18 nuclear power plants in the EU are operating without a valid license,
18 nuclear power plants in the EU are operating without a valid license, Sophia Ankel and Alexandra Hilpert, Business Insider Deutschland , 25 Aug 19
Chinese Academy of Sciences warns on the safety hazards of new nuclear
Assessing the possible safety issues in the second nuclear era, by Bob Yirka , Phys.org 25 Aug 19, A team of researchers with the Chinese Academy of Sciences has carried out an assessment of possible safety issues tied to the rise of the second nuclear era. In their paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the group describes the factors that led to the rise of a second nuclear era and possible safety concerns that need to be addressed……
More information: Yican Wu et al. Nuclear safety in the unexpected second nuclear era, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences(2019). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1820007116– https://phys.org/news/2019-08-safety-issues-nuclear-era.html Journal information: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
UK Office of Nuclear Regulation seems to have increased the number of cracks permitted in Hunterston nuclear reactor.
|
Scottish CND 21st Aug 2019 Scottish CND condemn Office of Nuclear Regulation’s decision to restart
Hunterston nuclear reactor 4. The meeting between ONR, Dr Ian Fairlie and NFLA (notes available) stated that while the cracking in Reactor 4 is not as extensive as Reactor 3 there is an issue of some cracks openings that are greater than 1.2cm wide (i.e. 1/2 inch). Scottish CND chair Arthur West: “This news about the Hunterston reactor is very disappointing. It is
very worrying that the Office of Nuclear Regulation seems to have increased the number of cracks permitted in the reactor. This move seems to be a clear case of moving the goalposts to allow the closed reactor to reopen. It really is time to think about a future beyond nuclear energy. The best response to the current situation at Hunterston is to continue the development of safer and cleaner forms of renewable energy.” |
|
Dismay at safety risks of restarting Hunterston Nuclear Reactor 4
Largs and Millport Weekly News 19th Aug 2019 A SERIES of safety failure at Hunterston could have had ‘serious
consequences’ if the reactors had been in full operation, it was claimed
this week. The Nuclear Free Local Authorities group, which is made up of
councillors around the UK concerned about nuclear power, described the
incidents as ‘notable’. The incident which prevented cooling gas from being
circulated around a reactor was highlighted by the group as ‘a real
concern’. However the nuclear regulators described the incident as ‘minor’
as both incidents happened when both reactors were offline. n relation to
the incident, a spokesperson for Nuclear Free Local Authorities said:
“Whilst there were no radiological consequence from them, this is largely
due to the reactors not being in operation. “A loss of cooling is of real
concern as the consequences of such an eventuality when the reactors are in
full operation could have been extremely serious.”
https://www.largsandmillportnews.com/news/17833610.anger-series-safety-failures-hunterston/
The Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA) is disappointed with the decision
of the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) to permit resumption of
electricity generation at Reactor 4 in the EDF-owned Hunterston site in
North Ayrshire. NFLA believes the age, the amount of keyway root cracks in
both Reactors 3 and 4, and the precautionary principle should have been
considered in the reactors not being reopened for generation.
NFLA 21st Aug 2019
Toxic leak from North Korea’s nuclear programme
|
Nuclear warning: Huge leak spotted in North Korea turns rivers black in freak accident https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1169175/north-korea-news-latest-kim-jong-un-donald-trump-US-nuclear-weapons-pollution-Pyongsan
NORTH KOREA’s contentious nuclear programme has allegedly leaked tonnes of toxic waste into rivers used for drinking water.He believes that the leakage has been covered up by the highly secretive insular state, and the true scale of disaster is only now unfolding.
Mr Bogle thinks that North Korea will struggle to keep the claimed leakage under wraps for any longer, as the river eventually leads into the Yellow Sea that North Korea shares with neighbouring South Korea and China. If true, the scale of those affected could grow to nearly 600million people and end up being the world’s worst man-made disaster. The photos shared by Mr Bogle appear to show a pipeline, built to carry toxic water from the facility to a nearby waste reservoir, digressing its intended route and leaking into the river instead.
Mr Bogle said: “I was able to review high-resolution historical satellite imagery for multiple years going back to 2003. “Each of the images shows an ever-growing pile of leaked material on either end of the pipe that takes waste material from the plant to an unlined reservoir. “Some of the images also show fluids being actively spilled directly into the river. “The plant is one of two declared uranium milling facilities in the country. It takes low-quality coal and processes it to create yellowcake, which then contains around 80 per cent uranium.
“The extraction and milling requires multiple chemical processes and leaves behind a very toxic mix of waste materials. “That toxic waste is then sent to the nearby reservoir, leaking and travelling into the Ryesong River in the process.” The Pyongsan facility is the largest in North Korea, and is built next to its largest uranium mine, and has recently undergone a ramped-up level of production of nuclear fuel for electricity generating purposes. Many have pointed out that the Conowingo Dam 16 miles downstream might be sufficient enough to trap and prevent any toxic waste from getting out – although experts told The Sun that the dam is “no longer capable of trapping sediment”.
|
|
|
USA’s nuclear regulators concerned about possibility of an electromagnetic pulse attack
|
Feds fear EMP ‘meltdown’ of nuclear power plants, Washington Examiner, by Paul Bedard August 23, 2019 The federal government’s new focus on preventing disaster in a natural or terrorist electromagnetic pulse attack is drawing attention to a lack of testing and preparation at the nation’s nuclear power plants, where a resulting meltdown could cause radiation deaths. |
|
|
UK’s nuclear regulator allows EDF to restart Hunterston B nuclear reactor, despite cracks
Nuclear regulator permits restarting of reactor 4 at Hunterston B
EDF Energy is expected to restart reactor a year after it was shut down over safety concerns, Guardian, Jillian Ambrose. 21 Aug 19, Britain’s nuclear watchdog has agreed to allow one of the country’s oldest nuclear reactors to restart, one year after it was shut down to investigate cracks in its graphite core.
EDF Energy is expected to restart reactor 4 at its 40-year-old Hunterston B nuclear plant on the Firth of Clyde in North Ayrshire within weeks after the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) said the plant was safe.
The regulator will allow the reactor to run for four months after proving that the reactor cores can still fulfil their fundamental safety requirements, despite the cracks in its graphite bricks……..
The reactor was shut down last March after investigators discovered more than expected cracks in the graphite core of reactor 4 and reactor 3 at the Scottish nuclear plant. Its application to restart reactor 3, which was found to have more than 350 hairline cracks in its graphite core, is still pending. ……..
The French-owned energy company owns and operates all of the UK’s existing nuclear power plants, which provide about a fifth of the UK’s electricity. It is hoping to extend the reactors’ expected running lives and build new nuclear plants at the Hinkley Point C and Sizewell B nuclear sites.
The company said in 2016 it would extend the lives of its Heysham 1 and Hartlepool nuclear plants, which were due to close this year but will continue to run until 2024. The closure dates of the Heysham 2 and Torness nuclear plants will both be delayed by seven years to 2030.
EDF Energy hopes to run the Hunterston nuclear plant until 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/aug/20/edf-nuclear-reactor-restarting-hunterston-b
Safety concerns about floating nuclear reactors, and Rosatom admits that electricity from small floating nuclear reactors is more expensive.
|
Russia to launch floating nuclear reactor, Rosatom insists 2-reactor unit is safe as tests are planned in the Arctic, Ft.com, Nastassia Astrasheuskaya in Murmansk 21 Aug 19, On Friday, three tugs will tow the Akademik Lomonosov barge out of Murmansk to begin a 5,000km voyage to a remote port on the other side of Russia’s Arctic coast, and in the process send waves through the nuclear energy sector.
The vessel is a floating nuclear reactor, a portable power plant designed to supply electricity to areas disconnected from the grid, and envisaged by Russia’s state nuclear corporation Rosatom as the future of small-scale nuclear power with an eye on export opportunities in developing countries.
But the two-reactor Lomonosov, which took a decade to design and build, has sparked safety fears and concerns over the environmental impact of any mishap, amid concern over a botched nuclear missile test this month at a military site close to Murmansk that released a radiation spike in a nearby city.
Rosatom insists the unit is safe, and “virtually unsinkable” in case of natural disasters. The plant will also be guarded by the Russian guard, Moscow’s internal military force. “Our unit has other tasks, other requirements in terms of security. It has to correspond with double standards — for a nuclear plant and a vessel,” said Dmitry Alexeenko, deputy head of Rosatom’s department overseeing its construction.
The unit is the first in a programme designed to provide power to remote communities where building a conventional nuclear power plant would be excessive. The Akademik Lomonosov will sail to the Chukotka region, deep in Russia’s far east, where miners are seeking to exploit gold and copper reserves. …
However, environmental groups have raised concerns over the possible repeat of the 1986 Soviet nuclear power plant explosion in Chernobyl, modern-day Ukraine. In 2017, Greenpeace led a protest at St Petersburg’s Baltic shipyard, where the unit was being tested, demanding “No to floating Chernobyl”. The reactor tests were then moved to Murmansk. “A floating nuclear power plant is far more vulnerable to outside threats, such as those from pirates, should they be sold to equatorial countries, and natural disasters, which Fukushima proved even onshore plants are prone to,” said Konstantin Fomin of Greenpeace Russia. The launch comes as energy companies around the world, including in the US and South Korea, have been exploring building smaller scale reactors.
Rosatom says it has been in talks with potential buyers from Latin America, Africa and Asia. It has also held discussions with Sudan to use the plant for power generation and Argentina for water desalination. But the project’s total cost, and confirmation of any foreign contracts, will only be made after the technology is fully tested, the company added. Nuclear energy experts said given the construction timeframe, it is unlikely to be cheap.
Anton Khlopkov, head of Russia’s independent Center for Energy and Security Studies, expects the unit to be significantly cheaper than a conventional land-based nuclear power plant, which normally costs about $5bn-$6bn. But the cost per megawatt would be higher, he said.
“The project economics remain an open question, even taking into account that it is aimed at distant locations where the power costs can be higher for obvious reasons. Even then the project has to prove economic viability,” he said. Rosatom, however, sees the reactor as a strategic project where economic costs are secondary. …….https://www.ft.com/content/2edadf02-b538-11e9-8cb2-799a3a8cf37b
|
|
|
USA lost unexploded nuclear bomb in Japanese waters
However, it was not until 1989 that the Pentagon admitted the loss of a one-megaton hydrogen bomb.
The revelation inspired a diplomatic inquiry from Japan, however, neither the weapon, or the pilot, was ever recovered.The incident, the most serious involving nuclear weapons in the Navy’s history, showed that US warships carried atomic weapons into Japanese ports in violation of policy, according to researchers.
Japanese law banned ships carrying nuclear weapons from sailing in its territorial waters or calling on its ports following the terrible Hiroshima and Nagasaki incidents.
However, the US warship routinely docked in Japan.
William M. Arkin of the liberal Institute for Policy Studies claimed in 1989: “For 24 years, the US Navy has covered up the most politically sensitive accident that has ever taken place.
“The Navy kept the true details of this accident a secret not only because it demonstrates their disregard for the treaty stipulations of foreign governments but because of the questions it raises about nuclear weapons aboard ships in Vietnam.”
The event was highly sensitive, with Japan being the only country to ever be attacked with nuclear weapons at the end of World War 2.
On September 8, 1951, 49 nations drew a line under the devastating event and signed the Treaty of San Francisco – also known as the Treaty of Peace with Japan.
The document officially ended US-led occupation of Japan and marked the start of re-establishing relations with the allied powers.
Meanwhile, In 1965, the US was arguably at the height of tensions with the Soviet Union.
Not only did the accident threaten to spoil already tenuous relations with Japan, but it would have also have given the USSR an excuse to start a nuclear war.
Despite the worrying claims, the US Navy confirmed inn 1989 that the waters were too deep for the weapon to pose a threat.
Worryingly though, it would not be the last of the nuclear gaffes for America. On January 17, 1966, a B-52G USAF bomber collided with a KC-135 tanker during a refuelling mission at 31,000 feet over the Mediterranean Sea.
During the crash, three MK28-type hydrogen bombs headed for land in the small fishing village of Palomares in Almeria, Spain.
Worse still, the explosives in two of the weapons detonated on impact, contaminating the surrounding area of almost one square mile with plutonium.
The fourth sunk off the coast of Spain and was recovered three months later.
Anxiety over risks of radiation and heat at the 2020 Tokyo Olympics
Controversy over radiation and heat surrounding Tokyo Olympics, HANKYOREH By Kim Chang-geum, staff reporter : Aug.14,2019
“…… Safety from radiation and heat at the Tokyo Olympics
Most of the issues related to the upcoming Tokyo Olympics, which are now only a year away, boil down to safety concerns over radiation and extreme heat. Some baseball and softball matches are scheduled to be held in a stadium located close to the Fukushima nuclear reactor that took direct damage during the 2011 earthquake. Korean civic groups have also pointed out that the Japanese government has failed to properly control water contaminated by radiation from the reactor. Plans to source some of the rice and ingredients for the Tokyo Olympics Athletes Village from Fukushima are adding to these concerns. Although the level of radiation measured in such rice is within the acceptable standards in Japan, it is believed to exceed Korean standards.
Russian Region Orders Gas Masks After Deadly Nuclear Blast
Confusion and secrecy following Russian explosion, backflip on evacuation of village
Key points:
- Medics who treated victims of an accident have been sent to Moscow for medical examination
- Russia’s state weather service said radiation levels spiked in Severodvinsk by up to 16 times
- Many Russians spoke angrily on social media of misleading reports reminiscent of Chernobyl
The explosion took place on Thursday at a naval weapons range on the coast of the White Sea in northern Russia.
State nuclear agency Rosatom said the accident occurred during a rocket test on a sea platform.
The rocket’s fuel caught fire after the test, causing it to detonate, it said in a statement carried by Russian news agencies.
Two days later, after a spike in radiation levels was reported, Rosatom conceded the accident involved nuclear materials.
On Tuesday (local time), the Russian military ordered residents of the small village of Nyonoksa to temporarily evacuate, citing unspecified activities at the nearby navy testing range.
But a few hours later, it said the planned activities were cancelled and told the villagers they could go back to their homes, said Ksenia Yudina, a spokeswoman for the Severodvinsk regional administration.
Local media in Severodvinsk said Nyonoksa residents regularly received similar temporary evacuation orders, usually timed to tests at the range.
Russia’s state weather service said radiation levels spiked in the Russian city of Severodvinsk, about 30 kilometres west of Nyonoksa, by up to 16 times following the explosion.
Emergency officials issued a warning to all workers to stay indoors and close the windows, while spooked residents rushed to buy iodide, which can help limit the damage from exposure to radiation.
‘People need reliable information’
Many Russians spoke angrily on social media of misleading reports reminiscent of the lethal delays in acknowledging the Chernobyl accident three decades ago.
US experts said they suspected the cause was a botched test of a nuclear-powered cruise missile commissioned by President Vladimir Putin.
Boris L Vishnevsky, a member of the St. Petersburg City Council, told the New York Times that dozens of people had called asking for clarification about radiation risks.
“People need reliable information,” Mr Vishnevsky told the Times.
“And if the authorities think there is no danger, and nothing needs to be done, let them announce this formally so people don’t worry.”
The five scientists that died in the explosion were buried Monday in the closed city of Sarov — which houses a nuclear research facility and is surrounded by fences patrolled by the military.
While hailing the deceased as the “pride of the atomic sector”, Rosatom head Alexei Likhachev pledged to continue developing new weapons. “The best tribute to them will be our continued work on new models of weapons, which will definitely be carried out to the end,” Mr Likhachev was quoted as saying by RIA news agency.
Medics who treated victims sent to Moscow
Medics who treated the victims of an accident were sent to Moscow for medical examination, TASS news agency cited an unnamed medical source as saying on Tuesday.
The medics sent to Moscow have signed an agreement promising not to divulge information about the incident, TASS cited the source as saying.
US President Donald Trump said on Twitter on Monday the United States was “learning much” from the explosion and the United States had “similar, though more advanced, technology”.
He said Russians were worried about the air quality around the facility and far beyond, a situation he described as “Not good!”
But when asked about his comments on Tuesday, the Kremlin said it, not the United States, was out in front when it came to developing new nuclear weapons.
“Our president has repeatedly said that Russian engineering in this sector significantly outstrips the level that other countries have managed to reach for the moment, and it is fairly unique,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.Mr Putin used his state-of-the nation speech in 2018 to unveil what he described as a raft of invincible new nuclear weapons, including a nuclear-powered cruise missile, an underwater nuclear-powered drone, and a laser weapon.
Tensions between Moscow and Washington over arms control have been exacerbated by the demise this month of a landmark nuclear treaty.
Church Rock America’s Forgotten Nuclear Sacrifice Zone
|
Church Rock, America’s Forgotten Nuclear Disaster, Is Still Poisoning Navajo Lands 40 Years Later. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ne8w4x/church-rock-americas-forgotten-nuclear-disaster-is-still-poisoning-navajo-lands-40-years-later Residents say they’ve been ignored even as they struggle with contaminated water and worry about having children. By Samuel Gilbert; photos by Ramsay de Give, Aug 12 2019,
Early in the summer of 1979, Larry King, an underground surveyor at the United Nuclear Corporation’s Church Rock Uranium mine in New Mexico, began noticing something unusual when looking at the south side of the tailings dam. That massive earthen wall was responsible for holding back thousands of tons of toxic water and waste produced by the mine and the nearby mill that extracted uranium from raw ore. And as King saw, there were “fist-sized cracks” developing in that wall. He measured them, reported them to his supervisors, and didn’t think anything more of it.
A few weeks later, at 5:30 a.m. on July 16, 1979, the dam failed, releasing 1,100 tons of uranium waste and 94 million gallons of radioactive water into the Rio Puerco and through Navajo lands, a toxic flood that had devastating consequences on the surrounding area. “The water, filled with acids from the milling process, twisted a metal culvert in the Puerco,” according to Judy Pasternak’s book Yellow Dirt: A Poisoned Land and the Betrayal of the Navajos. “Sheep keeled over and died, and crops curdled along the banks. The surge of radiation was detected as far away as Sanders, Arizona, fifty miles downstream.” According to a Nuclear Regulatory Commission report, radioactivity levels in the Puerco near the breached dam were 7,000 times that of what is allowed in drinking water. The heavily contaminated water flowed over the river banks, creating radioactive pools. “There were children up and down the river playing in those stagnant pools, and they were deadly poisonous,” Jorge Winterer, a doctor with Indian Health Service in Gallup, New Mexico, said after the spill. Earlier this year, standing in his yard next to an old Chevy, King pointed in the direction of the now dry Rio Puerco. “It came right through there,” said King. The unleashed river of waste had flowed through his family’s land just a half-mile from his house. “I remember the terrible odor and the yellowish color of the water.” He recalls seeing an elderly woman who had burned her feet crossing the Puerco while watering her sheep that day. King still lives on the family land, two miles downstream of the rebuilt dam in the Church Rock chapter of the Navajo Nation. His home is surrounded by a beautiful, unforgiving landscape of red rock cliffs, a scattering of Navajo residences and, if you look closely, fencelines with KEEP OUT signs marking the numerous abandoned uranium sites. Forty years later, the Church Rock spill remains the largest single largest accidental release of radioactivity in U.S. history, worse in terms of total radiation than that of the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island and second in world history only to the 1986 Chernobyl catastrophe, both of which have loomed much larger in the cultural imagination. The effects of the spill have lingered for an entire generation: In 2007, the Church Rock Uranium Mining Project found widespread contamination of drinking water sources in the Church Rock area. Navajo residents say they have not been given the attention given to other victims of nuclear accidents, even as they remain under the catastrophe’s long shadow, dealing with poisoned livestock and ongoing health problems amid other aftereffects. “We have never been a priority,” said King. “Forty years after the spill and nothing has been done.” “Our generation is afraid of having children,” said Faith Baldwin, who grew up on the Navajo nation surrounded by abandoned uranium mines. “Cancer runs in our family but it shouldn’t. Cancer, diabetes were nonexistent in Navajo rez.” During the Cold War, Navajo lands provided much of the raw material for the burgeoning nuclear industry. From 1944 to 1986 some 30 million tons of uranium ore were extracted from mines, but as demand for uranium decreased the mines closed, leaving over a thousand contaminated sites, few of which have been cleaned up. The Church Rock Chapter has some 20 such contaminated uranium sites, including the mine where King worked. Navajo workers at these places were often poorly paid, underprotected, and uninformed about the danger of radiation exposure. And even before the spill, King said, UNC would routinely pump uranium-contaminated water from the mine into the Puerco, turning the seasonal wash into a toxic “man-made stream.” According to a 1994 report by the U.S. Geological Survey on levels of radioactive elements in the Rio Puerco and Little Colorado River basins, “at least 300 times more uranium and 6 times more total gross alpha activity were released by day-to-day pumping from the underground mines than was released by the spill.” As a child King remembers playing in the dry Puerco wash, its banks often coated with a “yellowish slime.” And ranchers used the Puerco to water their livestock. Residents couldn’t have known that the Church Rock dam was at risk of rupturing, but there’s evidence that the United Nuclear Corporation did. King wasn’t the first to notice cracks in the dam: An Army Corps of Engineers report would later find that UNC was aware of the cracks as early as 1977, two years before the breach. That report concluded that UNC failed to properly reinforce the tailings dam, ignored advice from its own engineering consultant that might have prevented the coming disaster, and did not report the cracks to regulators. “The company was remiss in not heading the problem off,” said Chris Shuey, director of the Uranium Impact Assessment Program at the Southwest Research and Information Center, an organization providing information to the public about the impacts of energy development and resource extraction. Shuey said that UNC failed to repair cracks in the dam while simultaneously overfilling the uranium mill’s toxic tailing ponds that were being held back by that cracking wall. The cleanup process after the spill was also lacking. Only 1 percent of solid radioactive waste was removed, according to Paul Robinson, the research director at the Southwest Research and Information Center, and no compensation for the nearby residents was provided. In contrast, those affected by the Three Mile Island disaster were paid thanks to the company that operated that plant and its insurers. “Governments took meaningful measures to deal with the Three Mile Island accident,” said Eric Jantz, a lawyer from the New Mexico Environmental Law Center, “while neither the federal nor New Mexico governments have taken any steps to remediate the Church Rock spill even after 40 years.” As time went on, the impacts of uranium exposure became more evident to residents. King watched as his former mine coworkers died early deaths. Community members complained of health problems that prior to the entrance of the uranium industry were foreign: kidney disease, bone cancer, and lung cancer afflicting non-smokers. According to King, the only warnings about radioactivity were a few signs telling residents not to water their livestock in the wash. UNC’s cleanup efforts consisted of hiring some temporary workers to shovel waste from the wash into five-gallon buckets and haul it away, according to Colleen Keane, who made a documentary about the aftermath of the spill called The River That Harms. In the early 90s, King joined the Eastern Navajo Diné Against Uranium Mining (ENDAUM), a grassroots organization fighting against new uranium projects and trying to mitigate the negative impacts of mining operations. Through that work, King began hearing troubling stories from nearby Red Water Pond Road, a small community sandwiched between three uranium sites where residents “unwittingly used water from contaminated wells to drink, bathe, and hydrate their livestock,” according to a 2017 Reveal article. “Their sheep were born hairless… like baby rats,” said King. There were also the stories of butchered animals whose insides had turned a sickly yellow. A few years back, one of King’s neighbors killed a sheep. Instead of white, the stomach fat was yellow, “more yellow than those happy faces,” said King, pointing to a stuffed smiley face pinned above his couch. “They got concerned and decided to butcher another one. Pretty soon there was a pile of carcasses, all the same… They burned the whole thing.” he health impacts of the spill on residents remain poorly understood, with only a few authoritative heath studies having been conducted. One of the few government studies that came out after the spill did limited testing on both residents (six in total) and livestock. The resulting 1983 report from the New Mexico government, based on Centers for Disease Control (CDC) tests, concluded that Rio Puerco water “may be hazardous if used over several years as the primary source of drinking water, livestock water or irrigation water.” The report goes on to state that “the severity of these hazards is not well known at the time.” But since then, it’s become more obvious that the spill has had long-lasting and serious effects. In 2015, Tommy Rock, a doctoral student of earth science, uncovered uranium contamination in Rio Puerco water in Sanders, a town in eastern Arizona, by looking at tests stretching back to 2003. “The Church rock spill was the single most likely cause,” he said. “For decades people were unknowingly drinking poisoned tap water.” The water company did not report the contamination to residents, and after Rock’s findings a new company took over operations and is drawing on a different well. For many residents, the spill has come to embody the broader toxic legacy of the uranium industry on the indigenous lands of the West. According to the EPA, there are over 500 abandoned uranium mines, mill sites, and waste piles on Navajo Nation land that continue to contaminate water, soil, livestock and housing. “The Church Rock spill symbolizes the governmental and societal indifference to the impacts of uranium development on Indigenous lands,” said Jantz. “The Church Rock spill is the third largest nuclear accident after Fukushima and Chernobyl, and the largest in the US in terms of radiation released, but nobody knows about it.” “Three Mile Island had more coverage and people were compensated right away,” said King. “I always say we don’t get the same attention because we live in impoverished native community… We live in a sacrifice zone.” |
|
|
‘Dirty bomb’: Mystery Russian ‘superweapon’ kills five
An on-board reactor would give an engine almost unlimited range. In the case of a guided cruise missile, it could circle the world before receiving orders to attack from out of the blue.
But they’re not easy to control.
They operate at extremely high temperatures. They use explosive fuels, such as liquid hydrogen. And any accident could have devastating, long-lasting effects.
|
‘Dirty bomb’: Mystery Russian ‘superweapon’ kills five https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/dirty-bomb-mystery-russian-superweapon-kills-five/news-story/c3f85442bc12c6fea43cc4cf67df392e 13 Aug 19It was an explosion, played down by Russian officials — until they were forced to admit five people were dead and many more are at risk.
Jamie Seidel When an experimental missile exploded at a secret Russian base, things were immediately odd. Children from the nearby city of Severodvinsk were sent home from school. Its 185,000 residents were told to stay indoors. Doses of Iodine were distributed. All shipping was barred from the area for at least 30 days. What could cause such a reaction? How could a relatively small explosion cause such confusion? Russia’s nuclear energy agency Rosatom eventually stepped forward: It explained that a missile testing an “isotope power source for a liquid-fuelled rocket engine” had misfired. Rosatom conceded the accident on Thursday night had killed five, and three were being treated for burns. Russian officials said elite scientists Alexey Vyushin, Yevgeny Koratayev, Vyacheslave Lipshev, Sergey Pichugin and Vladislav Yanovsky — were killed during tests on a liquid propulsion system Little else is officially known. But military analysts have been speculating. Was it some sort of “dirty bomb”, with a radioactive warhead? Could it have been a failed launch from a nuclear-powered submarine? Suspicion has also fallen on one of President Vladimir Putin’s vaunted new “superweapons”. STORMY PETREL The idea of using a nuclear-reactor powered ramjet isn’t new It appears to have been thought up by Nazi rocket scientists during the dying days of World War II. With the fall of Berlin, these experts were divided up between the United States and the Soviet Union. Both nations embarked upon experimental nuclear-powered missile projects in the 1950s. It was quickly recognised the radiation-spewing technology was far too perilous to be practical. But a boisterous President Putin revealed what he called the 9M730 Burevestnik (Petrel) early last year as one of six new “superweapons”. NATO calls it the SSC-X-9 “Skyfall”. “Since its range is unlimited, it can manoeuvre as long as you want. No one in the world has anything like that,” Mr Putin boasted. “It may appear some day, but by that time we will develop something new.” The accompanying presentation showed the missile weaving its way between radar stations in the mid-Atlantic, passing around South America’s Cape Horn and worming its way up towards Hawaii. Mr Putin said the missile was successfully tested in late 2017 and was “invincible against all existing and prospective missile defence and counter-air defence systems”. “I want to tell all those who have fuelled the arms race over the last 15 years, sought to win unilateral advantages over Russia, introduced unlawful sanctions aimed to contain our country’s development: Aall that you wanted to impede with your policies have already happened,” Mr Putin declared. “You have failed to contain Russia.” But things don’t appear to be going to plan. EXPLOSIVE POTENTIAL Nuclear propulsion is promising — but also problematic. Continue reading |
Russia says small nuclear reactor blew up in deadly accident
|
August 13, 2019 The failed missile test that ended in an explosion killing five scientists last week on Russia’s White Sea involved a small nuclear reactor, according to a top official at the institute where they worked.
The institute is working on small-scale power sources that use “radioactive materials, including fissile and radioisotope materials” for the Defence Ministry and civilian uses, Vyacheslav Soloviev, scientific director of the institute, said in a video shown by local TV.
The men, who will be buried on Monday, were national heroes and the “elite of the Russian Federal Nuclear Centre,” institute Director Valentin Kostyukov said in the video, which was also posted on an official website in Sarov, a high-security city devoted to nuclear research less than 400 kilometers east of Moscow.
The blast occurred on August 8 during a test of a missile that used “isotope power sources” on an offshore platform in the Arkhangelsk region, close to the Arctic Circle, Russia’s state nuclear company Rosatom said over the weekend. The Defence Ministry initially reported two were killed in the accident, which it said involved testing of a liquid-fuelled missile engine. The ministry didn’t mention the nuclear element.
Rosatom declined to comment on the incident on Monday and a spokeswoman for the Sarov institute couldn’t immediately be reached.
Russian media have speculated that the weapon being tested was the SSC-X-9 Skyfall, known in Russia as the Burevestnik, a nuclear-powered cruise missile that President Vladimir Putin introduced to the world in a brief animated segment during his state-of-the-nation address last year.
The incident comes after a series of massive explosions earlier last week at a Siberian military depot killed one and injured 13, as well as forcing the evacuation of 16,500 people from their homes. Russia’s navy has suffered numerous high-profile accidents over the years. In July, 14 sailors died in a fire aboard a nuclear-powered submarine in the Barents Sea in an incident on which officials initially refused to comment. A top naval official later said the men gave their lives preventing a “planetary catastrophe.”
Russia’s worst post-Soviet naval disaster also occurred in the Barents Sea, when 118 crew died on the Kursk nuclear submarine that sank in after an explosion in August 2000. https://www.theage.com.au/world/asia/russia-says-small-nuclear-reactor-blew-up-in-deadly-accident-20190813-p52gfm.html
|
|
-
Archives
- November 2026 (64)
- October 2026 (302)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS









