Just 74 miles from Sendai nuclear station, strong earthquake hits Japan
Strong earthquake quake hits southern Japan THE AUSTRALIAN APRIL 15, 2016
At least two people were killed and 45 injured by a magnitude-6.5 earthquake that knocked down houses and buckled roads in southern Japan on Thursday night.
Both victims are from the hardest-hit town of Mashiki, about 15 kilometres (9 miles) east of Kumamoto city on the island of Kyushu, said Kumamoto prefecture disaster management official Takayuki Matsushita.
Earlier, Japanese Red Cross Kumamoto Hospital said it had admitted or treated 45 people, including five with serious injuries.
The quake struck at 9:26pm at a depth of 11 kilometres near Kumamoto city on the island of Kyushu, the Japan Meteorological Agency said. There was no tsunami risk……
Saga said there no abnormalities at nearby nuclear facilities. The epicentre was 120 kilometres (74 miles) northeast of Kyushu Electric Power Co.’s Sendai nuclear plant, the only one operating in the country.
Most of Japan’s nuclear reactors remain offline following the meltdowns at the Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s Fukushima plant in 2011 after a magnitude 9.0 earthquake triggered a huge tsunami…….
The U.S. Geological Survey measured the initial quake’s preliminary magnitude at 6.2. It upgraded its damage assessment to red, meaning extensive damage is probable and the disaster likely widespread…….http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/strong-earthquake-quake-hits-southern-japan/news-story/758290acc35b609538c3ff285e89d2a8
Allison MacFarlane on nuclear safety
How to protect nuclear plants from terrorists, PhysOrg April 14, 2016 by Allison Macfarlane, The Conversation In the wake of terrorist attacks in Brussels, Paris, Istanbul, Ankara and elsewhere, nations are rethinking many aspects of domestic security. Nuclear plants, as experts have long known, are potential targets for terrorists, either for sabotage or efforts to steal nuclear materials.
Currently there are 444 nuclear power plants operating in 30 countries around the world and 243 smaller research reactors, which are used to produce isotopes for medical uses and to train nuclear engineers. The nuclear industry also includes hundreds of plants that enrich uranium and fabricate fuel for reactors. Some of these facilities contain materials terrorists could use to build a nuclear or “dirty” bomb. Alternatively, power plants could be “hijacked” to create an accident of the sort experienced at Chernobyl and Fukushima, sending clouds of radioactivity over hundreds of miles.
At last month’s Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, D.C., representatives from 52 countries pledged to continue improving their nuclear security and adopted action plans to work together and through international agencies.
But significant countries like Russia and Pakistan are not participating. And many in Europe are just beginning to consider physical security measures. From my perspective as a former nuclear regulator and now as director of the Center for International Science and Technology Policy at George Washington University, it is clear that nuclear plants are vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
It is not news that security is weak at many civilian nuclear power and research facilities.
In October 2012, Greenpeace activists entered two nuclear power plants in Sweden by breaking open a gate and scaling fences without being stopped by guards. Four of them hid overnight on a roof at one reactor before surrendering the next morning.
Just this year, Sweden’s nuclear regulatory agency adopted a requirement for armed guards and additional security measures at the plants. However, these upgrades do not have to be in place until early 2017.
In 2014 French nuclear plants were plagued by unexplained drone overflights. And Greenpeace activists broke into the Fessenheim nuclear plant near the German border and hung a large banner from the reactor building.
In light of the recent Brussels attacks, reports from Belgium are more alarming. In 2012 two employees at the country’s Doel nuclear power station left Belgium to fight in Syria. In 2014 an unidentified saboteur tampered with lubricant in the turbine at the same reactor, causing the plant to shut down for five months. And earlier this year authorities investigating the Paris attacks discovered video surveillance footage of a Belgian nuclear official in the home of one of the Paris suspects.
One has to assume that potential attackers may understand how the sites and materials can be used.
Given the heightened state of alert in Europe, governments should, I believe, immediately increase security at civilian nuclear facilities. They could emulate the United States, where security at nuclear facilities has substantially increased since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
American role model
U.S. nuclear power plants now are some of the most well-guarded facilities in the world.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulates both safety and security at nuclear power plants. After 9/11, these sites were required to add multiple layers of protection, with the cores of reactors (where the fuel is located) the most highly defended areas………
The United States has also adopted regulations to ensure cybersecurity at reactors. As new, entirely digital reactors come online, such measures will be more necessary than ever.
The successful 2010 Stuxnet attack, for example, in which a computer worm infiltrated computers at Iranian nuclear facilities and caused machines to malfunction, showed how vulnerable unprotected computer networks can be.
Improving security worldwide
There are no global standards for physical protection at civilian nuclear facilities. Each country adopts its own laws and regulations dictating what nuclear site owners are required to do to protect plants from attack.
As a result, measures at plants can vary widely, with some countries depending on the local police force for protection and leaving guards unarmed. Often the level of security depends on cultural norms and attitudes, but the recent attacks in Europe suggest a rapid adjustment is needed.
Here are steps that, in my view, all countries can take to make nuclear plants more secure……..
To prevent an attack at a nuclear site, governments must take security at nuclear sites seriously now, not a year from now.
In light of the current terrorist threat and with four Nuclear Security Summits completed, countries with nuclear plants need to up their game with regards to physical security at nuclear power facilities before it’s too late. http://phys.org/news/2016-04-nuclear-fromterrorists.html#jCp
According to German intelligence, terrorist Salah Abdeslam did not have German nuclear files
German intelligence agency disputes reports Salah Abdeslam had German nuclear files http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/14/paris-attacks-suspect-salah-abdeslam-had-german-nuclear-files
Spokeman for domestic intelligence agency says its head did not brief MPs on files found in Paris attacks suspect’s flat Guardian, Reuters in Berlin. Germany’s domestic intelligence agency has denied reports that Salah Abdeslam, a prime suspect in the Paris attacks, possessed documents about a nuclear research centre in Germany.
Newspapers in the Redaktions Netzwerk Deutschland (RND) media group said on Thursday that documents were found relating to the Juelich centre near the Belgium-Germany border, which is used for the storage of atomic waste.
The centre said in a statement that there was no indication of any danger and that Juelich was in contact with security authorities and nuclear supervisors.
The RND newspapers cited sources within the parliamentary control committee, whose meetings are confidential, as saying that Hans-Georg Maaßen, the head of the domestic intelligence agency (BfV), told the nine-person committee at the end of March that Abdeslam had the documents.
It said he had disclosed to the committee, which monitors the work of German security agencies, that printouts of articles from the internet and photos of the Juelich chairman, Wolfgang Marquardt, had been found in Abdeslam’s apartment in the Molenbeek area of Brussels.
The BfV on Thursday denied Maaßen had briefed the committee. “This is not right,” a spokeswoman said. “We have no information about this. Our president Maaßen never talked to any members of parliament.”
Two committee members also told Reuters that they had not been informed about the matter.
RND earlier reported that several members of the Bundestag and a terrorism expert at the BfV said they knew of this information and that Maaßen had confidentially informed them.
Abdeslam, born and raised in Belgium to Moroccan-born parents, was arrested on 18 March in Brussels. Four days later, suicide bombers killed 32 people in Brussels airport and on a rush-hour metro train.
Concerns that Islamic extremists are turning their attention to potential weak spots in the nuclear industry have risen since the attacks.
German nuclear centre a target for Paris terrorist?
Paris terrorist was eyeing German nuclear centre http://www.thelocal.de/20160414/paris-attacks-ringleader-had-records-of-german-nuclear-plant 4 Apr 2016 Salah Abdeslam, a key figure in the Paris attacks last November, was gathering information on a nuclear energy research centre in Germany, new evidence seen by German media revealed on Thursday.
- Swedish police hold terror suspect wanted in Germany (13 Apr 16)
- Munich police release suspects after terror probe (08 Apr 16)
- ’11 terror plots foiled in Germany since 2000′ (29 Mar 16)
Salah Abdeslam had documents at his apartment about a nuclear research centre at Jülich in North Rhine-Westphalia, raising concerns for authorities about what he many have been planning on German soil.
The documents included articles printed out from online sources about the research facility, as well as photos of the centre’s head, Wolfgang Marquardt, newspapers under the publishing group Redaktionsnetzwerk Deutschland (RND) reported, citing members of a parliamentary panel.
Abdeslam is currently being held in a Belgian prison, waiting to be deported to France, where he will face trial for terrorism offences in connection with the November 13th Paris attacks that left 130 dead.
The most recent documents were reportedly found inside of Abdeslam’s apartment where the French national was arrested last month in the Molenbeek district of Brussels.
Just days later, three bombs went off in Brussels in a coordinated terror attack that killed 32 people.
German domestic intelligence (Verfassungsschutz) President German Hans-Georg Maaßen reportedly informed several members of a Bundestag (German Parliament) security committee last month about the findings.
But according to RND, the Chancellery and the Interior Ministry declared that they did not have any information about the documents.
Similar information about the Brussels terrorists monitoring a Belgian nuclear scientist several weeks ago fueled speculation that they could have been planning to somehow get radioactive material for a dirty bomb, perhaps by blackmailing the researcher. They reportedly spied on the researcher, including filming him at his home for hours.
Immediately after the Brussels attacks, a Belgian nuclear power plant was evacuated of all non-essential personnel. Officials were also concerned when it emerged that two former Belgian nuclear power plant workers had gone to Syria to fight with Isis, one of whom was killed.
German nuclear power plants are extensively protected against the possibility of any interferences or other actions by an outside person, including terror attacks, according to the German Environment Ministry.
But according to environmental NGO BUND, the reactors are not sufficiently safe enough against air attacks.
Luxembourg would pay France to shut down all too near nuclear power station
Luxembourg offers France money to close nuclear plant http://en.rfi.fr/france/20160412-luxembourg-offers-france-money-close-nuclear-plant By RFI Luxembourg offered on Monday to chip in financing to close an ageing French nuclear power plant near its border, saying the tiny nation could be obliterated if the station malfunctioned.
During a press conference with his French counterpart Manuel Valls, Luxembourg’s Prime Minister Xavier Bettel said a problem at the Cattenom plant could “wipe the duchy off the map”.
“The Cattenom site scares us, there’s no point in hiding it,” he said of the plant that has been in operation since the mid-1980s. “Our greatest wish is that Cattenom close.”
Luxembourg “would be prepared to make a financial commitment to a project, which would have to be cross-border… at Cattenom that is not nuclear in nature.”
Valls — who was on a one-day visit to the nation of about 500,000 — said France has pledged to cut its reliance on nuclear energy from more than 75 percent to 50 percent by shutting 24 reactors by 2025.
“Message received,” he added.
Fessenheim houses two 900-megawatt reactors and has been running since 1977. Due to its age activists have long called for it to be permanently closed.
French President Francois Hollande has pledged to shut down the Fessenheim plant by the end of his five-year term in 2017.
UK vulnerable to cyberattack if planned nuclear deal with China goes ahead
How Chinese nuclear deal leaves UK vulnerable to CATASTROPHIC cyber attack GEORGE Osborne has been warned that granting the Chinese a large stake in Britain’s nuclear energy infrastructure poses a “substantive” threat to UK national security. Sunday Express, By TOM BATCHELOR Apr 10, 2016 Beijing is planning to invest in two major nuclear power plant projects in a multi-billion pound contract that would give them access to Britain’s strategic energy network.
No formal agreement between China and the UK has yet been signed, but energy experts have spoken out about the potential for “catastrophe” if the Chinese are given the green light to invest.
Security concerns centre on access to IT systems, with analysts warning the UK would be left vulnerable if relations continue sour to China over the coming years.
Britain’s friendship with the communist state was strained recently over the Tata steel crisis with China putting a highly punitive tax on the metal produced in south Wales to further damage the UK industry.
But experts say a nuclear power deal would put the UK at the mercy of Beijing.
Dr Paul Dorfman, an advisor to the British Government on nuclear security and a senior research fellow at UCL’s Energy Institute, said: “You don’t want to let the Chinese into complex, strategic, national energy infrastructure and you certainly don’t want them anywhere near nuclear.
“There are some real security issues here.”
Fears have been raised about “backdoors” in IT technology that could be exploited by the Chinese government or rogue hackers.
Malicious IT breaches could allow data to be extracted or inserted into complex computer systems, allowing Beijing to circumvent British control of a nuclear plant and shut it down.
GCHQ will be on standby to protect the UK from the threat of a cyber attack if the Chinese are allowed to build at Hinkley Point in Somerset and Bradwell in Essex…….. https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/658755/Chinese-nuclear-deal-leaves-UK-vulnerable-to-catastrophic-cyber-attack-on-power-plants
Statistical analysis indicates we can expect more severe nuclear accidents
How safe is nuclear power? A statistical study suggests less than expected, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, April 16
ABSTRACT
Safety of Spain’s nuclear reactors is questioned by European Commission
European Commission concerned over Spain’s nuclear power stations http://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2016/04/10/european-commission-concerned-over-spains-nuclear-power-stations/
Issues surrounding the safety of older reactors were raised by climate and energy commissioner Miguel Cañete
CONCERNS over Spain’s nuclear power stations have been aired by the European Commission.
Issues surrounding the safety of older reactors were raised by climate and energy commissioner Miguel Cañete who claims there is a ‘lack of transparency’ when addressing safety issues at Spanish sites.
Cañete’s allegations were sparked after his request for information about a nuclear-waste storage facility in Bilbao was ignored.
“The Commission expects to receive this information under Article 41 of the Euratom treaty, which governs investment projects in this field,” said Arias Cañete. “To date, we haven’t received any communication referring to the possibility of installing a nuclear waste storage facility at the plant.”
Cañete added that Spain had ‘described various measures ensuring transparency’ in its 2014 report on the Nuclear Safety Directive but had failed to live up to its promises.
Japan’s poor nuclear security is a global danger
Japan Nuclear Plants Are Vulnerable to Terror Attacks, The Daily Beast, JAKE ADELSTEIN MARI YAMAMOTO, 8 Apr 16,
Poor nuclear security is endemic at Japanese power stations. It’s a ludicrous risk, not only for the Japanese, but for the world.
TOKYO — Given the febrile global security atmosphere, recent revelations that those responsible for the Brussels attacks also scoped out Belgium’s nuclear facilities have, understandably, caused great consternation in many countries.
In Japan, however, the issue of nuclear security is treated with a strangely insouciant attitude by the authorities; unarmed guards keep watch outside of nuclear facilities, there is poor surveillance of sites and, incredibly, there are no mandated background checks on workers, allowing members of organized crime gangs access to radioactive material.
There is growing awareness that this is a problem not just for this island country, but for the world.
There is every reason to believe Japan is a target of the so-called Islamic State, which was behind the horrific slaughter in Parisin November and in Brussels in March.
Early last year, amid worldwide outrage about the Charlie Hebdo attacks in France, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe made a speech in the Middle East vowing assistance to states “contending” with ISIS. That led to a de facto declaration of war against Japan by the jihadists and may have contributed to the death of a journalist they held captive.
Yet there is no serious effort to rethink the nuclear security issue. National Police Agency told The Daily Beast, on condition of anonymity, “The game has changed. We are not keeping up. We can’t trust the utility companies to deal with internal threats by themselves—they have neither the willpower nor the capability. We don’t have to worry so much about terrorists breaking down doors and blowing up nuclear power plants—we have to worry about them filling out job applications and just walking in.”
Japan has a large number of nuclear facilities staffed by guards who carry no weapons and who are otherwise poorly equipped to handle a terrorist attack. Past U.S. State Department cables note police officers who are asleep, express shock that Japanese guards are unarmed, and criticize the government for staging unrealistic training exercises while essentially outsourcing nuclear security to the utility companies.
Meanwhile there have been companies with ties to the yakuza crime organizations dispatching workers—in some cases, active yakuza members—to the plants. “Generally speaking, you don’t want sociopathic criminals around nuclear materials. Not a good idea,” deadpanned a Japan Nuclear Regulation Authority official, speaking on background, of course.
The guards do not carry weapons because Japan’s incredibly stringent gun laws make it almost impossible for civilians, including private security guards, to have them. This is good in that it keeps Japan’s annual gun-related deaths down to single digits. It’s bad in that unarmed men are probably unlikely to stop armed terrorists from storming the facilities. Some plants have armed police cars parked outside them at regular intervals, but few plants are fully guarded.
what is most disturbing to Japan’s law enforcement community is that long-debated plans to mandate background checks on nuclear facility workers in conjunction with the police have been effectively scrapped since the accident—even though they may be needed now more than ever.
Japan’s Nuclear Reprocessing Center at Rokkasho, in Aomori Prefecture, which is supposed to restart operations this year, is designed to produce eight tons of plutonium annually—enough to fuel more than 2,600 warheads. The International Atomic Energy Agency is supposed to ensure that plutonium cannot be removed or leak from the Rokkasho plant without detection. But the system it has installed there is only 99 percent accurate, meaning that, theoretically, enough plutonium for over 20 nuclear bombs a year could still be spirited away without a trace………http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/07/when-will-nuclear-terror-hit-japan.html
No penalty for Entergy’s faked nuclear inspections
Entergy nuclear plant avoids violations for faked inspections, By Littice Bacon-Blood, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune April 08, 2016 Entergy‘s Waterford 3 nuclear plant on the west bank of St. Charles Parish has been given nine months to address shortcomings that let contractors falsify fire inspection records for almost a year. Company officials could face criminal prosecution and fines if they violate a new agreement that Entergy has reached with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The commission said it won’t issue a violation notice or civil penalty for the faked inspections, in light of the “significant corrective actions” Entergy already has taken in addition and the targets that the commission has required the company to address in the coming months. “The NRC is satisfied that its concerns will be addressed by making Entergy’s commitments legally binding through a confirmatory order,” according to a commission letter dated Wednesday (April 6).
“Any person who willfully violates, attempts to violate or conspires to violate any provision of this confirmatory order shall be subject to criminal prosecution … Violation of this confirmatory order may also subject the person to civil monetary penalties.”
Nuclear plant contractors faked 10 months of inspection records
In disclosing the results of its investigation in December, the commission gave Entergy the opportunity of requesting a “pre-decisional enforcement conference” or an “alternative dispute resolution,” before the commission decided on enforcement penalties. Entergy chose alternative dispute resolution, and an agreement was reached in February. The confirmatory order contains the corrective actions that the company must take.
The 15-month investigation of the Waterford 3 plant at Taft indicated that seven contractors knowingly falsified the hourly fire inspection watch logs to indicate that inspections had taken place. The inspections were actually skipped and the records falsified between July 2013 and April 2014, according to the commission.
The hourly fire watch tours are required to assure that no fires break out in parts of the nuclear power plant building where sensitive equipment is located. These areas include wiring and piping that is used to operate the nuclear reactor during accidents or emergencies.
In addition, the investigation found that on Jan. 13, 2014, a contract manager “willfully failed” to provide complete and accurate information about the trustworthiness and reliability of a person applying for unescorted access to Waterford 3 as a fire watch inspector.
Entergy did not dispute those findings……… http://www.nola.com/environment/index.ssf/2016/04/entergy_avoids_violations_for.html
France is dangerously ill-prepared to deal with a nuclear accident – report
France is ‘not prepared for a nuclear accident’, report says http://www.thelocal.fr/20160407/france-
unprepared-for-nuclear-accident , according to a worrying new report, that the Swiss and Germans will want to read with interest.
- France’s oldest nuclear plant ‘to close this year’ (06 Mar 16)
- Germany demands France shut old nuclear plant (04 Mar 16)
- Swiss sue French over ‘dangerous’ nuclear plant (03 Mar 16)
That’s the conclusion of a new report by France’s ANCCLI commission that reports on the state of the country’s nuclear facilities.
“France is not ready to face a serious nuclear accident,” warned the commission’s president Jean-Claude Delalonde. “Even though a national response plan was made public in February 2014, nothing has been put in place,” he said.
The report comes after both Switzerland and Germany have expressed concerns about the safety of some of France’s 19 nuclear power stations, with authorities in Geneva even launching legal action.
According to Delalonde’s association the French government has not learned the lessons from previous disasters like Chernobyl that was presented as a “Soviet” accident.
The Fukushima disaster in Japan prompted the French to improve certain safety measures around nuclear reactors but ANCCLI want more.
They want the “emergency zone” around nuclear power stations, where measures are put in place in the event of accident, extended from the current 10km radius to 80 km.
The fact this hasn’t been done already creates a dangerous situation for Europe, the report says.
For example France distributes iodine tablets, which protect against the potentially cancer-causing effects of radioactivity, to those living within the 10km radius of a nuclear reactor, but in Belgium the same measure is taken within a 20km radius.
After Fukushima, the radius was extended to between 20km and 50km in Switzerland. The entire state of Luxembourg is part of an emergency zone even though there are no nuclear power stations on its territory. It’s due to the fact the Cattenom reactor in France is close to the border.
The duchy has previously forwarded to the European Commission a study commissioned by Germany’s Greens party, which according to Luxembourg “listed the Cattenom plant’s security problems”.
ANCCLI wants French authorities to work out a plan and carryout “digital simulations” for how Iodine tablets would be distributed to the whole of France before a radioactive cloud passes and also how the population would be evacuated in the event of a disaster.
The extent of the problems France would face in the event of a disaster are made clear by the fact more than 1.25 million people live within 30km of the Bugey power plant near Switzerland and over one million live around the Fessenheim power station – the oldest in the country.
Delalonde points out that India’s contingency plans are far more developed than they are in France.
“They anticipate the amount of food that will be needed, the number of emergency beds needed, blankets and even how many saris would be needed,” he said.”This power plant is very old, too old to still be in operation,” said a spokesman for Germany’s Environment and Nuclear Safety Minister Barbara Hendricks.
Meanwhile, the Swiss canton of Geneva on Wednesday filed a complaint against French nuclear plant Bugey located in the neighbouring French region of Ain, claiming that it “deliberately puts in danger the life of others and pollutes the waters”.
Threat of Islamic State and al Qaeda getting nuclear weapons is real
Islamic State, al Qaeda and nuclear madness, Reuters By John Lloyd April 8, 2016 “……..Earlier this month, President Barack Obama invoked the need for world leaders to cope with “the danger of a terrorist group obtaining and using a nuclear weapon.” In his speech at the Nuclear Security Summit, he had much success to report: earlier commitments to secure or eliminate nuclear material had been followed by most of the world’s states.
A “but” was coming, and it was large: both al Qaeda and Islamic State actively seek nuclear weaponry, Obama said, and “there is no doubt that if these madmen ever got their hands on a nuclear bomb or nuclear material they most certainly would use it to kill as many innocent people as possible.” That seems likely to be true: both groups have said so, and a member of Islamic State — which has already used chemical weapons — obtained surveillance footage of a manager at a nuclear facility in Belgium, with a view, officials say, of possibly developing a “dirty” bomb (a conventional explosive device packed with radioactive material).
The head of U.S. National Intelligence, James Clapper, told a Senate committee last month that “the threat of WMD is real. Biological and chemical materials and technologies, almost always dual use, move easily in the globalized economy, as do personnel with the scientific expertise to design and use them.” The veteran commentator on terrorism, Bruce Hoffman, wrote in March that Islamic State is moving towards the “final Definitive Victory State… when the caliphate ultimately triumphs over the rest of the world.” For that, it will need nuclear weapons.
Hoffman also believes that the two groups most hungry for global domination — Islamic State and al Qaeda — may merge, in spite of their leaders’ mutual hostility. This possibility, he said, quoting an unnamed senior U.S. official, “would be an absolute and unprecedented disaster for (the United States) and our allies.”
More cheer? Russia didn’t attend the nuclear summit. Moscow had said last November that it thought the United States was trying to “take the role of the main and ‘privileged’ player in this sphere” — so it didn’t show. Russia, Obama said to reporters, had made little, if any, progress on the Security Summit’s goals — because Putin has been pursuing a vision of of “emphasizing military might.”
The United States and Russia are estimated to have between them 95 percent of the world’s 15,000 nuclear warheads: the United States 6,970, Russia, 7300. The United States has been slightly reducing its stock; Russia has not. Obama, in a speech in Prague near the beginning of his first presidency seven years ago, called for a nuclear-free world — as Ronald Reagan had done before him.
By contrast, Putin has threatened to use nuclear weapons on Islamic State, on Turkey and as a response to Western protests when Russian forces seized Crimea. In the summer of 2014, in a more veiled threat, he told a youth group that “Let me remind you that Russia is one of the world’s biggest nuclear powers. These are not just words — this is the reality. What’s more, we are strengthening our nuclear deterrent capability and developing our armed forces.”
The United States, like Russia, modernizes and upgrades its nuclear forces continually, and islikely to sell Patriot interceptor missiles to Poland — much to Russia’s fury. But somehow, the widening gulf between the nations has to be bridged, or we face the largest problem of all: a widely-dispersed ability to annihilate much of the world.
The news should not just be “depressing,” but rather a prompt for greater engagement and understanding of its complexity. And with understanding comes the need to support those politicians, officials and organizations seeking compromise and solution. If the 20th was the American century, the 21st must be the world’s, in which the facts of multiple threats prompt a mutual response. Without it, the cocoons we seek to hide from bad news crumble more by the year. http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2016/04/08/islamic-state-al-qaeda-and-nuclear-madness/
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists analyses outcome of The Nuclear Security Summit
On the progress side:
- Enough states ratified the 2005 amendment to the physical protection convention to finally bring the amendment into force. That will provide a somewhat stronger legal foundation for nuclear security efforts – and will trigger a review conference that some hope could be a key new element of the nuclear security architecture.
- China joined in the strengthening nuclear security implementation initiative, thereby committing to achieve the objectives of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) nuclear security recommendations and accept peer reviews of its nuclear security arrangements. Just after the summit ended India announced that it too is joining.
- Japan and the United States removed hundreds of kilograms of weapon-grade plutonium and highly enriched uranium (HEU) from the Fast Critical Assembly in Japan, as promised at the last summit. Japan also committed to eliminate the HEU at the critical assembly at Kyoto University.
- States agreed to 18 new group commitments or “gift baskets,” on topics ranging from protecting against insider threats to replacing radiological sources with less dangerous technologies. Probably the most important of these was the commitment to create a “Nuclear Security Contact Group–a set of senior officials who will keep meeting on the margins of the IAEA General Conference, to keep at least moderately high-level attention focused on nuclear security.
On the missed opportunity side:
- We still have no progress toward building a global commitment that all nuclear weapons and weapons-usable nuclear materials, wherever they may be, need to be secured against the full spectrum of plausible adversary threats. (See discussion inManaging the Atom’s new report.)
- The communiqué, as expected, offers no firm new commitments (though it does more firmly establish the goal of continuous improvement in nuclear security). More disappointing, the “action plans” for five international institutions offer few steps beyond what those institutions are already doing–certainly less than is needed to fill the gap left by the end of the summit process.
- Many of the gift baskets have few specifics or deadlines; how much they will actually do to accelerate progress toward their objectives remains unknown.
- Many key countries – including Pakistan, Russia, and others – are still not participating in the initiative on strengthening nuclear security implementation that China and India joined.
The question now is: where do we go from here? ………. http://thebulletin.org/nuclear-security-summit-wins-losses-and-draws9310
Global nuclear security rules made more strict
Tighter global nuclear security rules to take effect in May http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nuclear-security-idUSKCN0X51NI More than 100 countries will have to meet higher standards on the protection of nuclear facilities and materials from next month, the U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Friday.
Nicaragua on Friday formally completed ratification of an amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, meaning enough states have ratified it for it to go into force, the International Atomic Energy Agency said.
“(The amendment) will help reduce the risk of a terrorist attack involving nuclear material, which could have catastrophic consequences,” IAEA chief Yukiya Amano said in a statement.
The convention was adopted by 152 countries a decade ago, and had to be ratified by two thirds of them to go into effect.
The amendment, intended to guarding against threats such as smuggling and sabotage, makes it legally binding for countries to protect nuclear facilities as well as the domestic use, storage and transportation of nuclear material.
It also provides for broader cooperation among countries on finding and recovering stolen or smuggled nuclear material.
The convention and amendment are only binding on countries that have ratified them, an IAEA spokesman said. Amano said last month more work was needed to make the requirement universal.
The United States, Russia, India, Pakistan and former Soviet republics including Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan are among the countries that have ratified the amendment, according to the IAEA. Those that have not include Iran and North Korea.
(Reporting by Francois Murphy; editing by Andrew Roche)
Eurasian conflicts undermine nuclear security
Frozen Conflicts Undermine Nuclear Security http://www.eurasianet.org/node/78126
April 5, 2016 , by Richard Weitz The renewal of armed conflict between Armenian and Azerbaijani forces over the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave can potentially have global ramifications, participants at the recent nuclear security summit in Washington cautioned.
A concern articulated in national progress reports prepared for the March 31-April 1 summit by several Eurasian governments was how corrosive the region’s ethnic and border disputes are to global nuclear security. The chaotic conditions that accompany such conflicts can make it easier for terrorists and criminal groups to get their hands on, and transport, nuclear or radioactive materials that can subsequently be used in a terror operation.
Warning that this situation “may lead to dire consequences not only for Ukraine, but for many European nations,” Ukrainian authorities called for “establishing international control over nuclear facilities that can be seized or damaged as a result of military actions.”
Azerbaijan’s report likewise observed that the unresolved Karabakh conflict means that “Azerbaijan is unable to provide proper border control along the substantial part of its borders.”
The nuclear security summit had a global scope, but Eurasia was one of the focus areas of the event. The presidents of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine all attended the gathering.
The fighting in Karabakh erupted just hours after Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan and his Azerbaijani counterpart, Ilham Aliyev, each met separately with US Vice President Joe Biden on the margins of the summit. In identical language describing each meeting, Biden cautioned both presidents about the need for restraint.
Although representatives of Moldova were not at the summit, there have been reports of alleged Russian-linked smugglers attempting to exploit governance lapses and security gaps connected with the country’s separatist region of Transnistria to try to sell nuclear materials to suspected terrorist organizations. Elsewhere, Georgia’s breakaway territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia have also been associated with reports of nuclear smuggling attempts.
Russian government has provided technical and financial assistance to fellow members of the Commonwealth of Independent States and the Eurasian Economic Union to help address nuclear security threats. Despite supplying such assistance, Russian officials boycotted the Washington meeting and demanded an end to the summits, which have met every other year since 2010.
Richard Weitz is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Political-Military Analysis at Hudson Institute.
1 This Month
19 November – Webinar – The Reality of Reprocessing
Time: 11:00 AM Pacific Time (US & Canada) / 2:00 PM Eastern / 7:00 PM UK / 8:00 PM CET
Register for the Zoom Event Here
Shut down the radiation-damaged Heysham nuclear reactors now
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
-
Archives
- November 2026 (74)
- 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
