happen (full marks to those sad gits at the Telegraph for spotting this!), but it really doesn’t matter. The key date is 2029, the date of the next election, not 2030.

……………………………..So, Ed, keep your eyes on the prize: making people feel good (and possibly even a bit excited) about the UK’s low-carbon future – in terms of jobs, skills, supply chains, lower bills and so on. Deep down, you must know as well as I do that’s all about prioritising real delivery partners (viz the Crown Estate), not about preposterous pipe-dreaming fantasists in the nuclear industry.  https://www.jonathonporritt.com/go-ed-go/

August 1, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »