Spending watchdog launches investigation into Sellafield
National Audit Office to examine risks and costs at nuclear waste site in Cumbria
Anna Isaac and Alex Lawson, 16 Feb 24 https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/15/spending-watchdog-launches-investigation-into-sellafield—
Britain’s public spending watchdog has launched an investigation into risks and costs at Sellafield, the UK’s biggest nuclear waste dump.
The National Audit Office (NAO), which scrutinises the use of public funds, has announced it will examine whether the Cumbria site is managing and prioritising the risks and hazards of the site effectively as well as deploying resources appropriately and continuing to improve its project management.
The findings of its investigation are expected to be published this autumn.
Sellafield is Europe’s most toxic nuclear site and also one of the UK’s most expensive infrastructure projects, with the NAO estimating it could cost £84bn to maintain the site into the next century.
Last year, Nuclear Leaks, a Guardian investigation into activities at Sellafield, revealed problems with cybersecurity, a radioactive leak and a “toxic” workplace culture at the waste dump.
Predictions of the ultimate bill for the site, which holds about 85% of the UK’s nuclear waste, vary. It cost £2.5bn to run the site last year, and the government estimates it could ultimately take £263bn to manage the country’s ageing nuclear sites, of which Sellafield accounts for the largest portion.
The site employs about 11,000 people and is the world’s largest store of plutonium. It comprises more than 1,000 buildings, many of which were not created with the intention of becoming long-term storage facilities for radioactive material.
Sellafield is so expensive that the Office for Budget Responsibility, which monitors threats to the UK government’s finances, has warned that it and other legacy sites pose a “material source of fiscal risk” to the country.
The NAO previously examined activities at Sellafield in 2018. It found some aspects of project management had improved but that more needed to be done to get a grip on vast costs and risks.
Amyas Morse, the head of the NAO at that time, found that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), which is tasked with management of Sellafield, needed to improve its explanation of its progress so that parliament could hold it to account.
This challenge was underlined when the Guardian uncovered how a worsening leak from a huge silo of radioactive waste at Sellafield could pose a risk to the public.
The leak, from one of the “highest nuclear hazards in the UK” – a decaying building known as the Magnox swarf storage silo – is expected to continue for at least a further 30 years. This could have “potentially significant consequences” if it gathers pace, risking the contamination of groundwater, according to an official document.
This was just one of a catalogue of safety risks arising from ageing infrastructure at the site. A document sent to members of the Sellafield board in November 2022, and seen by the Guardian, raised widespread concerns about a degradation of safety across the site, warning of the “cumulative risk” from failings ranging from nuclear safety to asbestos and fire standards.
Responding to the issues late last year, a Sellafield spokesperson said: “The nature of our site means that until we complete our mission, our highest hazard facilities will always pose a risk.”
Sellafield is owned by the NDA, a quango sponsored and funded by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero that is tasked with cleaning 17 sites across the UK.
The NDA said it had a “responsibility to deliver for the public, including on value for money”.
“We welcome this continued scrutiny and look forward to working with the NAO,” a spokesperson said.
Australian PM Albanese and 85 Other MPs Vote to End Assange Incarceration
“Enough is enough,” PM Albanese said.
By Diego Ramos , ScheerPost, 15 Feb24, https://scheerpost.com/2024/02/15/australian-pm-albanese-and-85-other-mps-vote-to-end-assange-incarceration/—
The Australian House of Representatives voted on Wednesday in favor of a motion supporting the end of Julian Assange’s incarceration and to bring him back to Australia. Among the supporters of the motion is Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who, regarding the long term prosecution and detention of Assange, declared, “enough is enough.”
In the motion introduced by MP Andrew Wilkie, the argument is made for the release of Assange from Belmarsh Prison in the UK and returned to Australia. This comes ahead of next week’s court ruling on Assange’s extradition appeal.
Wilkie said, “It will send a very powerful political signal to the British government and to the US government that the British government should not entertain the idea of Mr Assange being extradited to the US.”
86 members of the house of representatives, including Albanese, voted in favor of the motion; 42 members voted against it.
Wilkie, speaking to Parliament about Assange stated, “Surely this man has suffered enough. The matter must be brought to an end.”
Adam Bandt, member of Australian Parliament and leader of the Australian Greens, said, “…[T]his sets an incredibly chilling precedent for journalists in the future and for journalists’ ability to hold governments to account, to say uncomfortable things about governments … and to know that you can tell the truth without facing imprisonment and without facing a risk to your own life.”
If Assange’s appeal is rejected, he faces immediate extradition to the United States, where he would be set to face trial for various charges, including the release of confidential military records and diplomatic cables in 2010.
Wilkie said the vote demonstrated that Australia stood “as one,” on the Assange case and “[r]egardless of what you might think of Mr Assange, justice is not being served in this case now.”
Below is a transcript of the motion authored by MP Andrew Wilkie: [on original]
Small nuclear reactors (SMRs) still have plenty to prove.
Britain’s MPs are not paid to be polite. So it must have been with some restraint that the members of the environmental audit committee described the government’s nuclear strategy this week as “lacking clarity”, not least over small modular reactors.
Lacking clarity? You can think of better ways to describe the financially
radioactive shambles, complete with Rishi Sunak’s fantasy “road map”.
He’s glibly promising 24 gigawatts of capacity by 2050 — either another
seven Hinkley Point Cs or a mix of them and SMRs.
Surely he’s spotted what’s going on with that Somerset nuke? Costs up from £18 billion to as
much £35 billion in 2015 prices, or £46 billion in today’s money, with
its start-up likely to be delayed six years to 2031.
Maybe he hasn’t, because he’s planning a lookalike for Sizewell C in Suffolk, built by the
same French-backed EDF. Only this time it won’t be EDF but consumers and
the taxpayer on the hook for the construction cost overruns. As the
committee chairman Philip Dunne noted: “The UK has the opportunity to be
a genuine world leader in the manufacture of SMR nuclear capability with
great export potential.” But despite the taxpayer lobbing in £215
million to support their development, MPs are right to see a deficit on the
“clarity” front.
As Professor Steve Thomas from the University of
Greenwich says: “SMRs are up to a decade behind large reactors in terms
of their commercial development and their economics are speculative and
untested.” Rolls’s are 470 megawatts, one seventh of the 3.2GW Hinkley.
But who knows if it really can build them for £2.5 billion a pop? Or
whether it’ll prove feasible to cram several on a single site. In
November Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems canned a project to build
six 77MW NuScale SMRs at a site in Idaho. And even if they’d be far
smaller than Hinkley, they’d still need to be just as safe. Will safety
issues drive up costs? Also, who’s paying for them? Consumers, the
taxpayer, the private sector? And what’s the cost versus alternative
energy technologies?
Times 15th Feb 2024
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/shameful-shambles-over-mega-nukes-d6wzvp33v
PM Trudeau dismisses Algonquin concerns over Chalk River nuclear waste dump
COMMENT. This is a sad day when we witness so clearly who Trudeau sides with in regard to nuclear waste, as well as the betrayal to Indigenous peoples about authentic reconciliation as per the violations related to UNDRIP.
Thank heavens that various news media, including CBC, are beginning to pay increasing attention to the folly of nuclear waste disposal and how the CNSC absolutely fails to protect human health and the natural environment.
Attention also must be solicited among the news media about the proposed NWMO DGR, because if it is not stopped at this autumn’s site selection stage, I have no faith or trust in what would follow, namely, a federal environmental assessment (EA), because the EA would be controlled by the CNSC.
Trudeau touts nuclear safety commission’s expertise as Bloc leader allies with First Nations
Brett Forester · CBC News · Feb 14, 2024
Algonquin leaders are finding the Canadian government largely unmoved, but they continue to fight construction of a radioactive waste dump on unceded territory near Deep River, Ont., roughly one kilometre from the Ottawa River.
First Nations chiefs have allied with Bloc Québécois and federal Green Party leaders, joined forces with concerned civil society groups, and launched a legal fight against the project. On Wednesday they all rallied on Parliament Hill to voice their united opposition.
“The time to act is now, for the sake of our environment, our communities and the principles enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,” said Lance Haymond, chief of Kebaowek First Nation, at a news conference outside the House of Commons.
While legally non-binding, the UN declaration, or UNDRIP, outlines minimum human rights standards, including against storing hazardous materials in Indigenous territories without their consent.
Last month, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) authorized construction of a “near surface disposal facility” at the government-owned, Second World War-era Chalk River nuclear laboratory, about 190 kilometres northwest of Ottawa.
Kebaowek applied for judicial review of that decision earlier this month, relying largely on UNDRIP. Three citizens’ groups applied for judicial review the same day.
Later on Wednesday in question period, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau dismissed the concerns, swatting away questions from Bloc leader Yves-François Blanchet, who picked up the cause.
“This is not a political decision. On this side of the House, we trust our experts,” said Trudeau in French.
Trudeau touted the commission as an independent, science-driven, quasi-judicial expert panel that consults with First Nations. But Haymond suggested Trudeau, always keen to recognize how Parliament Hill sits on unceded Algonquin land, is failing to live up to his promises.
“Actions speak louder than words. Reconciliation is a series of actions, and not words,” Haymond told reporters.
“So if this government is serious about reconciliation with the Anishinaabe people, we’ve given him and his government a golden opportunity.”
Run by private sector
Regulatory filings describe the disposal facility as similar to a municipal landfill, with added features for hazardous material, such as a base liner, cover, leak-detection system and wastewater treatment plant.
Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL), a private-sector consortium contracted to manage federal nuclear sites, intends to bury a million cubic metres of low-level radioactive waste in the giant hillside mound.
The commission concluded the project is not likely to cause significant adverse effects on the environment or Indigenous peoples, provided CNL implements mitigation and monitoring measures.
Ten out of 11 federally recognized Algonquin First Nations oppose the project, while the Algonquins of Pikwàkanagàn, roughly 150 kilometres northwest of Ottawa, is the lone community to consent.
Before hosting a rally outside, Haymond and other Algonquin leaders joined Green Party leader Elizabeth May, Bloc MP Sébastien Lemire, and Ole Hendrickson, spokesperson for the citizens’ groups that launched a court challenge.
May accused the government of ignoring UNDRIP in the interests of industry. She singled out AtkinsRéalis, a member of the CNL consortium better known by its former name SNC Lavalin, the engineering giant that pleaded guilty to fraud in a 2019 corruption scandal.
“They are the powerful corporate lobbying interest behind ignoring UNDRIP, ” May told reporters………………………
Tritium in Perch Lake
Hendrickson warned the mound “would release pollutants into the Ottawa River during and after operation, according to the proponent’s own study. This makes it an issue for millions of people.”…………………………………https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/prime-minister-chalk-river-nuclear-waste-1.7115467
Australian Parliament votes in favour of bringing Assange home
By John Jiggens | 15 February 2024, https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/parliament-votes-in-favour-of-bringing-assange-home,18333—
In a historic vote, parliamentarians have shown unprecedented support for the return home of imprisoned journalist Julian Assange. Dr John Jiggens reports.
WEDNESDAY 14 FEBRUARY turned out to be an unanticipated Happy Valentine’s Day for Julian Assange supporters. The Australian House of Representatives passed a motion introduced by Tasmanian Independent Andrew Wilkie, on behalf of the Parliamentary Friends of Julian Assange, urging the U.S. and the UK to bring their prosecution of the WikiLeaks founder to a close and allow him to return to his family and home in Australia.
The vote was 86 for Yes (ALP, Greens and Independents) and 42 for No (mostly Liberal and National).
In an unprecedented show of parliamentary support for Assange, two-thirds of the lower house voted for the motion. It was not unanimous because Coalition members overwhelmingly chose to support the U.S. and UK in what the former UN Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, described as the torture of an Australian journalist.
Greens leader Adam Bandt appealed to the Coalition to support the motion. Assange has become symbolic of journalists around the world who face attacks on press freedom, he argued, ranging from political prosecutions through to murder.
Assange’s prosecution set a chilling precedent for journalists about their ability to hold governments to account and to tell the truth without facing imprisonment and without facing a risk to their own lives.
Bandt said:
“If governments think that participation in the AUKUS agreement and alliance is so critical, surely part of that should be the insistence on human rights and the proper treatment of our citizens — of Australian citizens. If we are sitting around a table with these governments, we should be able to insist that Julian Assange is brought home.”
His appeal fell on deaf ears — it remained AUKUS regardless of any cost.
For Assange, the situation is still perilous. He remains incarcerated in HM Prison Belmarsh in the UK, where he has spent the last five years, locked down for 23 hours each day in a three-metre by two-metre cell, unconvicted of any charges, an innocent man in a living hell, like Dylan’s ‘Hurricane’. Like Nelson Mandela, he walks his long walk to freedom around that tiny cell every day.
In one week, the UK High Court will decide whether he has exhausted all his legal appeals to prevent being extradited to the USA where he would face charges that could see him imprisoned for 175 years under their notorious 1917 Espionage Act for publishing material, which revealed shocking evidence of misconduct by U.S. forces.
As Senator David Shoebridge tweeted on the day of the vote:
‘There are real concerns that if Julian loses next week he will be immediately extradited.’
In this epic David versus Goliath mismatch, one lone Australian journalist pitted against the world’s greatest empire, it was rare good news. Members and supporters of the Parliamentary Friends of Julian Assange tweeted happily.
Andrew Wilkie, Convenor of the Parliamentary Friends of Assange:
‘I successfully moved a motion to recognise the importance of bringing Julian Assange’s extradition to an end. The Govt voted for it in an unprecedented show of political support for Julian. The US must heed these calls & drop the extradition. #FreeAssangeNOW #auspol #politas.’
Adam Bandt, Leader of the Greens:
‘Today – for the first time – the House voted to call on the UK & the USA to bring Julian Assange home. His family, the people and this Parliament want him home.
PM — it’s time we make this a reality.’
Dr Monique Ryan, Independent member, Kooyong:
‘A powerful moment. Today the Government and crossbench called on the United States and the United Kingdom to stop prosecuting Julian Assange so he can come home. This is the ultimate test of our nations’ friendship and I sincerely hope it is heard.’
David Shoebridge, Greens Senator:
‘Today the House of Representatives has voted in favour of a motion from my Parliamentary Friends of Assange colleague @WilkieMP on the need to bring Julian home. This is a genuinely historic moment and a testament to the work of so many for so many years. 86-42 vote.’
Planned UK nuclear reactors unlikely to help hit green target, say MPs
Guardian 13 Feb 24
Government plans to deliver SMRs ‘lack clarity’ say environmental committee, and will likely fail to meet clean-energy goal of 2035
MPs have warned that a planned fleet of small nuclear reactors are unlikely to contribute to hitting a key target in decarbonising Britain’s electricity generation, as the government opened talks to buy a site in Wales for a new power station.
The Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) said that ministers’ approach to developing factory-built nuclear power plants “lacks clarity” and their role in hitting a goal of moving the grid to clean energy by 2035 was unclear.
Last year a body, Great British Nuclear, was launched with the aim of delivering new power stations, including a fleet of small modular reactors (SMRs). The government has spent £215m on developing SMR design and is running a competition for companies to bid for government contracts.
However, in examining the role of SMRs, the EAC heard that a final investment decision on the first station in the UK is not expected until 2029. The timeline means it is unlikely to contribute to the 2035 target, or Labour’s pledge to run the grid on clean energy by 2030……………………..
The EAC said that the government plans to create as much as 24 gigawatts of nuclear power by 2050, but this figure could be as low as 12GW. Critics of nuclear power argue that it is costly and slow to build, and that projects to store wind and solar power in large batteries could undermine the need for it as a reliable power source.
…………….. despite pledging hundreds of millions of pounds in support for SMR projects and undertaking to invest in the construction of the UK’s first SMR, the government’s overall vision for the sector at this stage lacks clarity.
“The first SMR is unlikely to be in operation by 2035, the date ministers have set for decarbonising the electricity supply: so what role will SMRs have in an energy mix dominated by renewables and supplemented by existing and emerging large-scale nuclear?”…………………………………………………… https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/13/planned-uk-nuclear-reactors-unlikely-to-help-hit-green-target-say-mps
Environmental Audit Committee urges UK Government to clarify nuclear SMR strategy
Energy Live News.13 Feb 24
The Environmental Audit Committee has expressed concerns over the lack of clarity in the UK Government’s approach to small modular reactors, despite pledging significant funds.
The Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) has expressed concerns regarding the UK Government’s stance on small modular reactors (SMRs).
Despite allocating £215 million towards SMR technology, the committee highlights unclear policy direction regarding SMRs’ role in the country’s energy mix.
The EAC stresses the necessity of government clarity, especially concerning investment decisions and SMR project commissioning.
As the first SMR is not projected to contribute to the grid until 2035, questions arise regarding its integration with renewable energy sources for achieving decarbonisation goals.
Moreover, evidence presented to the committee indicates potential challenges concerning waste management and regulatory processes…………..
“The first SMR is unlikely to be in operation by 2035, the date Ministers have set for decarbonising the electricity supply: so what role will SMRs have in an energy mix dominated by renewables and supplemented by existing and emerging large scale nuclear………………… https://www.energylivenews.com/2024/02/13/government-urged-to-clarify-nuclear-smr-strategy/
UK government keen to take control of Anglesey site for Westinghouse to build Wylfa nuclear power station
The British government is seeking to take control of a key site in Wales
earmarked for a nuclear power plant as part of wider plans to revamp
nuclear technology for the UK.
State-owned Great British Nuclear is in
early-stage discussions with Hitachi, owner of the land in Wylfa in
Anglesey, an island off north Wales, to buy the site with a view to finding
a new private sector partner to develop a station there.
The site has been
in limbo since Hitachi abandoned plans to build a new reactor there in
January 2019 after failing to strike a financial agreement with the British
government. The Japanese industrial group eventually wrote off £2.1bn on
the project. It also stopped work at a second site in Oldbury, South
Gloucestershire.
Ministers are now determined to revive plans to use the
Wylfa site for new nuclear power to help replace Britain’s current ageing
fleet of nuclear reactors. One minister confirmed that tentative
negotiations with Hitachi had already begun although they acknowledged the
deal might not be finalised until after the election later this year.
The land is thought to be worth about £200mn, but there are expectations that
Hitachi could settle for a lower price given the site is fallow. A
consortium led by the US nuclear company Westinghouse and construction
group Bechtel has proposed building a new plant there using
Westinghouse’s AP1000 reactor technology. It is thought the site could
also host small modular reactors.
FT 11th Feb 2024
https://www.ft.com/content/2e7928c7-ad7f-4ac4-88d8-8cde95ee1a00
Telegraph 11th Feb 2024
Bloomberg 11th Feb 2024
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/uk-in-talks-with-hitachi-over-welsh-nuclear-plant-site-ft-says-1.2033580
Energy Voice 12th Feb 2024
City AM 12th Feb 2024
Call to withdrawal from Holderness nuclear waste site talks amid tourism and farming ‘fears’
South East Holderness’ Cllr Lyn Healing and Cllr Sean McMaster said the area had already experienced creeping industrialisation in recent years
Hull Live, Joseph Gerrard, Local Democracy Reporter, 10 Feb 24
Local politicians have called for East Riding Council to walk away from talks on proposals for a site to house radioactive nuclear waste deep beneath south Holderness.
South East Holderness’ Cllr Lyn Healing and Cllr Sean McMaster said most Holderness people did not want a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) amid fears for tourism and of creeping industrialisation. Beverley and Holderness MP Graham Stuart said he was backing the councillors’ call after he previously said a local referendum should be held on the proposals.
The call follows the unveiling of the proposals in January and the announcement that the council had joined the South Holderness Working Group to explore the proposals. East Riding Council Leader Cllr Anne Handley said it was the first stage in seeing whether a GDF would be right for the area……………………………. more https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/call-withdrawal-holderness-nuclear-waste-9087294
UK steps up war on whistleblower journalism with new National Security Act
KIT KLARENBERG, ·FEBRUARY 9, 2024, The GrayZone
Under a repressive new act, British nationals could face prison for undermining London’s national security line. Intended to destroy WikiLeaks and others exposing war crimes, the law is a direct threat to critical national security journalism.
It was the afternoon of May 17 2023 and I had just arrived at London’s Luton Airport. I was on my way to the city of my birth to visit my family. Before landing, the pilot instructed all passengers to have their passports ready for inspection immediately upon disembarking the plane. Just then, I noticed a six-strong squad of stone-faced plainclothes British counter-terror officers waited on the tarmac, intensely studying the identification documents of all travelers.
As soon as the cops identified me, I was ordered to accompany them into the airport terminal without explanation. There, I was introduced to two officials whose names I could not learn, who subsequently referred to each other using nondescript callsigns. I was invited to be digitally strip searched, and subjected to an interrogation in which I had no right to silence, no right to refuse to answer questions, and no right to withhold pin numbers for my digital devices or sim cards. If I asserted any rights to privacy, I faced arrest and up to 48 hours in police custody.
I chose to comply. And so it was that over the next five hours, I sat with a couple of anonymous counter-terror cops in an airless, windowless, excruciatingly hot back room. They fingerprinted me, took invasive DNA swabs, and probed every conceivable aspect of my private and professional life, friend and family connections, and educational background. They wanted to know why I write, say and think the things I do, the specifics of how I’m paid for my investigative journalism, and to which bank account.
I had been detained under Britain’s 2019 Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act, which the UN has branded draconian and repressive. Under its Schedule 3 powers, anyone entering British territory suspected of “hostile activity” on behalf of a foreign power can be detained, interrogated for six hours, and have the contents of their digital devices seized and stored. “Hostile acts” are defined as any behavior deemed threatening to Britain’s “national security” or its “economic well-being.”
More disturbingly, Schedule 3 is suspicionless. Under its terms, “it is immaterial whether a person is aware that activity in which they are or have been engaged is hostile activity, or whether a state for or on behalf of which, or in the interests of which, a hostile act is carried out has instigated, sanctioned, or is otherwise aware of, the carrying out of the act.” It must be quite an elaborate conspiracy when conspirators do not even know they’re conspiring.
It turns out the British state wrongly believed The Grayzone had a relationship with Russia’s notorious FSB security service. They based their assumption not on any evidence, but on our knack for producing factual investigative journalism based on documents passed to this outlet anonymously, via burner email accounts. Such activity is common practice for Western media outlets, rights groups, and much venerated “open source” investigative outfits like the US-government sponsored Bellingcat. If I and the rest of The Grayzone made any mistake, it was in publishing material the US-UK national security state does not want in the public domain.
Now, the British government is taking its war on investigative journalism to a new level through its little-known National Security Act. Under this law, authorities in London have granted themselves the power to surveil, harass, and ultimately imprison any British citizens they wish on similarly suspicionless grounds. Dissidents of every stripe must now worry that everything they do or say could land them in jail for lengthy terms, simply for failing to toe London’s rigid national security line.
Among the top lobbyists for these authoritarian measures is Paul Mason, the celebrity journalist who posed as a leader of the British left until The Grayzone unmasked him as a security state collaborator hellbent on destroying the antiwar movement from within.
Inspired by the US Espionage Act, designed to criminalize whistleblowing
In December 2023, after processing for 18 months through parliamentary procedures, the British National Security Act came into force. Under the aegis of protecting Britain from the threat of espionage and sabotage by hostile actors at home and abroad, the law introduces a number of completely new criminal offenses with severe penalties — and wide-ranging consequences for freedom of speech. Indeed, the law’s terms are so broad, individuals will almost inevitably break the law without wanting to, intending to, or even knowing they have.
Because no one has been prosecuted under the Act to date, its full ramifications remain unclear. However, London’s security and intelligence apparatus now enjoy far-reaching powers to police what can be said about the British government’s activities abroad.
Given the frightening implications of the Act, UK journalists, press rights groups, and civil liberties organizations should be up in arms. Yet serious criticism of the law was largely absent from mainstream publications throughout various phases of debate in parliament.
Scrutiny of the anti-free press Act has been left almost entirely to independent journalists like Mohamed Elmaazi. Writing for Consortium News in July 2022, Elmaazi noted that it “shares many elements” with Washington’s “draconian 1917 Espionage Act,” which is currently being used to prosecute WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange…………………………………………
Act specifically intended to criminalize WikiLeaks threatens whistleblowers
During the 2022 House of Commons debate, knighted Conservative MP Sir Robert Buckland led the charge against WikiLeaks. Buckland, who was responsible in his former role as Secretary of State for Justice for “upholding the rule of law and protecting judicial independence,” argued that the National Security Act was a vital tool to prosecute “those such as Julian Assange who dump data in a way that has no regard for the safety of operatives and other affected people.” He later remarked, “none of us [in Parliament] wants to see Julian Assange and his type carry sway here.”
The UK Supreme Court expressed a very different view when, in 2018, it held in a unanimous decision that cables published by WikiLeaks are admissible as evidence in court proceedings…………………………………………………………………………
Should authorities in London merely suspect someone might in some way benefit from possessing “information” provided to them by an unknown “foreign” power, that they may have stumbled across on the internet or been provided one way or another without their express request or consent, they could be branded as a criminal and locked away.
British journalists more compliant to authoritarian measures than ever
The British state’s campaign to muzzle dissenting voices draws on London’s operation of a little-known but devastatingly effective censorship mechanism known as the Defense and Security Media Advisory (DSMA) Committee.
Comprised of representatives of the security and intelligence services, military veterans, high-ranking government officials, press association chiefs, editors and journalists, the committee determines behind closed doors which national security related-issues can be covered by the press, and in what fashion.
On occasion, the Committee issues what are known as “D-notices.” Theoretically, these are voluntary requests for news outlets to not broadcast particular pieces of information, or to omit details deemed harmful to national security. While recipients are not legally obliged to comply, they are fully aware that a refusal could mean prosecution under the Official Secrets Act 1989, especially if the information in question results from an “unauthorised disclosure.” Alternatively, an offending journalist might simply be blacklisted, losing access to on and off-the-record briefings and privileged information from officials, which would then threaten their employment. As a result, examples of outlets ignoring “D-notices” are few and far between…………………………………………………………………………………….
Paul Mason suggests The Grayzone be prosecuted for exposing him
In June 2022, The Grayzone exposed British reporter Paul Mason for his collusion with a senior British Foreign Office intelligence officer in a clandestine campaign to brand the British antiwar left as a vehicle for the Russian and Chinese governments. The publication of the material, which was sent to this outlet via anonymous burner accounts, was clearly in the public interest………………………………… more https://thegrayzone.com/2024/02/09/uk-national-security-act-wikileaks/—
The folly of Ontario’s nuclear power play
MARK WINFIELD, THE GLOBE AND MAIL, 5 Feb 24
Mark Winfield is a professor of environmental and urban change at York University and co-chair of the faculty’s Sustainable Energy Initiative. He is also co-editor of Sustainable Energy Transitions in Canada (UBC Press, 2023).
The Ontario government’s announcement last week of its intention to pursue the refurbishment of the Pickering B nuclear power plant on the shore of Lake Ontario between Toronto and Pickering represents a strategic triumph for the provincially owned Ontario Power Generation utility. The project would significantly reinforce the utility’s already dominant position in the province’s electricity system.
How well the decision serves the interests of Ontario residents, taxpayers and electricity ratepayers, and advances the sustainable decarbonization of the province’s electricity system, is another question altogether.
A Pickering B refurbishmenthad been assessed as uneconomic in 2010 and the plant scheduled to close in 2018. The facility is located in what is now a densely populated urban area where approval of a new plant would be unlikely.
New plans for that refurbishment are part of larger nuclear expansion strategy being pursued by OPG and the province. The plans include the refurbishment of six reactors at the Bruce Nuclear facility (also owned by OPG) and four reactors at the OPG Darlington facility. There are also proposals for four large new reactors totalling 4,800 MW in capacity at Bruce and four new 300 MW reactors at Darlington.
The total costs of these plans are unknown at this point, but an overall estimate in excess of $100-billion ($13-billion Darlington refurbishment; $25-billion Bruce refurbishment; $15-billion Pickering B refurbishment; $50-billion for Bruce new build; Darlington new build $10-billion or more) would not be unrealistic. Even that figure would assume that things go according to plan, which they rarely do with nuclear construction and refurbishment projects. This could constitute the largest nuclear construction program in the Americas or Europe.
Under the current legislative and policy regime for electricity in Ontario, none of these plans are subject to any external review or regulatory oversight in terms of costs, economic and environmental rationality, or availability of lower-cost and lower-risk pathways for meeting the province’s electricity needs and decarbonizing its electricity system. Rather, the system now runs entirely on the basis of ministerial directives that agencies in the sector – including the putative regulator, the Ontario Energy Board – are mandated to implement.
The government has justified its plans on the expectation of dramatic growth in electricity demand over the next few decades. This would be the result of population and economic growth, the widespread adoption of electric vehicles, the electrification of space heating – principally via heat pumps – and expectations of industrial development in areas like the hydrogen economy
There are serious grounds on which to question these projections. Growth in electricity demand in the province has been virtually flat these past two decades despite sustained population and economic growth. The province has no plans of its own for the electrification of transportation or space heating. In fact, it is currently proposing legislation to facilitate the expansion of natural gas service to new housing developments. Many of the anticipated industrial developments, particularly around things like hydrogen, are speculative at best……………………………………..
While nuclear energy may offer a low-carbon energy source, it fails in virtually every other dimension of sustainability: costs; the production of high-volume, toxic and radioactive waste streams that require management on timescales of hundreds, if not thousands, of millennia; and security, catastrophic accident and weapons proliferation risks that simply do not exist in relation to other energy technologies.
These considerations mean that nuclear projects need to be options of last resort in efforts to decarbonize energy systems. This is precisely the opposite of the approach now being taken by Ontario. These are choices that Ontarians and Canadians may come to regret for decades, if not centuries, if they are not subject to some form of serious external review before it is too late to reconsider https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-ontario-pickering-nuclear-power-plant-refurbishment/
Israel Aid Bill Fails in House as Progressives Slam ‘Blank Check for Netanyahu’
“The supplemental funding proposed, which includes no humanitarian aid for Gaza nor assistance for Ukraine, supports weapons of war and destruction that further jeopardize Israeli hostages and Palestinian civilians,
“Each U.S.-made or funded bomb dropped in Gaza further jeopardizes the chances of long-lasting peace for Israelis and Palestinians,” said Rep. Delia Ramirez.
JAKE JOHNSON, Feb 07, 2024, https://www.commondreams.org/news/israel-aid-house
A Republican effort to push through a standalone military aid package for Israel failed to clear the U.S. House on Tuesday, with members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus condemning the proposed $17.6 billion in unconditional assistance for a government that stands accused on the world stage of committing genocide in the Gaza Strip.
The legislation, which President Joe Biden threatened to veto if it reached his desk, needed two-thirds support to pass the House under a suspension of the rules. The final tally was 250 to 180, with 166 Democrats and 14 Republicans voting no.
Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) said in a statement that “under no circumstances” could she have voted for the legislation, which House Republican leaders sought to advance ahead of the Senate’s planned procedural vote on a broader package that includes military aid to Israel and Ukraine and a border agreement that would dramatically weaken asylum protections.
“The death toll in Gaza continues to rise. Gazans are starving,” Ramirez said late Tuesday. “Over 1.5 million people have been displaced. Hostilities between the U.S. and Iran are escalating. And just this morning, The New York Times reported that one-fifth of the hostages still in captivity since the start of the conflict have likely died. We must change course.”
“The supplemental funding proposed, which includes no humanitarian aid for Gaza nor assistance for Ukraine, supports weapons of war and destruction that further jeopardize Israeli hostages and Palestinian civilians,” she continued. “Each U.S.-made or funded bomb dropped in Gaza further jeopardizes the chances of long-lasting peace for Israelis and Palestinians. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it now: I will only support actions that bring us closer to peace.”
In a brief floor speech ahead of Tuesday’s vote, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) described standalone Israel aid legislation as a “blank check for [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu” and other far-right officials seeking the permanent removal of Palestinians from Gaza.
If passed, the aid measure would have allowed the U.S. State Department to waive congressional notification requirements for billions of dollars in U.S. military financing for Israel, which has massacred Gaza civilians with American-made weaponry.
“I will vote no because it is painfully obvious to the entire world that what is needed today is a permanent cease-fire and a release of all hostages,” Khannas said. “There come moments in a nation’s history when our actions reveal our values. This is such a moment.”
The failure of the Israel aid bill came shortly after House Republicans also fell short in their effort to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.
Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) wrote in response to the Mayorkas vote that “Republicans are deeply disconnected from the people.”
“They’re not serious about fixing our immigration system, they have no plan to improve folks’ lives, and they keep wasting our time with political stunts like these,” Pressley added. “This sham, failed impeachment is just the latest example.”
Senate Republicans on Wednesday are expected to block consideration of the broader supplemental security package over the border agreement, which they claim isn’t sufficiently harsh—a position right in line with that of former President Donald Trump, the frontrunner for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination.
Energy Security Minister Graham Stuart opposes Holderness nuclear waste site
By Stuart Harratt, BBC News
A MP said he is supporting efforts to oppose plans to bury nuclear waste in East Yorkshire.
Beverley and Holderness Conservative MP Graham Stuart called on East Riding Council to withdraw from discussions with Nuclear Waste Services (NWS).
The government agency has named South Holderness as a potential site for a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF).
Mr Graham, who is also the Minister for Energy Security, had previously called for a public vote on the proposals.
He now says he is supporting a motion by two local Conservative councillors, Lyn Healing and Sean McMaster, asking that the local authority stop talks with NWS.
‘Community says no’
“South Holderness is a special place, and the news that the area was being considered as the site for the UK’s GDF shocked many in our community,” Mr Stuart said.
“It is the people of Holderness who should determine what happens in their area and they have made clear their opposition to these plans.”
He added: “Our community says ‘No’ and Lyn and Sean have my backing to seek our withdrawal.”
Ms Healing and Mr McMaster said their motion to withdraw from discussions would be submitted to a full council meeting on 21 February.
“Yes, investment in Holderness is badly required but is this the right investment? We now believe it isn’t,” the councillors said……………………………………………………………………………… more https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-humber-68233882
Do the Right Thing: Put the South African Government’s Nuclear Plans to a Popular Referendum
BY GERARD BOYCE, COUNTER PUNCH 5 Feb 24
Ever since South African Energy Minister Dr Kgosientsho Ramokgopa announced that Cabinet had approved the updated Integrated Resource Plan last December, local media has been awash with articles by nuclear supporters and sundry lobbyists exhorting politicians and government to ‘show true leadership’ and ‘do the right thing’ when it comes to nuclear power.
Invariably, doing so means showing unwavering support for the government’s plans to expand nuclear energy generation capacity by choosing the particular nuclear technology or reactor design favored by the author of the article being read or following the guidelines they helpfully drew up to assist policymakers by advising how they ought to proceed going about doing so, even if this means going against the recommendations of the presidentially-appointed panel of experts who sit on the Presidential Climate Commission or failing to address the numerous criticisms that have been leveled against government’s nuclear plans, prominent South African nuclear scientists among them. Presumably, depending on the responses these articles elicit, individual politicians would then be lauded for the leadership and courage they have shown or berated for their lack thereof.
It is curious, not to mention ironic, to hear such sentiments expressed by pro-nuclear supporters, especially those who have long attempted to portray the decision to ‘go nuclear’ as a self-evident outcome of a purely technical decision-making process that is obviously best left to ‘the experts’ i.e. appointed and unelected technocrats who are supposedly immune to political interference.
It is also somewhat misleading of them to characterize the decision to support the expansion of nuclear power capacity as one requiring ‘courage’ as such given the scant detail government has provided on its nuclear plans, the few general nuclear education and public awareness campaigns on nuclear power it has run within and outside of the communities in which it is proposed that reactors be located in future and the critical information related to its past nuclear dealings and the planned Koeberg life expansion project amongst others it has allegedly deliberately withheld from the public.
All of these combined result in persistent and extremely low public levels of knowledge of nuclear power and related issues, so much so that the general public appears ambivalent about the issue of nuclear power. This assessment seems to be supported by the persistently low turnout that is observed at the perfunctory public hearings which the government seemingly hosts to satisfy administrative requirements surrounding public participation in order to mitigate any potential for conflict to arise in the future rather than to genuinely engage the public’s views on nuclear power.
Subsequently, the organized anti-nuclear political movement nationally is under-resourced and the level of grassroots public support it enjoys is uncertain. Considering the limited organized opposition thereto and the general public’s nuclear indifference, none but the most biased observer would be reluctant to concede that the decision to champion nuclear power is unlikely to demand much by way of boldness or courage from the individual politician. More so since nuclear power, by its nature, accords so conveniently with the motivations of the average individual politician to amass more power and influence for themselves and members of their class and has the power to undermine the public oversight mechanisms and regulatory frameworks set up to monitor them. Yet perhaps the biggest reason why nuclear power is likely to appeal to representatives of SA’s major political parties especially is because it could enable their parties to navigate the political forces that assail them…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
It is apparent from the scenarios described above that political imperatives dictate the adoption of a pro-nuclear position by politicians from all the major political parties in SA irrespective of the political ideologies they espouse or the content or merits of the specific nuclear plan under review. Under these circumstances, exhorting politicians to support nuclear power is akin to urging them to act to protect their party’s narrow political interests. One submits to the reader that this does not seem to be particularly brave or courageous.
In contrast, it would require a tremendous amount of courage for a politician to acknowledge and act on the insight that the distortions introduced by prevailing political considerations render it impossible for them to hold robust internal political debates on the issue of nuclear power, more so considering the increased frequency with which ostensible party comrades have resorted to using deadly methods to eliminate potential rivals. It is, therefore, naïve to rely on the party political system to formulate positions on nuclear power that are truly in the nation’s best interest.
……………………………………………… they could opt to support the right of every citizen to act with the courage and integrity nuclear supporters claim they want politicians to by calling upon the government to submit its nuclear plans to a popular referendum. In a country where citizens have become fed up by years of maladministration and corruption and large sections of the electorate are beginning to lose faith in the democratic system itself, this display of political courage would serve as definitive proof of the leadership credentials of the politician who wanted to ‘do the right thing’ by their compatriots.
Dr Gerard Boyce is an Economist and Senior Lecturer in the School of Built Environment and Development Studies at the University of KwaZulu-Natal (Howard College) in Durban, South Africa. He writes in his personal capacity. m https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/02/05/do-the-right-thing-put-the-south-african-governments-nuclear-plans-to-a-popular-referendum/
Iran Plans More Nuclear Reactors Despite Serious Hurdles
Sunday, 02/04/2024, Umud Shokri, Iran International
Iran’s recently stated plan to build four more nuclear power reactors has raised questions about its feasibility as the country wrestles with economic crisis and isolation.
According to early estimates, work has started in the southern region with a five-thousand-megawatt total capacity in mind. With 4,000 employment prospects and an estimated $20 billion cost, the planned nine-year schedule raises questions under current economic circumstances.
The difficulties Iran has faced in building new power plants in the last ten years raise doubts about whether the 25,000 megawatts of new electricity that the previous national development plan sought to bring about can be achieved.
The Iranian government pledged to raise the percentage of renewable and clean energy power plants to a minimum of five percent in line with the sixth development plan (2017–2021). However, the share of nuclear power is currently one percent, which means that the program’s goals have been significantly missed………..
The only nuclear power plant in the country is a 1,000 megawatt facility that started up in 2011 with help from Russia. A 300 megawatt plant is reportedly under construction in Khuzestan.
Building times for nuclear power plants vary greatly due to factors like supply chain maturity, design revisions, and project management efficiency, but Iran faces a severe electricity shortage now. Consumption peaked at over 72,000 megawatts in 2023, surpassing the actual production capacity of power plants, capped at 60,000 megawatts during the warm season.
Iran is facing several obstacles in its efforts to build further nuclear power reactors, including financial and technological constraints, geopolitical and political instability, and international sanctions. The interplay of political and economic dynamics, together with worries about public opinion, safety, and international compliance, complicate Iran’s nuclear energy development scenario. Moreover, Mohammad Eslami, the head of Iran’s nuclear energy said last week that Tehran is planning to build the new reactors relying on domestic financing and knowhow……………………………………………………………….
Examining Iran’s foreign policy, one can see that the country is committed to scientific progress even in the face of external challenges, as seen by its tenacity in pursuing its nuclear program despite sanctions. Careful navigation is necessary to resolve the delicate dance between energy demands, geopolitical concerns, and the difficulties presented by international sanctions. Iran’s prospects for the energy sector both at home and abroad will depend on how well it can surmount these challenges https://www.iranintl.com/en/202402034292
1 This Month
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
of the week–London Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Tell the Ukrainian Government to Drop Prosecution of Peace Activist Yurii Sheliazhenko
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (181)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 