Utility Week 25th July 2017,The UK requires more time than the two years withdrawal period outlined in
the Article 50 process to set up its own nuclear safeguarding arrangements,
a leading Liberal Democrat peer has warned.
Lord Wallace said in a debate last week in the House of Lords that it would take five years to train the
nuclear inspectors who will be required to staff up the UK’s replacement
of Euratom, the pan-European safeguarding agency that the British
government has pledged to withdraw from.
The peer, a former deputy first minister of Scotland, said that the nuclear industry required some form of
transitional arrangement. And he said in the long term, the government
needed to stop treating as a red line the continued jurisdiction of the
European Court of Justice in English courts. http://utilityweek.co.uk/news/UK-needs-five-years-to-replace-Euratom/1308222
July 28, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics international, UK |
Leave a comment
New European 21st July 2017, The Euratom row lays bare the innate flaws of Brexit. But it also gives pro-Europeans their biggest chance yet to regain the initiative. Our politicians have belatedly woken up to the fact that amongst the many complex implications of Brexit are some very serious issues to do with nuclear safety, nuclear waste and nuclear medicine.
These arise because the government’s Hard Brexit plan entails leaving the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) which, in turn, arises because although Euratom is not part of the EU it falls within the jurisdiction of the ECJ. Although the ECJ has in fact made very few judgments regarding Euratom, Theresa May has made leaving all forms of its jurisdiction a non-negotiable red line, and so leaving Euratom was included in both the Article 50 letter and the parliamentary Act which authorised her to send that letter.
This may now lead to a parliamentary rebellion amongst Tory MPs against, at least, this aspect of Brexit, meaning it is possible the government will not have a majority for it.
But what is happening with Euratom points up very sharply a whole series of extremely significant questions about Brexit in general. Perhaps the most important question – the nuclear question, so to speak – is that given there are very strong and obvious reasons for avoiding the chaos, damage, cost and complexity of leaving Euratom then do these not apply even more strongly to the entire matter of leaving the EU?
Could Euratom be the first major crack that will bring down the whole ill-conceived edifice of Brexit?
http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/what-euratom-really-stands-for-1-5117645
July 24, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics international, UK |
Leave a comment

Iran nuclear deal still under threat — US must keep its end of the bargain, http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/foreign-policy/343139-iran-nuclear-deal-still-under-threat-us-must-keep-its-end BY BERNADETTE STADLER, 07/21/17
Earlier this week, the Trump administration certified for a second time that Iran remains in compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), more commonly known as the Iran Deal. However, media reportsindicate that
the president was deeply reluctant to certify Iran’s compliance and may not be willing to do so in the future.
The administration is required to certify Iran’s compliance every 90 days, and if it fails to do so, Congress is given a 60-day period during which it can re-impose sanctions or abandon the deal altogether. Some in Congress would jump at this opportunity to kill the deal. But if the United States violates or walks away from the nuclear deal, it will alienate our allies and partners who helped us negotiate the agreement, allow Iran to resume its nuclear weapons program, and damage U.S. national security.
Iran’s nuclear activity was the subject of much concern before the JCPOA effectively constrained the risk of an Iranian nuclear weapon. Before formal negotiations were started, it is estimated that Iran was mere weeksaway from “breaking out,” or having enough fissile material to create a nuclear weapon. Now, Iran is more than a year away from breaking out.
Iran’s obligations under the deal have been strict and verifiable. Under the agreement, Iran has forfeited its stockpile of medium-enriched uranium and has reduced its stockpile of low-enriched uranium by about 97 percent. It has removed two-thirds of its centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium, and is prohibited from enriching uranium above 3.67 percent — far below the 90 percent enrichment required for use in nuclear weapons.
The JCPOA also blocks Iran’s pathway to a plutonium weapon by requiring Iran to render its plutonium reactor inoperable, redesign the Arak facility so that it cannot produce weapons-grade plutonium, and send all radioactive waste out of the country so that it cannot be reprocessed to create plutonium.
Critics of the deal have argued that it gives Iran a “clear path to the bomb” because some of the deal’s provisions will be phased out after a specified number of years. However, even after all of the so-called “sunset clauses” have expired, Iran has indefinitely signed up to the Additional Protocol, an agreement which permanently allows the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to conduct intrusive inspections on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Iran’s compliance with the deal has been consistently verified by the IAEA and the intelligence agencies of other countries interested in the agreement. Even initial critics of the JCPOA, like Secretary of Defense James Mattis and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Senator Bob Corker, agree that it is in the United States’ national security interest to adhere to it.
Still, as President Trump’s reluctance to certify Iran’s compliance illustrates, the deal remains under threat. In addition to the question of certifying compliance, the Trump administration is conducting an interagency review of the deal to determine whether to continue suspending nuclear-related sanctions on Iran. If the Trump administration decides to stop waiving these sanctions, it will constitute a material breach of the deal.
Similarly, Congress is in the process of passing a bill that would authorize sanctions against Iran for its ballistic missile tests and sponsorship of terrorism, neither of which are addressed by the nuclear deal. Negotiators intentionally excluded these issues from the JCPOA, because they correctly understood that the nuclear issue was the first and most pressing issue at hand. Congress can and should address Iran’s missile program and support for terrorism, but must be careful to do so in a way that will not violate the nuclear deal. Reapplying waived sanctions under the guise of targeting new activities or legislating well-intentioned but poorly thought-out mandates for how the Trump administration must punish Iran will jeopardize the agreement.
There is no doubt that intentionally abandoning or accidentally violating the JCPOA will be detrimental to U.S. national security. Iran would be able to keep billions of dollars in sanctions relief that it received as part of the deal, and could choose to block IAEA inspections at its nuclear facilities. The United States could reintroduce sanctions against Iran, but our allies have indicated they have no interest in renegotiating or reapplying sanctions. The United States would be on its own and Iran could restart its race to a nuclear bomb.
There is only one good option: Uphold our end of the Iran deal while closely watching to ensure that Iran upholds theirs. We can and should combat Iran’s destabilizing activities, but not at the cost of a nuclear deal that is making the United States and the world safer.
Bernadette Stadler is a Herbert Scoville Jr. Peace Fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, where she works on issues including North Korea’s nuclear and missile program, U.S.-Russian relations, and the Iran nuclear agreement.
July 22, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Iran, politics international, USA |
Leave a comment
Accept that North Korea has nuclear weapons
The precondition, though, should be no preconditions. As unpalatable as it sounds, it’s time humankind accepted that Pyongyang has nuclear weapons, that it won’t give them up, and to work from there.
World Leaders Must Accept The Reality Of A Nuclear North Korea And Work From There, https://www.forbes.com/sites/insideasia/2017/07/20/world-leaders-must-accept-the-reality-of-a-nuclear-north-korea-and-work-from-there/#491264ed3c2b, Inside Asia , CONTRIBUTOR, William Pesek Mr. Pesek is a Tokyo-based journalist and the author of “Japanization: What the World Can Learn from Japan’s Lost Decades.”
Some national leaders surround themselves with “yes-men,” toadies who agree with anything they do. Wiser leaders choose advisors who speak up when needed. And then there’s South Korea’s Moon Jae-in, who wants to be his own “no-man.”
In recent speeches aimed at calming tensions with North Korea, Moon laid out a “four no’s” doctrine: No hostile steps toward Pyongyang, no military dramas, no regime-change ulterior motives and no forced “artificial” reunification. With all these assurances, Moon is trying to get Kim Jong-un to say “yes” to fresh dialogue and cooperation on the peninsula.
But there’s also a fifth “no” Moon needs to keep in mind — the near-certain answer to whether his gambit, however well-intentioned, will succeed.
Kim’s survival depends on his military Consider, first, what Kim is up to with at least 11 missile tests this year: building deterrence abroad and energizing his base at home. The recent attempted test of an intercontinental ballistic missile was aimed, symbolically at least, at a Donald Trump White House pushing a more confrontational line on Pyongyang. It also targeted the trigger-happy generals peering over his shoulder. Kim needs to looks as strong and antagonistic as his father and granddad, if not more.
The influence of these Cold War relics is arguably greater than that of Trump, Moon or China’s Xi Jinping, traditionally North Korea’s main benefactor. Kim can take out foes, kill his uncle and order, allegedly, the assassination of his half-brother.
But his survival, and that of the dynasty, depends on preserving the loyalty of his generals and admirals. Trump has an “America first” policy. Kim’s manta is “military first,” and the volume is rising. Continue reading →
July 22, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
North Korea, politics international |
Leave a comment
ROSATOM SAYS IT HAS PLANS TO DEVELOP NUCLEAR CLUSTER IN SA http://ewn.co.za/2017/06/19/rosatom-says-it-has-plans-to-develop-nuclear-cluster-in-
sa In April, the Western Cape High Court ruled that government’s decision to call for proposals for the procurement of 9.6 gigawatts of nuclear energy was unlawful and unconstitutional.Tara Penny JOHANNESBURG – Russia’s Rosatom has confirmed it is in contact with South African authorities on plans concerning the civilian use of nuclear energy.
The CEO of Rosatom’s foreign unit, Anastasia Zoteyeva made the comment while answering questions on the sidelines of a conference in Moscow on Monday morning.
She also told reporters that the Russian state nuclear corporation is proposing to develop a whole nuclear cluster in South Africa.
In April, the Western Cape High Court ruled that government’s decision to call for proposals for the procurement of 9.6 gigawatts of nuclear energy was unlawful and unconstitutional.
Earthlife Africa, which brought the case, said the judgment vindicates its argument that the process government has followed was unlawful because it failed to consult the public about its decision.
The case was first brought in October 2015, when Earthlife Africa Johannesburg and the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute argued that former Energy Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersen had not consulted the public nor Parliament before deciding to procure 9.6 gigawatts of nuclear power.
The judgment meant all deals that government had pursued with Russia and the United States were not valid.
July 22, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
marketing, politics international, Russia, South Africa |
Leave a comment
Curious confusion over British threat to dump nuclear materials on EU http://drdavidlowry.blogspot.com.au/2017/07/curious-confusion-over-british-threat.html Letter to the Financial Times 21 July 17
Your report “UK issues coded warning to Brussels over nuclear waste” (Financial Times, 20 July; https://www.ft.com/content/0c56a4f2-6bc5-11e7-bfeb-33fe0c5b7eaa) is based on a curious confusion and a worrying level of ignorance by anonymous so-called nuclear experts your reporters say have advised the UK Government.
It a is both an empty and, frankly, a totally counter-productive threat to return fissile materials ( and radioactive wastes) to countries of origin in the EU, as part of a sui-disant negotiating posture on Brexit by the UK, in order to “
On 19 January this year, the UK Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) announced it had agreed to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) taking ownership of 600 kg of material previously owned by a Spanish utility, and of 5 kg of material previously owned by a German organisation.
BEIS asserted that “These transactions, which have been agreed by the Euratom Supply Agency, will not result in any new plutonium being brought into the UK, and will not therefore increase the overall amount of plutonium in the UK.” adding it had “agreed to these transactions on the grounds that they offer a cost-effective and beneficial arrangement, which allows the UK to gain national control over more of the civil plutonium located in the UK, and facilitates conclusion of outstanding contracts with the Spanish and German” (http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2017-01-19/HCWS422/).
And, earlier, in April 2013, BEIS’s predecessor department, DECC, announced in a statement on management of oversees owned plutonium it was taking over 750 kg of plutonium belonging to German utilities, 1,850 kg previously loaned from France, and 350 kg from Dutch firm GKN. At the same time, 650 kg of plutonium stored at Sellafield was transferred from German to Japanese ownership.(https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/written-ministerial-statement-by-michael-fallon-management-of-overseas-owned-plutonium-in-the-uk)
Thus the overseas ownership of plutonium in the UK has gradually been transferred to the UK. Thus there is no prospect of any ship sailing towards Antwerp (or any other EU port) as the nuclear expert cited fancifully imagined.
It is possible that some of reprocessing waste arising from the chemical separation of imported foreign spent nuclear fuel at Sellafield could be returned-to-sender in a fit of pique by DexEU. However, BEIS has already- through its predecessor department- indicated it wanted to adopt a policy of substitution” based on “radiotoxic equivalence” to the reprocessing nuclear waste stockpile to minimize the volumes of waste shipped back to continental Europe.
A BEIS official told me at a nuclear policy forum meeting of interested non-governmental parties on 18 July that the department has a team of dedicated staff looking in detail at all the ramifications of withdrawal from Euratom for UK nuclear policy. Perhaps DexEU officials should consult these in-house experts over Euratom before issuing empty threats.
July 22, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
EUROPE, politics international, UK, wastes |
Leave a comment
Politico 18th July 2017, Negotiations over Britain’s exit from the EU got underway in earnest this
week, but that doesn’t mean that the U.K. is withdrawing from other EU
business. Far from it. It has emerged that British ministers and officials
lobbied hard against a European Commission plan on energy efficiency, even
though the rules might never apply to the U.K.
Assuming it leaves the EU as planned in March 2019. Britain opposed a compromise deal on future EU
energy efficiency rules during a long and difficult meeting of EU energy
ministers last month, pushing the Commission to water down its proposals.
Richard Harrington, a junior minister at the U.K.’s Department for
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, told the Energy Council meeting
in June that the U.K. was “disappointed” with Brussels’ proposal to
boost the target to 30 percent.
He said the British government “cannot support” the proposed compromise on energy efficiency because “we do
not believe it strikes the right balance to provide sufficient flexibility to reach our ambitions.”
The energy efficiency rules are part of a wider package of proposals meant to accelerate the EU’s transition to clean
energy, and while the European Commission is pushing for an inter-institutional deal on all eight parts of the package by the end of 2018, officials doubt that is realistic.
The move to block strong energy efficiency rules is creating “a lot of bad feelings” among other EU
countries, especially since Britain “will need all the friends it can
get” after Brexit, said Jonathan Gaventa, director at think tank E3G. http://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-uk-fights-energy-plans-that-wont-kick-in-until-after-brexit/amp/
July 22, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
ENERGY, politics international, UK |
Leave a comment

President Trump Can’t Make The Iran Nuclear Deal Fail –
Yet, https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/07/20/president-trump-cant-make-the-iran-nuclear-deal-fail-yet/#447eb4277409, James Conca , On the two-year anniversary of the Iran Nuclear Deal, President Trump reluctantly certified that Iran is complying with the international nuclear agreement that prevents Iran from attaining an atomic weapon.
But he really didn’t want to. The President argued with his top national security advisers who, thankfully, convinced him that the deal was working.
Monday’s decision was the second time Mr. Trump has certified Iran’s compliance since taking office. By law, the administration must notify Congress every 90 days whether Iran is living up to the deal. But aides said the frustrated President told his security team he would not keep doing so indefinitely.
It took an hour of cajoling by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, National Security Adviser Lt. General McMaster, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Dunford Jr. to convince the President that not certifying the deal would be really really bad.
Trump wants to scuttle the nuclear deal in order to keep a campaign promise. But actually hurting the United States’ national security interests, and the world, is making that difficult. Even with help from like-minded Senators Tom Cotton (R-AR), David Perdue (R-GA), Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Marco Rubio (R-FL), Trump may not get the war he wants.
Which is good. Two-third of Americans feel that Trump will get us into another major war, and half of Americans think he will use nukes when he gets the chance. Neither of these is good for America. Most people forget that the Iraq war that toppled Hussein’s Baathist government took out Iran’s natural enemy and made the defeated Baathists morph into ISIS.
Fortunately, Iran is actually
meeting the terms of the nuclear dealhammered out in Switzerland two years ago by the United States-led P5+1 Group. According to the United Nations’ nuclear watch dog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran shipped nearly its entire fissionable stockpile
to Russia last year, over 12 tons of enriched uranium that could have been used to make uranium atomic bombs. Iran then mothballed thousands of centrifuges necessary to enrich uranium for this type of atomic weapon.
Iran also removed the core of its heavy water reactor at Arak, and filled it with concrete. That reactor could have produced plutonium for the other type of atomic bomb, one that is more easily mounted on missiles, like the ones North Korea has.
While Tehran still remains a threat in the region, and will likely try some covert activities like those pointed out by the Senators, they cannot easily re-acquire nuclear weapons capabilities, which is the most important outcome of this deal. And they can’t without us finding out, as long as the deal is in place.
But if the United States breaks the deal, it would leave Iran holding all the cards. Sanctions would not snap back on if we break the deal as the rest of the world will correctly blame us, not Iran. And Iran could then expel the inspectors and ramp up their nuclear program without sanctions. The United States would look like idiots and we would only have the military option since we would have broken the only successful diplomatic one.
In fact, Tehran’s hard-liners argue that America has already violated the nuclear deal since President Trump has been pressuring businesses not to engage with Iran even though those particular sanctions have been lifted. Iran’s foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif declared last Sunday to Fareed Zakaria on CNN, ‘That is a violation of not the spirit but of the letter of the nuclear deal.’
Through this nuclear deal, Zarif and Iranian President Rouhani have demonstrated to the people and the theocrats of Iran that they could successfully deal with the West. In fact, the nuclear deal is the best weapon Rouhani has against the hardliners who want to continue the fight against the West, obtain nuclear weapons, and keep the region embroiled in conflict.
American critics of the deal have always wanted to couple the nuclear deal with other issues like regional terrorism and human rights, and want to apply tougher sanctions and the threat of military force. But the regional problems are tied to the larger Shia-Sunni divide that pits Iran against Saudi Arabia in regional civil conflicts, like Syria and Yemen. America needs to resist getting dragged into these ancient religious conflicts as they never work out well for us.
President Trump has strongly aligned the United States with Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni Arab states, as well as Israel, in their mutual struggle with Shia Iran over control of the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is definitely not happy about the Iran nuclear deal working and is not happy that its archenemy is losing its pariah-state status.
The Saudis have been stoking sectarian violence in the region for the last two years in the hopes of pushing Iran off the wagon and claiming itself as the only rational partner in the region.
However, the Saudis keep beheading people at breakneck speed, some for just criticizing the government, some for drug offences or just being on social media. But when the Saudis, who are Sunni, executed a prominent Shiite Muslim cleric last year, Iranian protesters burned the Saudi Embassy in Tehran.
That the Saudis did this, despite urgent pleas from the United States, speaks volumes about how much our ally does not want this nuclear deal to work.
Now it seems to be our new Administration’s policy as well.
July 21, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics international |
Leave a comment
Brexit department warns EU counterparts it will ‘return waste to
its country of origin’ if an agreement on nuclear cooperation cannot be reached, Guardian, Daniel Boffey 20 July 17, Britain has warned the EU that it could return boatloads of radioactive waste back to the continent if the Brexit talks fail to deliver an agreement on nuclear regulation.
In what is being taken in Brussels as a thinly veiled threat, a paper setting out the UK position for the negotiations stresses the right “to return radioactive waste … to its country of origin” should negotiations collapse.
The UK paper, detailing the British government’s hopes for future cooperation once it leaves the Euratom treaty, at the same time as leaving the EU, further stresses the “strong mutual interest in ensuring close cooperation in the future”.
Britain currently has a 126-tonne stockpile of radioactive materials originating from EU countries such as Germany, Italy and Sweden.
The state-owned Sellafield plant in Cumbria has been reprocessing spent nuclear field from across Europe since the 1970s, producing reusable uranium, plutonium and radioactive waste. Almost a fifth of the UK’s stockpile of civilian plutonium at Sellafield originates from overseas…….
Britain has signalled that while it is leaving the Euraotom treaty, of which it has been a member since 1957, it wants to continue to cooperate on nuclear regulation after the UK leaves the union in March 2019. The treaty regulates the civilian use of atomic technology and critics of the government’s position fear there is a threat of disruption to UK supplies of nuclear reactor parts, fuel and medical isotopes vital for the treatment of cancer if a new agreement outside membership of the EU is not reached……
The EU insist, however, that such cooperation on nuclear regulation would require the UK to recognise the jurisdiction of the European court of justice, which is a red line for Theresa May…….https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/19/uk-threatens-to-return-radioactive-waste-to-eu-without-nuclear-deal
July 21, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics international, UK |
1 Comment
The U.S. Tested 67 Nuclear Bombs in Their Country. Now They’re Dying in Oklahoma. Narratively, by Zoë Carpenter , 20 July 17 After a series of military experiments devastated their homeland, Marshall Islands residents were permitted to immigrate to the U.S. But they didn’t know their American dream came with a catch
Lately, Terry Mote has been going to a lot of funerals. There were at least five in the early spring, sometimes on consecutive weekends. The elderly get sicker when the weather changes, he’s noticed – though the friends dying lately aren’t all that old, and they aren’t dying just because of the weather.
One breezy evening in April, on a weekend with no funeral, Mote’s kitchen filled with steam and the snapping sound of hot oil. He’d driven a hundred miles the previous day, to Oklahoma City, to buy bitter melon and small fish that he placed delicately into the frying pan with a pair of tongs. They were among the things he missed from the Marshall Islands, where he grew up. Fresh seafood is hard to find in the dry, windy city where he lives now – Enid, Oklahoma, a hunkered-down prairie town at the eastern edge of the Great Plains…….
Many leave the islands in search of the same things as other migrants – work, education, health care. But an unusual shadow trails the Marshallese. Following the Second World War, the United States used the islands as a testing ground for its nuclear weapons program, detonating more than 60 bombs over a dozen years. The largest, the “Castle Bravo” test, blew a crater 6,510 feet wide in the lagoon of Bikini Atoll and ignited a fireball visible from 250 miles away. Children on neighboring islands played in the ashy fallout, which fell like snow from the sky.
Today, thanks to a treaty signed when the Marshall Islands gained independence from the U.S. in 1986, Marshallese citizens are allowed to live and work in the States. Between 2000 and 2010, the number here grew by 237 percent. This mass migration is driven in part by poverty and lack of services in the islands. But it’s also a legacy of the U.S. occupation and the various damages it left behind. And it’s accelerated by climate change, which has started to drown the low-lying archipelago……
Mote and many other Marshallese in the U.S. live in a precarious state of in-between. Granted residency but not citizenship, the Marshallese have virtually no political influence and rank as the single poorest ethnic group in the U.S. In 1996, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (or welfare reform) eliminated federal health care funding for Marshallese by excluding them from the group of “qualified aliens” who are eligible for benefits. That means that Marshallese citizens who live, work and pay taxes in the U.S. are ineligible for Medicaid and Medicare unless states opt to provide it. Oklahoma has not done so.
Mote loves Enid, but life is more difficult than he anticipated. Rent and groceries are expensive, and there is the problem of the funerals. Few of the elderly Marshallese in the city live into their 70s, according to Mote and other residents I spoke with. Instead, they’re dying young – of diabetes, kidney failure and heart disease, illnesses they might have been able to manage under other circumstances. Often they leave behind families saddled with medical debt.
Mote described the struggle in his community as part of a legacy of broken promises made by the U.S. – promises that the islanders displaced by the nuclear program would be able to return; that those relocated or sickened would be provided for; that the testing was for “the good of mankind.” America tested 67 nuclear bombs in the islands, Mote reminded me. “Then they’re just going to let us die over here?”
…………Inside the clinic I met Daina Joseia, a 63-year-old woman wearing a loose, floral-print dress of a style worn by many Marshallese women. Joseia smiled easily, but she seemed frail and tired. She moved to Enid in 1999, seeking care for various physical ailments – too many for me to write down, she said. Once she arrived, she found she couldn’t afford insurance. She often feels scared or ashamed to see a doctor because she’s uninsured, but she’s sick enough that she can’t avoid it. She has a lot of bills to pay. The day we met, Joseia had a large sore on her back.
Joseia believes her ill health might be connected to something she saw in the islands when she was a little girl: an enormous flash of light, she told me through an interpreter, “a real bright color, like a fire.” It wasn’t until she was an adult that she understood what she’d seen.
Between 1946 and 1958, the United States tested 67 nuclear bombs on or near two atolls at the northern end of the Marshall Islands – an area that became known as the Pacific Proving Grounds. The largest weapons test, a hydrogen bomb set off on Bikini Atoll in 1954, detonated with more than a thousand times the power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima during World War II. Though Bikini Atoll had been evacuated, the wind blew radioactive fallout onto several inhabited islands, and perhaps much further away. (A few days later, a doctor in Tennessee reported that cattle in the state showed unusually high levels of radioactivity in their thyroids.) Officially, the U.S. claimed only three inhabited islands were seriously affected by fallout from Bravo. But an internal report declassified in the 1990s suggested that radiation from that and subsequent tests may have affected as many as 13 atolls.
On neighboring islands, many health effects were immediate: radiation burns, damage to stomach linings, low blood cell counts. Others surfaced gradually in the following months and years. Rates of leukemia, breast cancer, and thyroid cancer rose. Children were born deformed, or had their growth stunted.
“In a nation that lacks a single oncologist or cancer treatment facility, the Marshallese experience extremely high rates of cancer; degenerative conditions associated with radiation exposure; miscarriage and infertility; and, the birth of congenitally deformed children,” environmental anthropologist Barbara Rose Johnston wrote in a 2013 report on the legacy of the tests. According to a 2012 report by a special rapporteur for the U.N., those health issues were “exacerbated by near-irreversible environmental contamination,” which in turn led to “indefinite displacement” for many Marshallese.
According to Dr. Neal Palafox, a cancer specialist at the University of Hawaii who worked in the Marshall Islands for nearly a decade, the weapons testing damaged more than flesh and bone. It constituted a form of cultural trauma, too. Palafox believes the U.S. chose to conduct the testing where it did because residents had little power to push back. “Not for a second does anybody believe that there was any kind of informed consent,” Palafox said in an interview. There is some evidence the U.S. knew that the winds had shifted before the Bravo test in a direction that endangered inhabited islands, yet proceeded anyway. Afterward, many of the people most heavily exposed to the Bravo fallout became test subjects in Project 4.1, a classified medical study of radiation exposure run by the U.S. government. Later in 1954, the Congress of the Marshall Islands requested a halt to the testing, which the U.S. rejected on the grounds that the islanders “had no medical reason to expect any permanent after-effects on the general health of the inhabitants.”
Joseia remembers the sickness that followed the bright light. She remembers women giving birth to babies that “didn’t look like human beings.” One man I met in Enid described infants born looking “like jellyfish.” Another woman, Joelynn Karben, told me she remembered infants born after the nuclear tests as incoherent lumps of flesh, like bunches of grapes. Her own brother was born missing part of his skull, and her mother died from what she thinks was thyroid cancer.
The bombings are deeply etched in the islands’ collective memory, and some people I met in Enid blamed them for all manner of illnesses. It’s impossible to say which, if any, of Joseia’s health issues are directly related. The sore she had on her back the day we met was actually a symptom of her diabetes, a nurse told me later – though that, too, is linked to the U.S. military presence in the islands, specifically to the dietary changes that accompanied imports of processed, sugary foods.
More than 90 percent of the food in the Marshall Islands is imported from the U.S. now. Before the U.S. occupation, the Marshallese ate mostly fish, breadfruit, coconut, and pandanus, a knobby fruit resembling a large pinecone. World War II and the nuclear testing that followed damaged local crops and created a stigma around local foods, which residents of islands affected by fallout had been warned by the U.S. not to eat. Some people were forced to relocate to desolate islands where growing food was impossible. Imported white rice, canned meats, refined sugar, and other cheap, processed foods filled the gap. Diabetes rates soared.
In Enid, it seemed like almost everyone I met had diabetes. In fact, the Marshallese have the second highest rate of Type II diabetes in the world. While the illness can be controlled, it becomes gruesome if not properly managed. Complications can escalate to blindness, nerve damage, and serious infections, which can require amputation.
Joseia’s diabetes is acute. Her kidneys are failing, and she needs dialysis. But there’s nowhere for her to get it in Enid without insurance. When her condition gets bad enough she can be admitted to an emergency room – but only in a crisis……..
Marshallese also bear the rare burden of radiation-related illness. Cancer killsmore Marshallese citizens than any other disease but diabetes, and according to a 2004 report by the U.S. National Cancer Institute, it is likely some radiation-related cancers have yet to develop or be diagnosed in people who lived on the islands between 1948 and 1970………
Mote is an optimistic guy, and a relentless jokester. He claims that “tired” is not part of his vocabulary. He hesitates to speak badly about anyone.
But watching Enid’s Marshallese families get sick so often, listening to them fret about coming up with rent money, going to all the funerals – it does wear on him. He constantly fields requests for help, but there’s only so much he can do; his toehold in the city bureaucracy is still tenuous. He’d like to run for a seat on the city council, but without citizenship he’s ineligible. Mote believes that if Oklahomans understood more about the history and culture of the islands, they might be more sympathetic to the plight of their people. But he also acknowledges that Enid, which is more than 80 percent white, “has a lot of issues with race” to overcome first.
“I don’t want to blame someone,” Mote said, when I asked what he thought the U.S. owed the Marshallese. “But yes, I feel frustrated sometimes, to see all these people getting sick every day, dying every day… If the state is not going to help us, and the government is not listening to us, who will help us?” He went on, “Do we just scatter our stuff and leave Oklahoma?”…….http://narrative.ly/how-years-of-ruthless-nuclear-testing-in-the-south-pacific-forged-americas-most-impoverished-ethnic-group/
July 21, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
health, PERSONAL STORIES, politics international, USA |
Leave a comment

Iran nuclear deal is working
The Editorial Board, USA TODAY July 20, 2017 Facts get in the way of Trump’s plan to dismantle Obama’s agreement: Our view “…..This week, for the second time since taking the oath of office, Trump grudgingly stood by the deal Iran reached with the United States and five other nations in 2015. He certified that Tehran was complying with strict terms that bar the nation from creating enough fissile material for building a nuclear weapon.
Why the turnaround? The answer is simple: The agreement is working.
With a few minor exceptions that have nothing to do with proliferation — each quickly corrected when discovered by inspectors — Tehran has abided by limits on stockpiles of low-enriched uranium, heavy water for nuclear plant operation and centrifuges for enriching uranium. Last year, for example, Iran poured concrete into the core of its only heavy-water plant capable of producing weapons-grade plutonium, ruining it..
All these matters and more are monitored continuously and stringently by inspectors with the International Atomic Energy Agency. They use permanently placed cameras and electronic seals to track whether valves, stockpiles or other indicators have been altered. They conduct in-person inspection of 19 declared sites and, despite Iranian officials claiming that military bases are off limits, can see any other location where they suspect something might be amiss. Should Iran object, and a negotiation process that can take no longer than 24 days fails to satisfy inspectors’ demands, the nuclear deal can be abrogated.
Iran has used the unfreezing of assets to re-engage the world’s economy, including with a $3 billion Boeing airliner deal that could create or sustain 18,000 American jobs.
To be sure, the Iran nuclear deal has its flaws. Iran can
resume its nuclear programwithin 15 years. The release of frozen assets has allowed the underwriting of Tehran’s militancy. Predictions that the deal would moderate the regime in Tehran have proved naive…….
bad actor without nuclear weapons is better than a bad actor with nuclear weapons. Imagine how much safer the world would be if a similar deal had been struck with North Korea years ago, before it could threaten to incinerate part of the United States. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/07/20/iran-nuclear-deal-working-editorials-debates/488460001/
July 21, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Iran, politics international |
Leave a comment


As Relations Worsen, Iran Says U.S. Sanctions May Violate Nuclear Deal, NYT, By DAVID E. SANGER and RICK GLADSTONEJ ULY 18, 2017Mohammad Javad Zarif, the foreign minister of Iran, charged on Tuesday that the Trump administration’s attempt to reimpose sanctions on his country was a violation of the accord signed two years ago that sharply limited Iran’s ability to produce nuclear material in return for its reintegration into the world economy.
July 19, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Iran, politics international, USA |
Leave a comment
US sanctions 18 Iranian entities day after certifying nuclear deal compliance
Trump administration targets groups and individuals over non-nuclear behavior, after confirming that Iran is following nuclear agreement but breaching its ‘spirit’, Guardian, 18 Jul 17, The Trump administration announced on Tuesday new sanctions on 18 Iranian individuals, groups and networks over non-nuclear behavior, such as support for ballistic missiles development.
The move came a day after the administration certified to Congress that Iran is technically complying with the nuclear deal and can continue enjoying nuclear sanctions relief.
The treasury department is targeting seven groups and five people that aided Iran’s military or its elite Revolutionary Guard. The sanctions also target what the US says is a transnational criminal group based in Iran and three people associated with it, and the state department is also targeting two more groups associated with Iran’s ballistic missiles program.
The sanctions freeze any assets the targets may have in the US and prevent Americans from doing business with them.
Late on Monday, the administration insisted that Tehran would face consequences for breaching “the spirit” of the nuclear deal. Donald Trump, who lambasted the 2015 pact as a candidate, has given himself more time to decide whether to dismantle the deal or let it stand.
Officials said the US was working with allies to try to fix the deal’s flaws, including the expiration of some nuclear restrictions after a decade or more. The officials also signalled the new sanctions.
Trump, secretary of state Rex Tillerson and “the entire administration judge that Iran is unquestionably in default of the spirit” of the agreement, one official said. That assessment carries no legal force; Trump’s certification that Iran is technically complying clears the way for sanctions to remain lifted.
Monday’s late-night announcement capped a day of frenzied, last-minute decision-making by the president, exposing deep and lingering divisions within his administration about how to deal with a top national security issue.
National security advisers, including Tillerson and defense secretary James Mattis, recommended Trump preserve the deal for now in a meeting last Wednesday, according to the New York Times. An anonymous official told the Times that Trump spent 55 minutes of the meeting saying he did not want to certify Iran’s compliance. On Monday, a planned press briefing was cancelled at short notice as internal White House arguments continued.
Since early last week, Trump’s administration had been prepared to make the certification, a quarterly requirement. Trump first told Congress in April that Iran was indeed complying. With no final decision on his broader Iran policy, the White House had planned to let the status quo stand for another three months.
Iran will continue receiving the same sanctions relief that it did under former president Barack Obama………
Scuttling the deal would put further distance between Trump and foreign leaders who are already upset over his move to withdraw from the Paris global climate change accord. Other powers that brokered the nuclear deal along with the US have said there’s no appetite for renegotiating it. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/18/iran-is-complying-with-nuclear-deal-but-is-in-default-of-its-spirit-says-us
July 19, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Iran, politics international, USA |
Leave a comment
While the new NPT is far from perfect and weak in some aspects, it is likely to enter into force in due course. Although some sceptics have dismissed its implementation as difficult if not impossible, the new NPT can do no worse than the old one.
Irrespective of its future prospects, the passing of the new NPT has already challenged the very basis of nuclear deterrence and the nuclear order based on the old NPT.
The birth of the new Nuclear Prohibition Treaty http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/sTcLTFjktzVq66wyOHj2NP/The-birth-of-the-new-Nuclear-Prohibition-Treaty.html
The myths perpetrated by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty are being challenged by the Nuclear Prohibition Treaty, W.P.S. Sidhu, 16 July 17, The 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is based on three myths: first, that nuclear weapons are an entitlement bestowed upon only a handful of countries that had tested a nuclear weapon before the treaty entered into force in 1970. Second, that the security of most of the world’s nations—indeed world order itself—is based on the possession of or protection by nuclear weapons. Third, that nuclear weapons cannot be banned and nuclear disarmament was only possible as part of a process of “general and complete disarmament”, implying that nuclear weapons might be the last to be disarmed.
These myths have been effectively challenged by the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons or the Nuclear Prohibition Treaty (NPT), as it is being popularly called, which was voted into existence at the UN on 7 July. Of the 125-odd non-nuclear weapon states that participated in the negotiations, 122 voted in favour of the new NPT and only one state, the Netherlands—the sole North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Nato) representative which lives under a nuclear umbrella—voted against. Indeed, had the Netherlands not called for a vote, the treaty would have been approved by consensus. This move was a comic case of Dutch courage—a valiant but vacuous gesture.
The new NPT challenges the old NPT’s myth of entitlement by holding states that after 7 July “owned, possessed or controlled nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices” responsible for “verifying the irreversible elimination of its nuclear-weapon programme” if they become parties to the treaty. In doing so, nuclear weapons have been devalued and are reduced to a liability rather than being treated as an asset. Continue reading →
July 17, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
2 WORLD, politics international, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
Using Trident would be illegal, so let’s phase it out https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/15/trident-illegal-nuclear-britain-arsenal?CMP=share_btn_fb, Geoffrey Robertson Nuclear doom is nearer than most of us believe, experts warn. Britain must set a moral lead by becoming the first of the ‘big five’ powers to reduce its arsenal. The most portentous decision for every new prime minister is what to write in the secret “letter of last resort” to Trident submarine commanders telling them what to do with their nuclear missiles if the British government is wiped out. In Monday’s debate on the renewal of Trident, Theresa May should tell parliament what life-or-death decision she has made in her letters of last resort.
It is said that Margaret Thatcher ordered our nukes, trained on Moscow, to be fired so as to cause maximum destruction to the enemy – ie to its civilians. That order, even for a nuclear “second strike”, would today be illegal.
It is ironic that although Chilcot produced so much condemnation of Blair for joining an unlawful war, MPs are now being asked to vote for a weapons system that cannot be used without committing a crime against humanity. This was defined in 1998 by the Rome Statute, which set up the international criminal court, as “a systematic attack directed against a civilian population, resulting in extermination or torture, or an inhumane act intentionally causing great suffering”.
The same statute additionally makes it a war crime to intentionally launch an attack in the knowledge that it would cause incidental loss of civilian life or severe damage to the natural environment, out of proportion to military advantage.
Trident’s 200 thermonuclear bombs, each 10 times more powerful than those that struck Hiroshima and Nagasaki, are illegal because they cannot discriminate between military targets and hospitals, churches and schools; because of their capacity to cause untold human suffering for generations to come; and because their consequences (eg ionising radiation, which tortures victims and lingers for half a century) are beyond the control or knowledge of the attacker, who cannot judge the proportionality of their use.
As the international court of justice put it, back in 1996: “The destructive power of nuclear weapons cannot be contained in space or time. They have the potential to destroy all civilisation and the entire ecosystem of the planet.”
So why is our law-abiding government spending tens of billions on a weapons system that cannot lawfully be used?
First, because its advisers wrongly think that nuclear weapons are legal in certain circumstances. Back in that 1996 case, the UK argued that it could lawfully drop “a low-yield nuclear weapon against warships on the high seas or troops in sparsely populated areas”.
This scenario has now been shown up as fantastical: “first use” in these circumstances by the UK would trigger a nuclear reprisal with inevitable damage to the atmosphere, the oceans and the “sparsely populated” area (which would henceforth be entirely unpopulated). In any event, Trident’s weapon-bays will not carry “low-yield” bombs, and if they did the result would be better achieved by conventional weapons, making nuclear deployment unnecessary and disproportionate.
The world court ruled that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would “generally” be contrary to war law but might be lawful “in extreme circumstances of self-defence, in which the very survival of a state would be at stake”. This was a time-warped view of war law in 1996 that is not tenable today. The court, to be fair, predicted as much, saying that it expected international law to “develop” towards a total ban on the use of the bomb. It soon did, with the Rome Statute and subsequent development of the principle that a state has no right to preserve itself at the expense of damage to other states and to the rights to life of millions of citizens.
It is absurd to suggest that it would have been lawful for Hitler, his back to the bunker wall, to start a nuclear Götterdämmerung to save the Nazi state (Nuremberg decided it was not lawful for him even to fire doodlebugs). Given what we now know about the uncontrollable and devastating propensities of modern nuclear weapons, it is unlawful to fire them at all.
There is a further legal reason for allowing Trident to wear out. It is Article VI of the nuclear proliferation treaty (NPT), by which parties undertake to proceed in good faith to “general and complete” nuclear disarmament.
The world court’s 1996 ruling decided that this imposed not a “mere” obligation but a binding legal obligation on existing nuclear states to reduce the number of their bombs gradually, to zero. It is contrary to the spirit of article VI to upgrade rather than downgrade the fleet.
A decision to phase out Trident would help Britain recover some of the clout it has lost through Brexit. It would show moral leadership, and shame other nuclear powers that have failed to live up to their NPT obligations (especially the US; President Obama’s Nobel prize was prematurely awarded in part for envisaging “a world without nuclear weapons”).
Moral leadership from a nuclear-weapons state is urgently needed. The latest US defence budget allocates $1tn for future modernisation of its nukes and it has acquired new sites for them, in Poland and Romania. President Putin has promised in return a new generation of nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles. The American most knowledgeable on the subject – Bill Clinton’s defence secretary William J Perry – has just published a book warning that “nuclear doom” is closer today than it ever was during the cold war.
Although possession of nuclear weapons is not per se unlawful, the UK is under a duty to reduce its arsenal: the vice of refurbishing Trident is that it encourages other states to do the same, and remains a constant stimulus for countries – particularly in the Middle East and Asia – to acquire arsenals of their own.
When negotiating to buy Polaris (Trident’s predecessor), back in 1962, Harold Macmillan confided in his diary that “the whole thing is ridiculous”, but consoled himself with the thought that “countries which have played a great role in history must retain their dignity”.
A half-century later, the best way for Britain to regain its dignity post-Brexit is not to throw vast sums of money away on a weapon that cannot lawfully be used, but rather to appear as the first of the “big five” powers to shoulder its legal obligation to disarm under article VI of the NPT. It will be many years before the mushroom cloud becomes a hallucination, but at least Britain would be able to boast that it had led the way.
July 17, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Legal, politics international, Religion and ethics, UK |
Leave a comment