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

The Olympic Games and the second Tokai Nuclear Plant,

The Olympic Games and the second Tokai Nuclear Plant,  Subject: Some crucial facts about Fukushima,    Mitsuhei Murata  20 July 19

I am revealing some meaningful facts about Fukushima.
1.Former Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama,in his twitter of June 1,criticized
an interim report presented by the Fukushima Prefecture that denies the
influence of radiation on children’s cancer,thus recalling the importance of
ethics to us.
2.Former Prime Minister is vigorously engaged in pleading for abolishing
nuclear reactors and for promoting natural energies.He is determined to prevent the restarting of the second Tokai Nuclear Reactor,situated only 100 kilometers away from Tokyo. He is to visit the nearby city Hitachi in September to make a speech that could gather thousands of citizens.
3.On June 25,three days before the G 20 Summit in Osaka,white smoke was
observed blowing up near No.6 reactor at the Fukushima Daiichi.
There is  no press report about this up to this day. On 28 June,an acquaintance
informed me of it and a director in charge of the Fukushima Prefecture I
contacted confirmed this and asked me to reassure people that there was
no need for panic.I sent out a BCC message to this effect.
Why me and not the media !
I have sent a message to Prime Minister Abe to inform him of the fact and
the problem regarding the media.
4.The floods in Kumamoto in Kyushu actually oblige 1 million residents to
take refuge.We are reminded that Japan is a super power of natural disasters.
The actual severe heat wave in Europe makes us anxious about the Tokyo Olympic Games taking place in mid-summer.


July 21, 2019 Posted by | Japan, secrets,lies and civil liberties, spinbuster | Leave a comment

The unpleasant reality behind the Tokyo Olympics’ shimmering curtain of propaganda

Is Tokyo Ready for the Olympic Juggernaut?    Tokyo says that it’s ready to host the 2020 Olympics. The early numbers—and quality of Olympic leadership—are not encouraging. The Nation, By Dave Zirin and Jules Boykoff   18 July 19

Dave ZirinTWITTERDave Zirin is the sports editor of The Nation.

July 21, 2019 Posted by | Japan, secrets,lies and civil liberties, spinbuster | Leave a comment

Even the nuclear industry itself is pretty pessimistic about its future

Viewpoint: Building a belief in nuclear, financially and emotionally, WNN, 08 July 2019  “………. . Nuclear technology remains emotive and controversial in some countries, and public pressure can ultimately move policy, as has been seen in Germany, which is abandoning nuclear generation entirely, despite the impact this has on its ability to meet CO2 reduction targets.Delivering projects, on time and to budget

The nuclear industry is also susceptible to wavering investor confidence, as has been evident recently in the UK. Nuclear plants are exceptionally large and long-term investments, so private-sector investors set the bar very high when it comes to incentives and the reassurances they need before making final investment decisions.

When Hitachi suspended work on its Wylfa Newydd project, it cited the size of the financial burden as one of the main factors, while the high cost of Hinkley Point has, in part, been explained by the fact that EDF could only borrow capital funding at high interest rates. That’s because this project is deemed ‘risky’, and well over half the cost was attributed to raising the money over the lifetime of the project.

Following the publication of the UK National Infrastructure Assessment last year, these high borrowing costs for nuclear have come into even sharper focus. This report recommended that the Government restrict support to “one more nuclear plant before 2025” as the costs of renewable technologies were “far more likely to fall, and at a faster rate”.

Delays and cost increases don’t help public perception.  …………    It’s our responsibility as an industry to work together to change perceptions and provide stakeholders with the confidence that nuclear projects will be delivered on time and to cost, and to set out the evidence that demonstrates why nuclear energy must form part of the future energy mix. If we can’t do this then the trust simply won’t be there, and neither will the investment……..

we’re working alongside other leading industry bodies including Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power, the Electric Power Research Institute, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Nuclear Energy Agency to deliver events like the Innovation for the Future of Nuclear Energy – A Global Forum, which took place in Korea last month………

Present a more positive future

There are many exciting possibilities for nuclear, from innovation in waste management and recycling to the emergence of small modular reactors. But, in order to realise this future, the industry has some short-term hurdles that it must overcome. And in particular we must drive efficiencies into existing programmes and onto existing plants.

EDF has said that, by applying lessons learned at Hinkley Point, huge economies of scale can be achieved if a second pair of EPR reactors are built at Sizewell. Even so, the confidence may not be there yet for stakeholders and investors to appreciate where the returns lie. We need to focus on what can make a real difference now, in order to bring about that future.

It’s a crucial time for the nuclear sector.  ……. can we work together to drive transformative change and help persuade all those who will need to invest in its future, both emotionally and financially, to believe in it too?,-financiall

July 13, 2019 Posted by | 2 WORLD, politics, spinbuster | Leave a comment

In pro nuclear drive, U.S. Energy Dept pours money into universities

Energy Department Invests Nearly $50 Million at National Laboratories and Universities to Advance Nuclear Technology
JUNE 27, 2019  “………
DOE is awarding more than $28.5 million through its Nuclear Energy University Program (NEUP) to support 40 university-led nuclear energy research and development projects in 23 states. NEUP seeks to maintain U.S. leadership in nuclear research across the country by providing top science and engineering faculty and their students with opportunities to develop innovative technologies and solutions for civil nuclear capabilities.Additionally, seven university-led projects will receive more than $1.6 million for research reactor and infrastructure improvements providing important safety, performance and student education-related upgrades to a portion of the nation’s 25 university research reactors as well as enhancing university research and training infrastructure.

Crosscutting Research Projects

Five research and development projects led by DOE national laboratories and U.S. universities will receive $4.5 million in funding. Together, they will conduct research to address crosscutting nuclear energy challenges that will help to develop advanced sensors and instrumentation, advanced manufacturing methods, and materials for multiple nuclear reactor plant and fuel applications.

Nuclear Science User Facilities (NSUF)

DOE has selected two university-, one national laboratory- and three industry-led projects that will take advantage of NSUF capabilities to investigate important nuclear fuel and material applications. DOE will support three of these projects with a total of $1.5 million in research funds.

June 29, 2019 Posted by | Education, USA | Leave a comment

Scientifically ignorant, is Australia’s Morrison government being conned into buying Small Modular Nuclear Reactors?

Fukushima, the ‘nuclear renaissance’ and the Morrison Government, Independent Australia, By Helen Caldicott | 25 June 2019 Now that the “nuclear renaissance” is dead following the Fukushima catastrophe, when one-sixth of the world’s nuclear reactors closed, the nuclear corporations – Toshiba, Nu-Scale, Babcock and Wilcox, GE Hitachi, Cameco, General Atomics and the Tennessee Valley Authority – will not accept defeat, nor will the ill-informed Morrison Government…..

To be quite frank, almost all of our politicians are scientifically and medically ignorant and in an age where scientific evolution has become extraordinarily sophisticated, it behoves us – as legitimate members of democracy – to both educate ourselves and our naive and ignorant politicians for they are not our leaders, they are our representatives.

Many of these so-called representatives are now being cajoled into believing that electricity production in Australia could benefit from a new form of atomic power in the form of small modular reactors (SMRs), allegedly free of the dangers inherent in large reactors — safety issues, high cost, proliferation risks and radioactive waste.

But these claims are fallacious, for the reasons outlined below.

Basically, there are three types of small modular reactors (SMRs), which generate less than 300 megawatts of electricity compared with current 1,000-megawatt reactors.

1. Light-water reactors

These will be smaller versions of present-day pressurised water reactors, using water as the moderator and coolant, but with the same attendant problems as Fukushima and Three Mile Island. Built underground, they will be difficult to access in the event of an accident or malfunction.

Because they’re mass-produced (turnkey production), large numbers must be sold yearly to make a profit. This is an unlikely prospect because major markets — China and India — will not buy our reactors when they can make their own.

If safety problems arise, they all must be shut down, which will interfere substantially with electricity supply.

SMRs are expensive because the cost per unit capacity increases with a decrease in reactor size. Billions of dollars of government subsidies will be required because investors are allergic to nuclear power. To alleviate costs, it is suggested that safety rules be relaxed.

2. Non-light-water designs

These include high-temperature gas-cooled reactors (HTGRs) or pebble-bed reactors. Five billion tiny fuel kernels consisting of high-enriched uranium or plutonium will be encased in tennis-ball-sized graphite spheres that must be made without cracks or imperfections — or they could lead to an accident. A total of 450,000 such spheres will slowly and continuously be released from a fuel silo, passing through the reactor core and then recirculated ten times. These reactors will be cooled by helium gas operating at high very temperatures (900 degrees Celcius).

A reactor complex consisting of four HTGR modules will be located underground, usually to be run by just two operators in a central control room. Claims are that HTGRs will be so “safe” that a containment building will be unnecessary and operators can even leave the site (“walk-away-safe” reactors).

However, should temperatures unexpectedly exceed 1,600 degrees Celcius, the carbon coating will release dangerous radioactive isotopes into the helium gas and at 2,000 degrees Celcius, the carbon would ignite, creating a fierce, Chernobyl-type graphite fire.

If a crack develops in the piping or building, radioactive helium would escape and air would rush in, also igniting the graphite.

Although HTGRs produce small amounts of low-level waste, they create larger volumes of high-level waste than conventional reactors.

Despite these obvious safety problems, and despite the fact that South Africa has abandoned plans for HTGRs, the U.S. Department of Energy has unwisely chosen the HTGR as the “next-generation nuclear plant.” There is a push for Australia to follow suit.

3. Liquid-metal fast reactors (PRISM)

It is claimed by proponents that fast reactors will be safe, economically competitive, proliferation-resistant and sustainable.

They are fueled by plutonium or highly enriched uranium and cooled by either liquid sodium or a lead-bismuth molten coolant. Liquid sodium burns or explodes when exposed to air or water, and lead-bismuth is extremely corrosive, producing very volatile radioactive elements when irradiated.

Should a crack occur in the reactor complex, liquid sodium would escape, burning or exploding. Without coolant, the plutonium fuel could reach critical mass, triggering a massive nuclear explosion, scattering plutonium to the four winds. One-millionth of a gram of plutonium induces cancer — and it lasts for 500,000 years. Extraordinarily, they claim that fast reactors will be so safe that they will require no emergency sirens and that emergency planning zones can be decreased.

There are two types of fast reactors: a simple, plutonium-fueled reactor and a “breeder,” in which the plutonium-reactor core is surrounded by a blanket of uranium 238, which captures neutrons and converts to plutonium.

The plutonium fuel, obtained from spent reactor fuel, will be fissioned and converted to shorter-lived isotopes, caesium and strontium, which last 600 years instead of 500,000. The industry claims that this process, called “transmutation,” is an excellent way to get rid of plutonium waste. But this is fallacious because only ten per cent is fissioned, leaving 90 per cent of the plutonium for bomb-making and so on.

Then there’s construction. Three small plutonium fast reactors are grouped together to form a module and three of these modules will be buried underground. All nine reactors will then be connected to a fully automated central control room operated by only three operators. Potentially, then, one operator could face a catastrophic situation triggered by the loss of off-site power to one unit at full power, another shut down for refuelling and one in startup mode. There are to be no emergency core cooling systems.

Fast reactors require massive infrastructure, including a reprocessing plant to dissolve radioactive waste fuel rods in nitric acid, chemically removing the plutonium and a fuel fabrication facility to create new fuel rods. A total of 14-23 tonnes of plutonium are required to operate a fuel cycle at a fast reactor, and just five pounds is fuel for a nuclear weapon.

Thus fast reactors and breeders will provide extraordinary long-term medical dangers and the perfect situation for nuclear-weapons proliferation. Despite this, the Coalition Government is considering their renaissance.,12834

June 25, 2019 Posted by | politics, Reference, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, spinbuster | Leave a comment

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe pretending that all is well at Fukushima, using this lie to promote Olympics

Abe pushing idea that Fukushima nuclear disaster is ‘under control’,   THE ASAHI SHIMBUN, 10 June 19 Without special protection against radiation, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe stood on elevated ground about 100 meters from the three melted-down reactors at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.

“I was finally able to see the view just wearing a normal suit without having to wear protective clothing and a mask (for radiation),” he said on April 14 after hearing explanations from Tokyo Electric Power Co. officials. “The decommissioning work has been making progress in earnest.”

An act of bravado, perhaps. But it was more likely one of the ways Abe and his government want to show that the Fukushima disaster is, as he famously said, “under control.”

Progress has been made, albeit slowly, for the monumental task of decommissioning TEPCO’s crippled nuclear plant.

But radiation levels in certain areas of the plant are still lethal with extended exposure. The problem of storing water contaminated in the reactors continues.

And only recently was TEPCO able to make contact with melted nuclear fuel in the reactors through a robot. The means to extract the fuel has yet to be decided.

However, the government keeps touting progress in the reconstruction effort, using evacuee statistics, which critics say are misleading, to underscore its message.

Abe’s previous visit to the nuclear plant was in September 2013.

“When I conducted an inspection five years ago, I was completely covered in protective gear,” he said at a meeting with decommissioning workers in April. “This time I was able to inspect wearing a normal suit.”

Officials in Abe’s circle acknowledged that they wanted to “appeal the progress of reconstruction” by letting the media cover the prime minister’s “unprotected” visit to the site.

His visit in a business suit was possible largely because the ground was covered in mortar and other materials that prevent the spread of radioactive substances, not because decommissioning work has lowered radiation levels as a whole.

The radiation level at the elevated inspection ground still exceeds 100 microsieverts per hour, making it dangerous for people who remain there for extended periods.

Abe’s inspection ended in six minutes.

The prime minister raised eyebrows, particularly in Fukushima Prefecture, in 2013 when he gave a speech to promote Tokyo’s bid to host the 2020 Summer Olympics.

Concerning the Fukushima nuclear plant, he told International Olympic Committee members, “Let me assure you, the situation is under control.”

An hour before he inspected the plant in April, Abe attended the opening ceremony of the new government building of Okuma, one of the two towns that host the nuclear plant.

The ceremony followed the lifting of an evacuation order for part of the town on April 10.

“We were able to take a step forward in reconstruction,” Abe said.

The central government uses the number of evacuees to show the degree of progress in reconstruction work.

In April 2018, Abe said in the Diet that the lifting of evacuation orders has reduced the number of evacuees to one-third of the peak.

According to the Reconstruction Agency, the number of people who evacuated in and outside of Fukushima Prefecture, including those who were under no orders to leave, peaked at about 160,000. But the initial evacuation orders for 11 municipalities in Fukushima Prefecture have been gradually lifted, and the agency now puts the total number at about 40,000.

About 71,000 people were officially registered as residents of areas that were ordered to evacuate. Now, only about 11,000 people live in those zones.

This means that about 60,000 people have not returned to the homes where they were living before the nuclear accident unfolded in March 2011.

The gap of 20,000 can be attributed to how the agency classifies or declassifies evacuees.


The Reconstruction Agency sent a notice in August 2014 to all prefectures that have counted the number of evacuees.

It defined “evacuees” as people who moved to different places because of the nuclear disaster and have the “will” to return to their original homes.

The notice also said that if it is difficult to perceive their “will,” they can be regarded as people who have ended their evacuation if they bought new homes or made arrangements for new accommodations.

Based on the notice, people in Fukushima Prefecture who have bought new homes during their evacuation or settled down in public restoration housing or disaster public housing are regarded as living “stable” lives and are not counted as evacuees.

“It is not a problem because we continue supporting them even if they are removed from the evacuee statistics,” a prefectural government official said.

An official of the Reconstruction Agency said, “The judgment is made by each prefecture, so we are not in a position to say much.”

However, the prefecture has not confirmed all evacuees’ will to return to their homes. In addition, those who are removed from the list of evacuees are not informed of their new status.

Many people bought homes in new locations during their prolonged evacuations although they still hope to return to their hometowns in the disaster area.

Yumiko Yamazaki, 52, has a house in Okuma in a “difficult-to-return” zone.

But because she moved to public restoration housing outside of the town, she is not considered an evacuee by the agency and the prefecture.

“I had to leave my town although I didn’t want to,” Yamazaki said. “It is so obvious that the government wants to make the surface appearance look good by reducing the number of evacuees.”

“I can’t allow them to try to pretend the evacuation never happened,” Yamazaki said.

Critics say the central government’s emphasis of positive aspects and the downplaying of inconvenient truths in the evacuee statistics have much in common with its response to the suspected nepotism scandals involving school operator Moritomo Gakuen and the Kake Educational Institution.

June 11, 2019 Posted by | Japan, secrets,lies and civil liberties, spinbuster | Leave a comment

The Olympics, Fukushima and Chernobyl and The Art of the Cover-up

Fukushima and Chernobyl: The Art of the Cover-up

Capitalism, Fukushima, Creative Reconstruction & The History Of Olympics   by Labor Video Project Monday May 27th, 2019  

Professor George Wright discusses the history of the Olympics and how privatization and control by the corporations of the world have led to in allowing the Olympics going to Japan and the contaminated Fukushima. The three broken nuclear reactors still have melted nuclear rods which must be cooled with water. He discusses the systemic corruption of the Olympic Committee and how it is now ignored the safety of the athletes and the public.

Capitalism, Fukushima, Creative Reconstruction & The History Of Olympics with Professor George Wright
The Japanese Prime Minister Abe with the support of the Internatonal Olympics Committee is planning to have the 2020 Olympics in Japan with the baseball games and para-olympics taking place in Fukushima.Professor George Wright looks at the history of Olympics and how the commericalization for profit of the Olympics has led to the Olympics Committee approving the having part of the 2020 Olympics in the still contaminated Fukushima. He talks about “created reconstrucation” and how Olympics are driven by political and corporate agendas.

Although Prime Minister Abe has told the Olympic Committee that Fukushima has been “decontaminated” the melted nuclear rods have still not been removed from the broken reactors and there is over one million tons of radioactive water in tanks surrounding the nuclear reactors.

Additionally there are tens of thousand of bags full of radioactive material in bags spread throughout the Fukushima region.

This forum was presented by No Nukes Action on Sunday May 26th, 2019. ……..

Thomas Bach, The Head of The Olympics

by Labor Video Project Monday May 27th, 2019
Thomas Bach, the head of the Olympics knows about the contamination in Fukushima and the lies by Japan PM Abe about the “decontamination” of Fukushima but continues to move forward with the games in Fukshima. The television companies and other sponsors control the agenda of the Olympic committee.
by Labor Video Project Monday May 27th, 2019
The government and TEPCO still have not removed the melted nuclear rods after 8 years.
by Labor Video Project Monday May 27th, 2019
Cleaning the roofs of homes in Fukushima does not change the radioactive environment
by Labor Video Project Monday May 27th, 2019 6:30 PM
The Japanese. government is spending tens of millions of dollars to refurbish the Azuma stadium for the Olympic games in Fukushima to whitewash the dangers of the contaminated region. The Olympic Committee is helping to propagandize the people of the world that Fukushima is “safe”.

June 3, 2019 Posted by | 2 WORLD, spinbuster | 1 Comment

EDF CEO Jean-Bernard Lévy makes some schoolboy errors in his fatuous defence of nuclear power

June 3, 2019 Posted by | France, spinbuster | Leave a comment

“Energy for Humanity”, “Nuclear Pride” – the greenwashing of Fukushima, Chernobyl, and the global nuclear industry

Energy for Humanity: Nuclear Power – Propaganda and Greenwash,   Energy for Humanity, Nuclear Pride, new NPPs & Propaganda  
A few years after the devastating nuclear accidents of Fukushima and Tschernobyl, which both resulted in extremely high numbers of casualties, the international nuclear lobby decided to shun the limelight for a little while. But apparently it takes more than just two global disasters to bring them down for good. The global nuclear society, the old and powerful networks between enterprises, lobbyists and nuclear parties are still very much in tact. Even though renewable energies are on the rise in the western world, and many outdated nuclear power plants are going offline, dictatorships and economically weak countries continue to establish new nuclear power plants. That is one of the reasons why new NPP’s are promoted so massively in 2018. The nuclear power plant operators make a big effort to try and win over the wary public after Fukushima and Tschernobyl. Consequently cunning campaigns are run and used to cover up facts, to spread half-truths and to boast.

Energy for Humanity und Nuclear Pride Coalition and their new enforcement strategies
The only thing that has changed over the years are the propaganda and enforcement strategies that are being utilized. In former times, conflicts revolving around nuclear energy, protection of the environment and climate were argued out between environmentalists and opposing enterprises. Unfortunately the environmentalist movement today still thinks and acts upon outdated ways of thinking and conflict patterns. Nowadays those conflicts are being ‘outsourced’. It is alarming how all over Germany organisations of the nuclear and coal corporate groups, foundations and faked citizen initiatives like ‘Nuclear pride’ and “Mothers for Nuclear” are supporting the usage of nuclear power plants and coal power stations while fighting environmentally friendly renewable energies.

The usage of nuclear energy in old swiss NPP’s is a danger to human life and environment. Uranium mining, uranium enrichment and the production of fuel elements have devastating effects on the environment, cause illnesses and even lead to death. Furthermore Nuclear Power Plants emit cancerous nuclear radiation while in standart operation. Disasters like a nuclear accident or terror attack are possible at any time and therefore the life and health of hundreds of thousands of people is under constant threat. Huge areas of landmass would be inhabitable for several human generations. Powerful Swiss nuclear groups have a big undemocratic influence on politics and their attempts at greenwashing and propaganda are very effective. Groups like “Falken am Kühlturm des AKW Leibstadt” and “Energy for Humanity” are being used to distract from the danger a NPP poses. Fact is that the nuclear waste we produce and bury today will continue to emit dangerous levels of radiation for millions of years and could potentially threaten the lives of future generations.

June 1, 2019 Posted by | spinbuster, World | 1 Comment

Nuclear Pride Coalition and Michael Shellenberger: Greenwash and Propaganda 2019

The nuclear lobbyist Michael Shellenberger is being portrayed as ‘environmental activist’ by the public and media. But Michael Shellenberger is ‘a radioactive wolf in green clothing: Dissecting the latest pro-nuclear spin’ as Independentaustralia goes on to describe the impact of the nuclear travelling salesman. Furthermore Friends of the Earth Australia critically analyzes the well financed global lobbying activities.
Nuclear Pride Coalition & Michael Shellenberger: Greenwash and Propaganda 2019,  2019,  

On 21st October 2018 an article was published by the Süddeutsche Zeitung, reporting on a rather curious scene that took place in Munich. In a ‘Nuclear Pride’ event, organizations like ‘Ecologists for Nuclear’ and the ‘Humanist party’ alongside other participants tried to raise awareness for their goal: The return to nuclear energy, whilst simultaneously calling themselves climate protectors.


A few years after the devastating nuclear accidents of Fukushima and Tschernobyl, which both resulted in extremely high numbers of casualties, the international nuclear lobby decided to shun the limelight for a little while. But apparently it takes more than just two global disasters to bring them down for good. The global nuclear society, the old and powerful networks between enterprises, lobbyists and nuclear parties are still very much in tact. Even though renewable energies are on the rise in the western world, and many outdated nuclear power plants are going offline, dictatorships and economically weak countries continue to establish new nuclear power plants. That is one of the reasons why new NPP’s are promoted so massively in 2018. The nuclear power plant operators make a big effort to try and win over the wary public after Fukushima and Tschernobyl. Consequently cunning campaigns are run and used to cover up facts, to spread half-truths and to boast.

The only thing that has changed over the years are the propaganda and enforcement strategies that are being utilized. In former times, conflicts revolving around nuclear energy, protection of the environment and climate were argued out between environmentalists and opposing enterprises. Unfortunately the environmentalist movement today still thinks and acts upon outdated ways of thinking and conflict patterns. Nowadays those conflicts are being ‘outsourced’. It is alarming how all over Germany organisations of the nuclear and coal corporate groups, foundations and faked citizen initiatives like ‘Nuclear pride’ are supporting the usage of nuclear power plants and coal power stations while fighting environmentally friendly renewable energies.The German newspaper die Zeit states the following about the ‘German sister’ of Nuclear Pride: ‘Disguised as independent citizen initiative, the organisation ‘Bürger für Technik BfT (Citizens for Technology)’ has been praising nuclear energy for a long time. In reality the BfT is a group of energy industrial lobbyists. In addition nuclear scientists and engineers of the KTG (nuclear technology corporation) are pleading for the peaceful usage of nuclear energy. Furthermore The KTG are receiving financial support from the Deutschen Atomforum (The German nuclear forum), which officially represents the interests of the nuclear power plant operators.’

A recently produced NPP-Commercial titled: ‘Thorium-Atomkraft ohne Risiko? (Thorium- Risk-free nuclear energy?)’ acts as the perfect example for the clever enforcement strategies of the industry. The commercial makes it seem as if it were the citizens who want the establishment of new nuclear power plants, not the corporate groups.
Dr. Sebastian Schwark of the PR- agency Hill & Knowlton said the following: ‘The key question is not how to avoid but how to manage protest.’

President Trump’s electoral campaign was largely financed by wealthy American lobbyists who also bear a tremendous interest in keeping NPPs in further operation. Additionally they strive for the erection of new nuclear power plants and coal power stations and further fuel the denial of climate change by fighting against renewable energies.

What Nuclear Pride would like to keep a secret:
Not only is the usage of nuclear energy life threatening but also the most expensive form of climate protection. In fact electricity from alternative energy sources that are combated vigorously by both the nuclear and coal lobby has become more cost efficient in recent times than the electricity produced by dangerous nuclear power plants. Environmental researchers have calculated that investments in energy conservation could prevent double the amount of carbon dioxide from being produced than comparable investments in the new construction of NPPs.

The nuclear lobbyist Michael Shellenberger is being portrayed as ‘environmental activist’ by the public and media. But Michael Shellenberger is ‘a radioactive wolf in green clothing: Dissecting the latest pro-nuclear spin’ as Independentaustralia goes on to describe the impact of the nuclear travelling salesman. Furthermore Friends of the Earth Australia critically analyzes the well financed global lobbying activities. We would appreciate a similarly critical analysis by the German media. In addition both the nuclear and genetic engineering corporations pursue an almost identical PR-concept with Patrick Moore.

Eco-optimism, Eco-realism and the Nuclear Pride Coalition
The industry guided eco-optimism and eco-realism campaign is an American campaign, run to divide the environmental movement. Now it’s being carried over to Germany and the whole of Europe. It lies in the eco-optimists interest to attack positive terms like protection of the environment, sustainability and ecology. Furthermore they try to discredit sustainability and put environmental movements and religious sects in political relation. Simultaneously Nuclear Power Plants, Coal Power Stations and genetic engineering are being praised. The Nuclear Pride Coalition counts as one of the most aggressive industry guided ecooptimistic groups.

The Nuclear Pride Festival was just the visible tip of the propaganda-eisberg.
In the past it often was the worlds best and simultaneously worst PR-organisations that have been pulling the strings behind PR-campaigns like the Nuclear Pride festival. Burson Marsteller., for instance, is one of them. One of the conflicting messages spread by the worlds most influential PR-agencies reads as follows: “The manmade climate change doesn’t exist but we still urgently need more nuclear power plants to fend off the impending climate disasters.” Furthermore it was those same old PR-agencies that have been lying through their teeth to benefit the Swiss Nuclear Forum. Moreover similar campaigns have been supported by paid trolls that were hired to anonymously write hundreds of “letters to the editor” and to litter online forums with promotional messages. Even the manipulation of Wikipedia articles is part of the PR-agencies everyday business. You’ve only got a chance to fight against this manipulative force if you don’t stay silent and utilize all of your knowledge and intelligence to compose your own letters to the editor and your own online posts to eradicate purposely planted misinformation. 

The polar bear mascot called Melty which was supposed to draw attention to the melting of the polar ice caps during the lobbyist-protest in Munich is an especially clever PR-stunt. It’s not the citizen initiatives that are hiding behind the façade of those Nuclear Pride protests and associations but PR-agencies and corporate groups.

June 1, 2019 Posted by | 2 WORLD, spinbuster | Leave a comment

Panicky nuclear lobby produces a propaganda book, desperate to win public support

U.S., Canada Energy Leaders Announce New Book on Nuclear Innovation in Clean Energy USA Dept of Energy 
MAY 28, 2019, VANCOUVER, CANADA – Today, leaders from the United States and Canada are unveiling a new book, Breakthroughs: Nuclear Innovation in A Clean Energy System, at the Tenth Clean Energy Ministerial (CEM10), a forum including ministers from 25 nations, occurring this year in Vancouver, Canada from May 27-29.  MAY 28, 20

 “The combination of vision and innovation is having a profound impact on our energy landscape, and nowhere is that more true than nuclear energy,” said U.S. Under Secretary of Energy Mark W. Menezes. “Nuclear energy is one of our most reliable and cleanest sources of energy, and we are determined to revive and revitalize the nuclear energy industry with advanced and smart designs. This book highlights some of the incredible transformative opportunities nuclear innovation can bring to society and the clean energy future of our planet.”

Canada’s Minister of Natural Resources Amarjeet Sohi said, “The Clean Energy Ministerial is part of building the world’s clean energy future. Canada is proud to host the 10th Clean Energy Ministerial in Vancouver at this historic moment in time. We are pleased to be working with the United States, Japan, and other countries under the nuclear innovation initiative. We also welcome the release of Breakthroughs – a collection a real stories about nuclear innovations and how they can contribute to our climate change goals.”  ………

The Breakthroughs book is a product of the CEM Nuclear Innovation: Clean Energy Future (NICE Future) initiative that was launched at the May 2018 Ninth CEM in Copenhagen, Denmark. The NICE Future initiative envisions nuclear energy’s many uses in contributing to clean, reliable energy systems of the future.  ……..

May 30, 2019 Posted by | Canada, spinbuster, USA | Leave a comment

Vancouver’s ‘Clean Energy Summit’ – Clean Energy Ministerial in the grip of the nuclear lobby

At Vancouver’s Clean Energy Summit, Nuclear Is Making a Play   Note to ministers from 25 nations: Prepare to be dangerously greenwashed.  By Tanya Glafenhein and M.V. RamanaTanya Glafenhein is an undergraduate political science major at UBC focused on ecological sustainability, and environmental and social justice.

M.V. Ramana is the Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at UBC, and the author of The Power of Promise: Examining Nuclear Energy in India, Penguin Books, New Delhi (2012).

This week Vancouver is host to a summit of ministers from over 25 countries gathered “to accelerate progress toward a clean energy future.

Created in 2010, the Clean Energy Ministerial describes itself as a “high-level global forum to promote policies that advance clean energy technology” and “to encourage the transition towards a global clean energy economy.”

As we face massive environmental challenges, a transition is clearly needed. The problem is that one significant focus of the CEM is to find ways of preserving the existing energy infrastructure while greenwashing it.

Case in point: the cleverly termed NICE Future, which stands for Nuclear Innovation: Clean Energy Future, that was set up in 2018 by the CEM initiative. Its stated aim is “to initiate a dialogue on the role that clean and reliable nuclear energy can play in bolstering economic growth, energy security and access, and environmental stewardship.”

But nuclear energy is not clean except in some narrow definition, and our experience over the decades with this technology has shown that it cannot “bolster” any of the other goals.

Dirty truths about ‘clean energy’

Before going further, it would help to beVanctter understand the term clean energy. For years now, there is an open and growing preference for renewable energy among the public around the world.

This was a problem for the large private and public sector organizations that owned other forms of electricity generation technologies, particularly coal, nuclear, or natural gas. One of the strategies that these large organizations, and supportive politicians and government officials, have been undertaking is to sweep these, or slight variants thereof, under the term clean energy.

The key word is clean, and its use has been promoted by multiple fossil fuel and other industry groups. In the mid-2000s, dozens of coal and utility companies formed something called the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. It then spent tens of millions of dollars on advertisement campaigns about “clean coal” being a solution to global warming.

The Clean Energy Ministerial buys into a similar narrative by promoting what it calls the “Carbon Capture, Utilisation, and Storage Initiative.”

This branding strategy continues to pay off. Utilities and friendly politicians have promoted existing but uneconomical power plants as clean energy options and sought subsidies, for example in the state of New Jersey in the United States.

Last week, Republicans in Ohio proposed legislation known as the “clean energy” subsidy bill. What does this legislation do? Bail out old and uneconomical coal and nuclear power plants in the state, and endmandates that utilities use more renewable and efficient energy.

Of course, neither coal nor nuclear power plants are clean by any reasonable definition. Unless you focus entirely on carbon dioxide and ignore all the other potential pollutants.

Radioactive waste

In the case of nuclear energy, the most difficult environmental legacy is the radioactive waste produced by all nuclear reactors. Radioactive waste is inextricably linked to nuclear energy production, because each nucleus of uranium or plutonium gives rise to radioactive fission products as they break apart. Other radioactive “transuranic elements” are produced when uranium-238 in the fuel absorbs a neutron, again an inevitable occurrence in nuclear reactors.

The problem is that it takes hundreds of thousands of years before the radioactive materials decay to levels that could be considered relatively safe. For those long periods of time, this waste will have to be kept away from human contact — an unprecedented challenge for which there is still no demonstrated solution.

But nuclear plants are not the only source of radioactive wastes. At the very start of the nuclear fuel chain, the mines that produce uranium ore and the mills that process the ore into uranium that is used to fuel nuclear power plants generate radioactive materials that are harmful to the environment and human health.

Around the world, uranium mining and processing has been primarily carried out on Indigenous lands and Indigenous peoples have been significantly affected. Impacted communities include the Navajos in the United States, the Dene people in the Northwest Territories, and the Santhal, Munda, and Ho people in India. Proposed sites for the deep geological repository in Canada are almost all on traditional First Nations land, in a practice that has been termed nuclear colonialism.


Nuclear energy is unique among all electricity generating technologies in its propensity for catastrophic accidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima that create radioactive contamination on a potentially global scale. In those locations near the site of the accident where contamination levels are high, the hazards to health will last for decades if not centuries.

The “exclusion zone” with radiation levels deemed too high for human habitation encompassed 4,300 square kilometres in the case of Chernobyl; at least 116,000 people were evacuated from the area.

The contaminated area is smaller in the case of Fukushima because most of the atmospherically released radionuclides were deposited into the Pacific Ocean due to the prevalent wind direction during the first few days of the accidents.

Many proponents of nuclear energy argue, despite this history of disastrous accidents, that reactors can be operated safely. Critics respond: “The key question is not whether it can be safe, but whether it will be safe.”

The simple answer is no. Not when this has to be done across countries, across many facilities, according to multiple priorities including cost cutting and profit making, and using multiple technologies, each with its own vulnerabilities.


Though the nuclear industry is loath to admit it, there is a very close relationship between nuclear power and weapons. In the words of the late Ted Taylor, a former weapons designer turned nuclear abolition advocate, “the connections between nuclear technology for constructive use and for destructive use are so closely tied together that the benefits of the one are not accessible without greatly increasing the hazards of the other.” Nuclear war would be the ultimate environmental catastrophe.

This connection is particularly important to emphasize given that many of the members of the Clean Energy Ministerial are either nuclear weapon states or members of military alliances with nuclear weapon states. Members include the U.S., China, France, Russia, India, United Kingdom, Canada, and Japan to name a few.

But isn’t nuclear the cheap way to fight climate change?

Despite all these problems with nuclear energy, some might argue that this technology remains the only way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

The problem with this argument is that nuclear energy is fading in importance globally. Nuclear power’s share of global electricity generation was 17.5 per cent in 1996. Since then, this fraction has steadily declined, reaching 10.3 per cent in 2017. For a variety of reasons, the downward trend is expected to continue.

What is behind this trend? The primary reason is that nuclear plants are no longer financially viable. Because they are hugely expensive, it has been known for a while that building new nuclear plants makes little economic sense. What has changed in the last decade is that it is not just constructing new reactors, but just operating one, even one that is old and has its capital costs paid off, that has ceased to make economic sense in many cases.

This is because alternatives to nuclear energy, in particular renewable sources of electricity like wind and solar energy, have become drastically cheaper. In contrast, just about every nuclear plant that was constructed in the last decade has proven more expensive than initially projected.

The Wall Street consulting company, Lazard, publishes annual cost figures for different energy technologies. In 2018, the Lazard estimate for the construction cost of a new nuclear plant in the United States was over $9,000 per kilowatt and each megawatt-hour of electricity produced would have cost around $150.

In comparison, a new wind energy plant cost $1,350 per kilowatt to construct; it cost $1,110 per kilowatt for solar energy. The generation costs for wind and solar energy are around $40 per megawatt-hour. The comparison has only been becoming more favourable to renewable technologies over the years.

These economic trends suggest that to expect nuclear energy to play an important role in climate change mitigation is wishful or delusional at best. The Clean Energy Ministerial should drop its support for technologies like nuclear power and coal. Or it can change its name to Unclean Energy Ministerial. 

May 28, 2019 Posted by | spinbuster | Leave a comment

Misleading and dangerous – the downplaying of Chernobyl’s radiation risks

May 27, 2019 Posted by | radiation, spinbuster, Ukraine | Leave a comment

“Dark money” bankrolling advertising campaign to keep Ohio nuclear plants open

Ads Flood Airwaves As Debate Continues Over Nuclear Bailout Bill   wksu 89.7

  20 May 19, Ohioans are being bombarded with an ad campaign focused on an energy bill—House Bill 6—that’s being debated in the state legislature.

Who’s behind the campaign and just what will HB6 do? Learn more in this conversation with Dayton Daily News reporter Laura Bischoff.

Bischoff said House Bill 6 is a controversial energy bill that would cost consumers about $300 million a year in surcharges. “The money would go into a new fund that probably half, or a little more than that, would likely go to save two aging nuclear power plants that are slated to close: Davis Besse and Perry,” Bishcoff said.

Both plants are owned by FirstEnergy Solutions, which used to be part of Akron-based FirstEnergy. FirstEnergy Solutions is in bankruptcy proceedings and has said it will have to shut down the nuclear plants because of its financial situation.  …..

Bischoff has dug into who’s bankrolling the ad campaign to convince the general public that legilsation to help keep the nuclear plants open is a good idea.

There is this group called Generation Now,” Bischoff said. “It is a dark money group. They are bankrolling most of ads, a little over $2 million worth of ads have been placed so far.”  Bischoff notes there are groups funding ads against the bill as well. “Americans for Prosperity, Ohioans against nuclear bailouts and some consumer group have spent about $300,000. It’s all over the airwaves. People are hearing it, seeing it, wondering what’s going on with it.”

…….. Bischoff also tabulated that FirstEnergy and its PAC (political action committee), since 2014, have  contributed $1.35 million to Ohio political candidates and FirstEnergy has donated another $1.5 million to political parties.

Bischoff explained that House Bill 6 would remove renewable energy efficiency standards and programs that have been part of state law for the past 10 years………

Bischoff estimated 120 different witnesses have testified about this proposed legislation, including a gentleman from Vermont, whom she later tracked down.

“I wonder why would some guy from Vermont travel all the way to Ohio to give testimony,” Bischoff said. The man shared the story of a nuclear plant closing in the small town where he lives and talked about the devastation the closing caused. Bischoff found out it is the second time he has testified for a nuclear bailout bill in Ohio. Pressing the man further, she discovered that his travel expenses were covered by the Nuclear Energy Institute, of which FirstEnergy is a dues-paying member.

Bischoff said Speaker Householder had hoped to bring House Bill 6 up for a vote the week of May 20th, but at this point he has indicated they are still working on it.

May 21, 2019 Posted by | spinbuster, USA | 1 Comment

Nuclear power is subject to human error — and that makes it a poor solution to climate change

May 14, 2019 Posted by | spinbuster, USA | Leave a comment