nuclear-news

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

National nuclear commission strategy for Marshall Islands

Marshalls endorses nuclear commission strategy,  https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/401921/marshalls-endorses-nuclear-commission-strategy    The Marshall Islands government has endorsed the adoption of a national nuclear commission strategy for the next three years.

The strategy honours the legacy of Marshallese nuclear heroes and heroines who fought and continue to demand accountability for their communities.

The strategy was mandated in the Marshall Islands parliament, or Nitijela, as part of the National Nuclear Commission Act of 2017.

It focuses on five broad themes for nuclear justice: compensation, health care, the environment, national capacity, and education and awareness.

From 1946 to 1958, the US used the Marshall Islands to test its nuclear weapons.

The commission also aims to establish an independent panel of scientists and specialists in fields related to radiation exposure, to provide the republic’s citizens access to trusted, independent science.

The commission’s chair, Rhea Moss-Christian, said the NNC strategy was a tool for all Marshallese, whether living in the islands or overseas, to use in their individual and collective efforts to respond to the devastation resulting from the US nuclear weapons testing program in the Marshall Islands.

“It is also a resource for our partners and friends outside the Marshall Islands to understand the nuclear testing impacts that persist today and how they can support the Marshallese people,” Ms Moss-Christian said.

October 28, 2019 Posted by | OCEANIA, politics, wastes, weapons and war | Leave a comment

$85B Nuclear Missile Competition Gets Messier as Feds Investigate Northrop,

$85B Nuclear Missile Competition Gets Messier as Feds Investigate Northrop, Defense One,   BY MARCUS WEISGERBER

GLOBAL BUSINESS EDITOR, 27 Oct 19, Boeing is breaking up its ICBM team — just as the Federal Trade Commission begins looking into the company’s allegations that Northrop wasn’t playing fair.

The Pentagon’s effort to build a new ICBM just took another step toward a no-competition sole-source award — and the prospective lone bidder just came under federal investigation for anti-competitive behavior.

Two pieces of news broke late this week concerning the U.S. Air Force’s Ground Based Strategic Deterrent program, whose total value has been estimated at $85 billion. First, the service stopped paying Boeing for ICBM-related technology-development work that began in 2017. In response, the company has begun to break up the specialized team of engineers it brought together to create a replacement for the Cold War-era Minuteman III, according to a Boeing source close to the project.

Second, a Northrop Grumman filing revealed that the Federal Trade Commission is looking into allegations that the company is not abiding by an agreement that allowed its 2018 acquisition of Orbital ATK, one of just two U.S. makers of solid rocket motors. Those terms required the company to sell rocket motors “on a non-discriminatory basis to all competitors for missile contracts.”

Until July, Boeing and Northrop had both been planning to bid on the ICBM contract. Then Boeing announced that it would withdraw, charging that it had been unfairly handicapped in the competition because Northrop had slow-rolled an agreement that would have paved the way for Boeing to buy rocket motors from Orbital ATK……. https://www.defenseone.com/business/2019/10/usaf-puts-its-icbm-chips-northrop-feds-launch-investigation/160888/

October 28, 2019 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | 1 Comment

Nuclear power and nuclear weapons always inextricably bound together

RICHARD BELL: Nuclear power heightens peril of nuclear weapons, RICHARD BELL https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/local-perspectives/richard-bell-nuclear-power-heightens-peril-of-nuclear-weapons-367646/In his Oct. 12 column, “Four parties’ climate change platforms blowing smoke; nuclear power offers way forward,” Bill Black says he wants to “have an honest conversation about climate change after the election.”

We could start by having an honest conversation about nuclear power.

I don’t disagree for a second that climate change poses an existential threat to the survival of the human species. But in his enumeration of a few of the problems with nuclear power, Black leaves out the biggest one: nuclear weapons. They are an existential threat to the survival of the human species right now.

Nuclear weapons and nuclear power have been inextricably bound together from the dawn of the atomic age. In the 1950s, the United States pushed a program called “Atoms for Peace,” acting as if it were possible to disentangle the peaceful uses of nuclear technology from the manufacture of weapons.

The problem here is that the atoms don’t know the difference between war and peace. When you train nuclear physicists, there’s not one textbook on atoms for peace and a different textbook on atoms for war. Giving people the knowledge and technology to build and operate nuclear power plants gives them almost all the knowledge they need to make at least crude nuclear weapons.

Once you know the physics, the only real limitation is getting your hands on enough fissile material to make a weapon. The world has been very fortunate thus far that making large enough quantities of fissile material is extremely expensive, something that only nation states have managed to finance, so far.

If you want to see how peaceful nuclear power leads directly to nuclear weapons, you have only to look at Canada’s role in India’s nuclear weapons program. India exploded its first nuclear weapon on May 18, 1974, using plutonium from a 40-megawatt CIRUS research reactor that Canada had donated under a plan to promote development. A condition of the donation was that it be used for peaceful purposes only — a condition that the Indians claimed to have met by declaring the blast a “peaceful nuclear explosive.”

The last thing we should be doing is spreading nuclear technology more broadly, since, in the end, such a policy will only increase the number of nations with nuclear weapons and make the threat of a nuclear war even more serious.

Black could also spend some time reading the history of attempts to rein in the dangers of nuclear proliferation caused by the spread of nuclear power plants.

He mentions, for example, that we could reduce the risk of proliferation by “providing a safe facility for other countries’ handling of spent fuel.” (Countries bent on going nuclear can extract plutonium from spent fuel.) There have been efforts to internationalize the control of nuclear materials, like having spent fuel handled in one place, since the United States floated the Baruch Plan at the United Nations in 1946. Every effort to establish such a “safe facility” has failed. There is nothing on the horizon to suggest that a new effort would succeed.

Nuclear power is a technology that has never matured. Each plant is a one-off, with construction cost overruns soaring into the billions in some of the most recent reactors, like the French one at Flamanville that was originally priced at $5.5 billion, and a few days ago reached $20.8 billion.

From the 1950s onward, nuclear power proponents have insisted that the “next generation” of nuclear power plants would finally solve all the problems that had bedevilled the industry thus far. But with each passing decade, the “next generation” has failed to deliver. Nuclear power turns out to be a fiendishly demanding and difficult way to boil water.

There is also plenty of evidence that the rapid drop in the price of renewable electricity from wind and solar is already competitive, if not cheaper, than new nuclear. As noted energy analyst Amory Lovins concluded in a 2017 paper published in The Electricity Journal, “Subsidizing distressed nuclear plants typically saves less carbon than closing them and reinvesting their saved operating cost into several fold-cheaper efficiency.”

Richard Bell lives in Musquodoboit Harbour. He is editor of the monthly newspaper, the Eastern Shore Cooperator. He is also co-author of the Sierra Club Book, Nukespeak: Nuclear Language, Myths, and Mindset, originally issued in 1982. Sierra Club Books commissioned an electronic update of the book on its 30th anniversary.

October 26, 2019 Posted by | 2 WORLD, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Russian nuclear submarine aborts ballistic missile test

October 22, 2019 Posted by | Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

India keeps increasing its nuclear weaponry – aimed at Pakistan and China

India’s Nuclear Weapons Arsenal Keeps Getting Bigger and Bigger, Michael Peck, The National Interest  October 20, 2019   
Key Point: India has its nukes pointed at China and Pakistan, two other nuclear powers.

“India is estimated to have produced enough military plutonium for 150 to 200 nuclear warheads, but has likely produced only 130 to 140,” according to Hans Kristensen and Matt Korda of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists. “Nonetheless, additional plutonium will be required to produce warheads for missiles now under development, and India is reportedly building several new plutonium production facilities.”

In addition, “India continues to modernize its nuclear arsenal, with at least five new weapon systems now under development to complement or replace existing nuclear-capable aircraft, land-based delivery systems, and sea-based systems.”……https://news.yahoo.com/indias-nuclear-weapons-arsenal-keeps-183000277.html

October 21, 2019 Posted by | India, weapons and war | 1 Comment

How America was prepared to kill billions with nuclear weapons on Russia and China

America Would Have Killed Billions Nuking Russia and China in Nuclear War  https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/america-would-have-killed-billions-nuking-russia-and-china-nuclear-war-89731  

A very real cold war horror story.

by Michael Peck  20 Oct 19
Key point: No matter how superior one’s forces are, a war with another nuclear power is a bad idea.
“Bomb them back into the Stone Age,” ex-Air Force general Curtis LeMay is reported to have once urged as a way to defeat North Vietnam during the Vietnam War.

But it turns out that had global nuclear war erupted during the early 1960s, it would have been the Russians and Chinese who would have reverted to living like the Flintstones.

U.S. nuclear war plans called for the destruction of the Soviet Union and China as “viable societies,” according to documents revealed by the non-profit National Security Archive.
The document in question pertains to the Single Integrated Operational Plan, or SIOP, which governs the numerous war plans and their associated options that govern how America would fight a nuclear war. In June 1964, senior military leaders (including Air Force Chief of Staff LeMay) were sent a staff review of the current SIOP.

The report included questions and answers regarding the various nuclear targeting options. These ranged from attacks on enemy nuclear and conventional forces while minimizing collateral damage to enemy cities, to attacking cities as well as military forces on purpose. This latter option would have been “in order to destroy the will and ability of the Sino-Soviet Bloc to wage war, remove the enemy from the category of a major industrial power, and assure a post-war balance of power favorable to the United States.”

“Should these options give more stress to population as the main target?” asked one question.

The answer was that Pentagon war plans already included the destruction of cities as a way to destroy the urban and industrial backbone. “This should result in greater population casualties in that a larger portion of the urban population may be placed at risk.”

In another Pentagon analysis “on the effect of placing greater emphasis on the attack of urban/industrial targets in order to destroy the USSR and China as viable societies, it was indicated that the achievement of a 30 per cent fatality level (i.e., 212.7 million people) in the total population (709 million people) of China would necessitate an exorbitant weight of effort.”

This was because of China’s rural society at the time. “Thus, the attack of a large number of place names [towns] would destroy only a small fraction of the total population of China. The rate of return for a [nuclear] weapon expended diminishes after accounting for the 30 top priority cities.”

Note that while annihilating one-third of China’s population was deemed uneconomical, the U.S. military took it for granted that the Soviet Union and China would be destroyed as viable societies.

Interestingly, Russia and China would be reduced to the level of Conan the Barbarian—but not Albania. “Should there be capability to withhold all attacks in Albania, Bulgaria and Romania?” asks the document.

The answer was that “the capability should exist to withhold attacks against Soviet satellites (either individually or collectively).” Other documents state that potential nuclear targets included the Sino-Soviet bloc—but not Yugoslavia.

Michael Peck is a contributing writer for the National Interest. He can be found on Twitter and Facebook. This first appeared in September 2018.

October 20, 2019 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | 2 Comments

Turkey isn’t “holding 50 US nuclear weapons ‘hostage”

October 20, 2019 Posted by | Turkey, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Hiroshima residents exposed to A-bomb ‘black rain’ developed health problems: lawyers

Hiroshima residents exposed to A-bomb ‘black rain’ developed health problems: lawyers

October 16, 2019 (Mainichi Japan)  HIROSHIMA — Nearly all of the 85 plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit who claim to have been exposed to radioactive “black rain” that fell on Hiroshima and surrounding areas in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. atomic bombing of the city in 1945 have been diagnosed with health problems that could be related to radiation, their lawyers said.

The plaintiffs, of whom eight have already died, and their representatives have brought the case to the Hiroshima District Court, demanding the Hiroshima prefectural and municipal governments provide them health care benefits on the basis that they were exposed to the radioactive rain outside the designated area set by the central government. Research by the legal team representing the plaintiffs have revealed that almost all of the plaintiffs have been diagnosed with health issues that “radiation cannot be ruled out” as their causes.

The state has issued certificates for A-bomb survivors who were in the designated area near the epicenter. These certificates enable them to receive free medical care. As the actual health damage caused by the radioactive black rain remains unclear, however, the central government in 1976 named a 19-kilometer by 11-kilometer area northwest from the state-designated radiation exposure area “a special health checkup zone.” Those who were in this zone are subject to free health checkups, and if they develop illnesses involving at least one of 11 kinds of disorders that the government lists as potentially radiation-related, such as cardiovascular diseases, they are given the certificates…….https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20191016/p2a/00m/0na/006000c

October 20, 2019 Posted by | health, Japan, weapons and war | Leave a comment

China Calls for Maintaining Global Strategic Stability and Reducing Nuclear Conflicts Risks

October 17, 2019 Posted by | China, politics international, weapons and war | 1 Comment

Marshall Islands’ nuclear clean-up workers concerned about radiation leaking

October 17, 2019 Posted by | environment, OCEANIA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

America’s Nuclear Doomsday Submarines

October 17, 2019 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Russia showcases its nuclear arsenal with huge war games

October 17, 2019 Posted by | Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

2019 Nuclear Weapons Ban Monitor report

October 17, 2019 Posted by | 2 WORLD, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Radioactive chlorine from nuclear bomb tests still present in Antarctica

October 17, 2019 Posted by | ANTARCTICA, environment, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Removing a nuclear arsenal from Turkish soil is a necessary step in reducing a global danger. 

Why Are U.S. Nuclear Bombs Still in Turkey?  The best time to get atomic weapons out was several years ago. The second best time is now.  The New Republic, By ANKIT PANDAOctober 16, 2019   

The American relationship with Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s Turkey has been fraught for half a decade, but never this bad. Last week, American troops were intentionally targeted by Turkish artillery units in Northern Syria as Erdoğan’s forces advanced and President Donald Trump ordered the U.S. into a unilateral withdrawal. The Pentagon sternly warned that Turkey’s troops would face “immediate defensive action” from American forces if such an encounter were to be repeated……..

50 B61 nuclear gravity bombs currently reside in specialized underground vaults at Incirlik Air Base in southern Turkey, some 20 miles from the Mediterranean coast. These air-dropped bombs are capable of delivering a range of nuclear yields, from 300 tons up to 170 kilotons, or roughly eleven times the yield of the bomb the U.S. dropped on Hiroshima in August 1945. (For a more concrete description of these weapons’ destructive force, watch this.) Turkish F-16 fighters used to be certified to carry and deliver these weapons, but Turkey no longer has the pilots for that task; now, the weapons at Incirlik are there for rotational U.S. aircraft to drop them, if it’s ever necessary.  ……..
officials have been “reviewing plans” to get the bombs out of Incirlik. It should have happened much sooner—say, when a coup threatened to topple Erdoğan’s government in 2016, or in the aftermath, as he drifted from the U.S.’s orbit—but removing a nuclear arsenal from Turkish soil is a necessary step in reducing a global danger. ……. https://newrepublic.com/article/155381/us-nuclear-bombs-still-turkey

October 17, 2019 Posted by | China, weapons and war | Leave a comment