nuclear-news

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

North Korea blasts Japan, claiming that Japan in “nuclear weaponizing”

North Korea alleges ‘nuclear weaponization’ by Japan as Trump-Kim summit draws near, Japan Times, BY JESSE JOHNSON, STAFF WRITER, FEB 25, 2019

In the latest jab at perennial foe Japan, Pyongyang has blasted Tokyo over its alleged “nuclear weaponization” just days ahead of a second summit between North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and U.S. President Donald Trump.

In a commentary published Saturday in the Rodong Sinmun, the official newspaper of the North’s ruling party criticized what it claimed were “voices for the revision of the constitution and increased military spending and nuclear weaponization” from within the administration of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

The commentary said that under Abe, Japan “can go nuclear anytime after giving up ‘three non-nuclear principles.’ ” Consequently, it claimed, “peace in the Asia-Pacific region will be exposed to a great danger.”

Japan, the only country to have endured a nuclear attack, has long maintained that it adheres to its three nonnuclear principles of not possessing, not producing and not permitting the introduction of nuclear weapons. However, the government admitted in 2010 that previous administrations had lied to the public for decades about atomic weapons, after a government-appointed panel confirmed the existence of secret Cold War-era agreements allowing the U.S. to bring them into the country.

The Rodong Sinmun commentary said that if Japan ditches its three nonnuclear principles, there would be “unimaginable” and “catastrophic consequences.”

“All the countries that truly want global peace and security should keep close watch over Japan’s nuclear weaponization.”

Japan has ramped up military spending and the acquisition of sophisticated weapons in recent years, spending around 1 percent of its gross domestic product on the Self-Defense Forces — which, given the size of its economy, makes it one of the world’s biggest military spenders…….  https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/02/25/national/politics-diplomacy/north-korea-alleges-nuclear-weaponization-japan-trump-kim-summit-draws-near/#.XHRA0YkzbGg

February 25, 2019 Posted by | Japan, North Korea, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Danger signs in Trump and co’s continuing push to sell nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia

Why proposals to sell nuclear reactors to Saudi Arabia raise red flags, The Conversation,  Chen Kane,Director, Middle East Nonproliferation Program, Middlebury, February 23, 2019 According to a congressional report, a group that includes former senior U.S. government officials is lobbying to sell nuclear power plants to Saudi Arabia. As an expert focusing on the Middle East and the spread of nuclear weapons, I believe these efforts raise important legal, economic and strategic concerns.

It is understandable that the Trump administration might want to support the U.S. nuclear industry, which is shrinking at home. However, the congressional report raised concerns that the group seeking to make the sale may have have sought to carry it out without going through the process required under U.S. law. Doing so could give Saudi Arabia U.S. nuclear technology without appropriate guarantees that it would not be used for nuclear weapons in the future.

A competitive global market

Exporting nuclear technology is lucrative, and many U.S. policymakers have long believed that it promotes U.S. foreign policy interests. However, the international market is shrinking, and competition between suppliers is stiff.

Private U.S. nuclear companies have trouble competing against state-supported international suppliers in Russia and China. These companies offer complete construction and operation packages with attractive financing options. Russia, for example, is willing to accept spent fuel from the reactor it supplies, relieving host countries of the need to manage nuclear waste. And China can offer lower construction costs.

Saudi Arabia declared in 2011 that it planned to spend over US$80 billion to construct 16 reactors, and U.S. companies want to provide them. Many U.S. officials see the decadeslong relationships involved in a nuclear sale as an opportunity to influence Riyadh’s nuclear future and preserve U.S. influence in the Saudi kingdom.

Why does Saudi Arabia want nuclear power?

With the world’s second-largest known petroleum reserves, abundant untapped supplies of natural gas and high potential for solar energy, why is Saudi Arabia shopping for nuclear power? Some of its motives are benign, but others are worrisome. ………..

US nuclear trade regulations

Under the U.S. Atomic Energy Act, before American companies can compete to export nuclear reactors to Saudi Arabia, Washington and Riyadh must conclude a nuclear cooperation agreement, and the U.S. government must submit it to Congress. Unless Congress adopts a joint resolution within 90 days disapproving the agreement, it is approved. The United States currently has 23 nuclear cooperation agreements in force, including Middle Eastern countries such as Egypt (approved in 1981), Turkey (2008) and the United Arab Emirates (2009).

The Atomic Energy Act requires countries seeking to purchase U.S. nuclear technology to make legally binding commitments that they will not use those materials and equipment for nuclear weapons, and to place them under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. It also mandates that the United States must approve any uranium enrichment or plutonium separation activities involving U.S. technologies and materials, in order to prevent countries from diverting them to weapons use.

American nuclear suppliers claim that these strict conditions and time-consuming legal requirements put them at a competitive disadvantage. But those conditions exist to prevent countries from misusing U.S. technology for nuclear weapons. I find it alarming that according to the House report, White House officials may have attempted to bypass or sidestep these conditions – potentially enriching themselves in the process.

According to the congressional report, within days of President Trump’s inauguration, senior U.S. officials were promoting an initiative to transfer nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia, without either concluding a nuclear cooperation agreement and submitting it to Congress or involving key government agencies, such as the Department of Energy or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. One key advocate for this so-called “Marshall Plan” for nuclear reactors in the Middle East was then-national security adviser Michael Flynn, who reportedly served as an adviser to a subsidiary of IP3, the firm that devised this plan, while he was advising Trump’s presidential campaign.

The promoters of the plan also reportedly proposed to sidestep U.S. sanctions against Russia by partnering with Russian companies – which impose less stringent restrictions on nuclear exports – to sell reactors to Saudi Arabia.

Flynn resigned soon afterward and now is cooperating with the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 campaign. But IP3 access to the White House persists: According to press reports, President Trump met with representatives of U.S. industry, a meeting organized by IP3 to discuss nuclear exports to Saudi Arabia as recently as mid-February 2019……..https://theconversation.com/why-proposals-to-sell-nuclear-reactors-to-saudi-arabia-raise-red-flags-112276

February 25, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, politics, politics international, Saudi Arabia, USA, weapons and war | 1 Comment

India ‘Reluctant’ Nuclear Weapon State, Committed to No-first-use Policy

India ‘Reluctant’ Nuclear Weapon State, Committed to No-first-use Policy, Says Manmohan Singh

The former prime minister referred to today’s nuclear age ‘as an age of asymmetry, asymmetry in terms of doctrines, arsenals and technology’.

News 18 February 24, 2019, New proliferation risks and challenges can lead to “unintended escalations”, increasing the “likelihood” of a nuclear strike, former prime minister Manmohan Singh said on Sunday, asserting that India is a “reluctant” nuclear weapon state.
He was speaking at the book launch of Observer Reserach Foundation’s ‘Nuclear Order in the Twenty First Century’ authored by former diplomat Rakesh Sood.
The existing nuclear global order is coming under strain with some of the old arms control agreements being consigned to history, Singh said. ……
“Many countries are modernising their nuclear arsenals with tactical and low yield weapons, increasing the likelihood of their use. The goal of nuclear disarmament seems to be receding,” Singh said……

The former prime minister referred to today’s nuclear age “as an age of asymmetry, asymmetry in terms of doctrines, arsenals and technology”.

It has to be ensured that the nuclear taboo that has prevented its use since 1945 continues to be preserved, Singh said. https://www.news18.com/news/india/india-reluctant-nuclear-weapon-state-committed-to-no-first-use-policy-says-manmohan-singh-2047101.html

February 25, 2019 Posted by | India, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Donald Trump’s enthusiasm to sell nuclear technology to the reckless Saudi regime

February 23, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, politics international, Saudi Arabia, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Nuclear weapons seen by North Korea as essential to its survival

North Korea sees nuclear weapons as key to its survival, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nukes-not-

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un provides guidance on a nuclear weapons program in this undated photo released by North Korea’s Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) in Pyongyang September 3, 2017. KCNA via REUTERS

alliances-seen-by-north-korea-as-guarantor-of-survival/ BY KATIANA KRAWCHENKO FEBRUARY 22, 2019   CBS NEWSNorth Korean leader Kim Jong Un sees nuclear weapons, not alliances, as the “ultimate guarantor” of survival, according to former top CIA analyst Jung Pak, who joined CBS News chief Washington correspondent Major Garrett for lunch on this week’s episode of “The Takeout.”That, she told Garrett, complicates the question of what “denuclearization” ultimately means, particularly ahead of President Trump’s summit with Kim beginning next Wednesday.

“The first summit produced very little in terms of how we were going to move toward North Korea denuclearization,” Pak said, adding that Kim has been “developing all of the ingredients for this recipe of mating the nuclear weapon on top of the ballistic missile that is shown to be able to fly across the world, to hit virtually any spot, frankly.”

Kim has been intent on showing us his capabilities, and he’s also been pretty clear about his intentions. He’s not going to unilaterally disarm, he said — unless the U.S., and frankly, the world give up its nuclear weapons.”

Trump administration officials say they do not know if North Korea has made the choice yet to denuclearize, but they’re engaged in these talks because they believe in the possibility.

President Trump himself has asserted that if North Korea does achieve verifiable “denuclearization,” which he simultaneously said he is now in “no rush” to achieve, the country could become a “tremendous economic power” due to their “unbelievable location” tucked in next to Russia, China and South Korea.

Pak believes “there is something to be said” for that point. But the North also sees its location as a real vulnerability, she told Garrett.

“They’re surrounded by the second, third and eleventh largest economies, and the only thing that sets them apart, and the only thing that makes them relevant is nuclear weapons.”

February 23, 2019 Posted by | North Korea, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Global nuclear arms race – triggered by Trump’s withdrawal from nuclear weapons treaty

Trump Accidentally Just Triggered Global Nuclear Proliferation

CIS:E.1512-2004

Before the United States killed it, the INF Treaty didn’t just stem the arms race with Russia—it stopped the spread of nuclear weapons around the world.

FOREIGN POLICY.COM BY SARAH BIDGOOD, FEBRUARY 21, 2019 O n Feb. 1, the Trump administration made good on its threats and began the official withdrawal process from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty between the United States and Russia. As others have pointed out, this was a short-sighted decision. By withdrawing from the INF Treaty, the Trump administration has eliminated any consequences of Moscow’s alleged noncompliance, leaving it free to deploy as many intermediate-range missiles as it wants. U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to throw out the rulebook instead of trying to enforce it greases the wheels for a return to U.S.-Russian nuclear arms racing—with potentially dire consequences for international security.

But there is another outcome of the end of INF Treaty that is less examined and no less dangerous: It will undermine global efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to countries that don’t yet have them. As an instrument of arms control, the INF Treaty has done much more than limit the capabilities of the individual parties involved. For over 30 years, it has quietly been a central part of the international nonproliferation regime, too. This collection of treaties, informal agreements, and institutions that keep the spread of nuclear weapons in check is often cast in architectural terms: an edifice held up by pillars built on a weathered but enduring foundation. In reality, the nonproliferation regime is a complex and deeply intertwined network that more resembles a spiderweb: stronger than the sum of its parts but likely to unravel if individual threads start to break.

Perhaps the most important thread in this tapestry is the long-running tradition of close cooperation between Washington and Moscow on nuclear issues. The INF Treaty itself is a product of their joint efforts, as are the 1968 Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (commonly known as the NPT), the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, among others. U.S.-Soviet partnership on nonproliferation remained sacrosanct even during the worst moments of the Cold War, in part thanks to regular interaction between Russian and American officials across a host of treaties and other frameworks. As the historical record shows, just talking to one another, almost regardless of outcome, built up trust and personal rapport that kept cooperation going when times got tough.

From this vantage, the INF Treaty’s demise is not just symptomatic of the deep crisis between the two nuclear powers—it is also a contributor to it.Its collapse means the elimination of an official channel for Russian and American interaction at a moment when there are precious few other options. The Special Verification Commission, the pact’s dispute resolution mechanism, convened 30 meetingsthrough the early 2000s but was sorely underutilized in recent years. It would have been the natural setting to address noncompliance allegations—and could have helped to get relations back on track—but this opportunity came off the table when the treaty was scrapped.

The importance of U.S.-Russian relations to nonproliferation means that the end of the INF Treaty will affect other areas of the regime, too. As many experts have observed, New START—now the last bastion of bilateral arms control—is probably the most susceptible to contagion. Set to expire in just two years, this 2010 agreement can be extended for up to five years if both parties agree. Emboldened by its withdrawal from the INF Treaty, however, the Trump administration might pass over this silver bullet for the freedom to pursue maximum flexibility in its military options……… https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/02/21/trump-accidentally-just-triggered-global-nuclear-proliferation/

February 23, 2019 Posted by | politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Ending The U.S. Doctrine of Perpetual War

Mutually Agreed Peace: Ending The U.S. Doctrine of Perpetual War By Ethan Indigo Smith, Contributing Writer for Wake Up World, 22 Feb 19, “Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you.” ~ Pericles.

Everything is ultimately political these days, but everything is firstly biological. Yet, ignoring our biology and our humanity, the military-industrial complex, with all its toxic modalities, still claims to operate in our best interests.

The fact is, modern politics has become the imposition of institutional formality where individuals and truth once were. Increasingly favoring institutional privilege over individual rights, politicians on all sides of the game act to reinforce and advance the standing of corporations at the expense of our physical world. They embark on resource wars for profit, destroy our environment for energy, construe zealotry as patriotism, and steer a culture of social competition – not cooperation – all the while hiding behind veils of secrecy and meaningless rhetoric. …..

The Nuclear Energy and Armament Experiments

One of the largest tentacles of the military-industrial complex is the nuclear experimentation facet of their operations. These operations include both energy and armament — programs which are inextricably linked, as I will demonstrate – with negative impacts on all life on earth and, and when disaster strikes, capable of negating life altogether.

Maintaining a deafening silence over the ongoing Fukushima disaster, for example, the world’s political heads show zero regard for our biological wellbeing (much less our social wellbeing) in both the formulation and the execution of policy. Instead of shutting down the deadly reactors at Fukushima, the world’s powers simply shut down any information about the situation.

For example, the Japanese government passed a law through Parliament, called the “States Secret Act” following the 2011 Fukushima meltdown. Under this act, both officials and private citizens who leak “special state secrets” (ie. details of the disaster) face prison terms of up to 10 years, while journalists who publish classified information (ie. all relevant information) face up to five years.[1] Meanwhile, in 2011 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s response to increases in detected radiation levels within the United States was to reduce the use of radiation monitoring while at the same time, raising the official allowable levels of radiation in food, water and soil. [2] Of course, this was not reported by mainstream media.

Nor was the 2014 partial shutdown of the Florida Power & Light’s Turkey Point facility in the Miami area, following a steam leak that resulted from the failure of the archaic facility’s cooling system.[3] While mainstream news completely blocked coverage of this potential meltdown situation, the facility remained in operation not because it managed to rectify the cooling problem, but because the corporation lobbied for special permission to violate allowable water temperature safety thresholds from the previous limit of 100’F limit up to 103’F. [4]

The simple reason for the secrecy and suppression of information is that the nuclear experimentation industry is just that — an experiment. Although it is touted as a ‘clean’ technology, the nuclear industry has no mechanism for disposing of the radioactive waste it generates, and no viable plan for such a mechanism in the future. All it has is a plan to contain the mounting radioactive waste it generates each day and store it for the million years it takes for radioactive waste to break down naturally.

o, whether nor not we accept or reject the philosophies of government, it is an inarguable fact that our biology, and that of our grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren — is at the complete mercy of those individuals who, hiding behind political formality, have their fingers “on the button”. And, for as long as their priorities are clearly shaped by the objectives of the corporate-military-industrial complex, there is very little mercy involved. Instead our collective future and the future of our planet is heavily influenced by corporate profitability and contrived political hemispheres which, with the support of corporate media, teeter between deliberately limited polarities, never really making progress or improvement or exploring possibilities — such as peaceful solutions, or sustainable energy investment — beyond those which may profit those already in power…….

The rise of the military industrial complex changed the whole dynamic of war and peace, and in the process, steered our society from exploring sustainable energy solutions toward the constant danger of nuclear meltdown. Nuclear power generation is inherently risky of itself; both the waste it stores and the pollution it releases pose a largely unseen but no less dangerous threat to our Earth Mother, and to our biology. But it also creates obvious military strike targets for enemy nations which, if detonated, can destroy entire nations in one sweep. Building nuclear power experiments is akin to building a self-destruct button into your nation’s infrastructure; one false move, be it intentional (military) or accidental (like Fukushima), and it destroys the landscape and all who dwell on and around it for an eternity, with no known remedy……..

“I foolishly once believed the myth that nuclear energy is clean and safe. That myth has completely broken down. Restarting nuclear reactors while we still have no place to dispose of nuclear waste is a criminal act toward future generations.” — Morihiro Hosokawa, 79th Prime Minister of Japan

The U.S. Doctrine of Perpetual War

One of the best ways to gain and maintain power is to keep the people in constant fear — in fear of wars, of outsiders, and more recently, of “terrorism”. Maintaining a culture of war-minded fear ensures the public consent to the constant funding of the military-industrial-complex, under the guise of security and protection.

If we look at the history of the Presidents of the United States since the end of the Second World War, we see that each administration invented a presidential Doctrine directly pertaining to war – either inviting involvement in or directly inciting conflict………

the most famously barbarous doctrine was the Bush Doctrine, in which President George W. Bush Jr. essentially declared that the United States was adopting a shoot-first-ask-questions-later policy pertaining to perceived terrorist activities, both in other countries and at home. [19] Advocating the illogical notion of “preventive war”, the Bush Doctrine is based on the faulty reasoning that attacking a potential threat before it attacks the United States is the only way to ensure peace and security, rather than — as history has proven — the most effective way to ensure more wars and security threats…..

The fact is, the United States has been at war for 225 years out of the last 242 years. That’s 93% of the time! Since the Declaration of Independence was written in 1776, the U.S. has actually been at peace (albeit planning for further wars) for a total of only 21 years. [20] Not one U.S. president actually qualifies as a solely peacetime president, and the only time the United States lasted five years without going to war was between 1935 and 1940 — during the period of the Great Depression.

Since U.S. involvement in World War II began in 1940, most of the world’s military operations have been initiated by the U.S., [6] and U.S. military spending today exceeds the rest of the world’s military spending combined. [21]  In addition, the U.S. also supplies in excess of $3 billion each year (over $10 million per day!) in military aid to Israel, funding the continued war in Palestine.[22] ………

Today, the U.S. economy is now so dependent on war, there is no incentive for the U.S. government to strive for peace — it simply isn’t profitable. The U.S. defense industry employs a staggering 3.5 million Americans, while the private companies supporting the military generate in excess of $300 billion in revenue per year. [24]

With the U.S. economy and military operations so intrinsically linked, the American people have over time come to accept its war culture as normal, believing the increasingly ludicrous propaganda that tells us the U.S. is subject to threats from far weaker military nations and that the U.S. is nobly “fighting for peace” — an oxymoron of the highest order. ……….

clearly, the lessons of history and failed Presidential policy have not been learned by those in power in recent years, who claim to have our interests at heart. Barack Obama, for example, despite his (false) doctrine of negotiation and collaboration (“change”) as a contrast to the confrontation and unilateralism of the Bush Jr. era, invested a trillion dollars of U.S. taxpayers’ money into the military industry to develop and build more nuclear weaponry [25] This, despite the fact that the U.S. is already the most heavily armed nuclear nation in the world — something current President Trump, who also campaigned on a platform of “change”, has done nothing to wind back.  ……

The institutions of the United States and Russia may have different perpetrators behind them, they may play different melodies and use different instruments, but in fact they sound very much the same. The collectivism of the oligarchy in the U.S.A. is flavored with corporate tones, whereas in Russia it is dominated by state tones. Different name, same game. In the U.S.A. the divine right of corporations rules and in Russia it’s the godhead of the state the leads the symphony. Either way though, it’s a war song of militant, nationalistic not individual concerns.

In our every deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations.”  ~ Iroquois Maxim

The Indigo Doctrine: Mutually Agreed Peace

We, The People of the World, can supersede institutional war-mongering concerns that belittle individual life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. We have no other choice. If we do not act to mandate Mutually Agreed Peace, we are allowing politicians to shrug their shoulders and say, “it’s politics”, as Earth Mother is ravaged and its inhabitants are systematically annihilated by nuclear, war-driven madness.

………History has shown us that preparing for war doesn’t just lead to more war; it makes war an economic necessity. The only way to ensure peace in our world is to adopt a doctrine of Mutually Agreed Peace in theory and practice; to give peace a budget, give peace a mandate, and give peace all our energy, both politically and personally — and to remove from government, through the power of our will and our numbers, any individual who fails to act on it……. https://wakeup-world.com/2015/08/29/mutually-agreed-peace-ending-the-doctrine-of-perpetual-war/ 

February 23, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

With escalating tensions between India and Pakistan, could India consider a pre-emptive nuclear strike?

February 23, 2019 Posted by | India, politics international, South Korea, weapons and war | Leave a comment

If USA US deploys nuclear weapons in Europe RUSSIA and Belarus will consider a joint military response

‘Things will turn NASTY’ Belarus leader issues warning after collapse of nuclear treaty https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1090969/belarus-news-inf-treaty-world-war-3-russia-v-usa-nato

RUSSIA and Belarus will consider a joint military response if the US deploys weapons in Europe after pulling out of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.

By SIMON OSBORNE, Feb 22, 2019 Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko said he fears “things will turn nasty” should the US decision spark a new arms race at a time of increasing global tensions. The US and Soviet Union signed the INF treaty in 1987 in an historic move that effectively removed nuclear weapons from Europe and signalled the beginning of the end of the Cold War.

But Donald Trump has pulled the US out of the accord after accusing Russia of committing repeated violations and Mr Lukashenko fears the security of Belarus could be compromised as a result.

He said: “It is a catastrophe, particularly for us.

“I am afraid the Americans will grab the fleeting opportunity and deploy the missiles in Europe after breaking the treaty. “If they do, things will turn nasty for us, too. Because together with Russia, we will have to think of reciprocal measures.”

He continued: “It would be unavoidable if this happened. It would be even worse if, God forbid, missiles were deployed in Ukraine.

“This is why I am wholeheartedly against dissolving the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

“We pursue a peace-loving policy. We don’t need scuffles between major powers, from which, judging from history, we’ve always suffered.

“This is why we don’t need this slaughter, this fight, particularly now around the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.”

Mr Lukashenko said he believes NATO is keen to deploy missiles in Europe.

He said: “It seems to me that although NATO claims they are not going to deploy these missiles in Europe, they are running a bluff.

“Otherwise, why would they withdraw? Why did they have to destroy this treaty?

“They should have come to terms with China and make it part of the treaty if China was the focus of it.”

February 23, 2019 Posted by | Belarus, politics international, Russia, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Utah Senate gives preliminary approval to bill that could usher in millions of tons of depleted uranium

Radioactive waste bill gets preliminary approval in Utah Senate, Deseret News, By Amy Joi O’Donoghue@amyjoi16, February 20, 2019 SALT LAKE CITY — EnergySolutions is seeking assurances from Utah lawmakers that if it meets disposal requirements and the approval of regulators, it can bury depleted uranium at its Tooele County facility.

That is how Sen. Scott Sandall, R-Tremonton, explained the genesis of HB220, which received a 23-6 vote on its second reading Wednesday in the Utah Senate.

Sandall said the bill, in its fourth version, does not guarantee acceptance of the waste or site suitability but rather ensures that if the company continues to spend money on a site-specific analysis that its investment will not be in vain.

Critics say not only will the measure, if passed into law, give a potential green light on millions of tons of depleted uranium coming to Utah, it opens the door for acceptance of even “hotter’ waste……..

The bill needs another vote in the Senate, House approval and the governor’s signature before it becomes law. https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900056657/radioactive-waste-bill-gets-preliminary-approval-in-utah-senate.html

February 23, 2019 Posted by | depleted uranium, USA, wastes | Leave a comment

The need to put a stop to plan for plutonium weapon pits at Savannah River Site

No plutonium pit at SRS,   https://www.augustachronicle.com/opinion/20190220/letter-no-plutonium-pit-at-srs By Cassandra Fralix, Lexington, S.C. With the demise of the MOX fuel plant, good riddance, since there wasn’t a buyer for this dangerous material. There is only one option for the more radioactive plutonium waste, and that is long-term storage.

Long-term for Pu-239 is a half-life of 24,100 years. No one can predict what the state of the country will be in five years, much less 24,000, so who will monitor this dangerous material?

The horrible legacy of plutonium waste is one we are living with because of the development of nuclear weapons and nuclear power. Now, we have the Department of Energy’s plan to use Savannah River Site’s plutonium for nuclear weapons purposes. Plutonium, being radioactive and “pyrophoric,” is very difficult to handle, as the workers at SRS can testify to, and Savannah River Site, a Superfund site, continues a never-ending cleanup.

To return Savannah River Site to a weapons manufacturer is a testament to man’s lack of concern for God’s creation – human and environmental. We have seen the warnings from the increase of cancer rates at Rocky Flats, Colo., a plutonium pit producer – available in the Final Summary Report on the Historical Public Exposures Studies on Rocky Flats – to Fukushima, Japan, where the focus now is on the plutonium plant, so much more toxic than that of most other elements used in nuclear processing.

We must put people over profits and stop this maniacal race to our destruction. Say no to plutonium pit production at SRS!

February 23, 2019 Posted by | - plutonium, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Closing down Yongbyon nuclear facility to be up for discussion at US-North Korea summit

Closing nuclear facility on table as US-NKorea summit nears, BY ERIC TALMADGE News and Observer, ASSOCIATED PRESS, FEBRUARY 22, 2019 TOKYO 

The future of a key North Korean nuclear facility is on the table as leader Kim Jong Un and President Donald Trump prepare to meet in Vietnam next week.

The Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center, the heart of the North’s nuclear development and research, is Kim’s biggest carrot as he tries to win security guarantees and free his country from the U.S.-backed trade sanctions that are hobbling its economy.

The North Korean leader has suggested he’s ready to talk about closing the facility, capping the amount of fissile material it produces or possibly allowing international inspections. Trump, meanwhile, says he is going into the summit in no hurry to push the North to denuclearize, as long as Kim isn’t conducting nuclear or missile tests.

But time may be of the essence.

As talks drag on, North Korea is believed to have produced enough weapons-grade nuclear fuel to make an estimated half a dozen or so more bombs in 2018 alone.

Here’s the latest on what’s going on at Yongbyon and why it’s so important:

HEDGED BETS

The North has taken steps to disable or dismantle some nuclear and missile facilities since the first Trump-Kim summit last June in Singapore but it has also been hedging its bets.

Using open-source satellite imagery of the Yongbyon complex, a team of experts led by Siegfried Hecker, a former director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory who has visited the Yongbyon facility several times, estimate the North made enough weapons-grade material to boost its stockpile from an estimated 30 nuclear weapons at the end of 2017 to 35-37 by the end of last year.

“North Korea unsurprisingly continued to operate and, in some cases, expand the nuclear weapons complex infrastructure,” they wrote in a report published this month by the Stanford Center for International Security and Cooperation.

The authors note that Kim isn’t violating any agreements with Trump or shocking any military strategists by building up the North’s stockpile — that’s to be expected in an arms negotiation process. But the stepped up activity underscores how important it is for Washington to push for a deal on Yongbyon……..https://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/article226619924.html

February 23, 2019 Posted by | North Korea, politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Global weapons trade, war profiteers, booming, in the era of Donald Trump

February 21, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

North Korea has no intention of giving up its nuclear weapons, says former diplomat

North Korea won’t give up nuclear weapons, former diplomat says, Thomas Maresca,   USA TODAY Feb. 19, 2019 SEOUL – North Korea has no intention of giving up its nuclear weapons, a former North Korean diplomat warned ahead of next week’s summit between President Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un.

“No money in the world will convince North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons,” said Thae Yong Ho, Pyongyang’s former deputy ambassador to the United Kingdom, at a news briefing here Tuesday.

Thae fled his post in 2016 and is the highest-ranking North Korean diplomat to defect to South Korea.

The former diplomat said North Korea has been following a long-term strategy to pressure the United States to offer a peace agreement and begin lifting sanctions while not requiring that Pyongyang fully denuclearize.

He said Kim has followed the path of Pakistan, a de facto nuclear state which argued the military threat posed by nuclear-armed India justified the need for its own weapons.

“North Korea’s policy was to escalate the crisis of war to justify its nuclear weapons,” Thae said.

He said that Trump unwittingly played into the hands of Kim, by threatening to “totally destroy” North Korea at a 2017 speech to the U.N. General Assembly speech.

Raising the real possibility of war was “a real strategic mistake,” Thae said, claiming there was never a genuine threat of conflict between the U.S. and North Korea. “I believe, unfortunately President Trump fell into this trap.”…….https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/02/19/north-korea-wont-give-up-nuclear-weapons-ahead-trump-kim-summit/2913031002/

February 21, 2019 Posted by | North Korea, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Russia ups the ante against USA, but won’t make the first move to deploy missiles

Putin Ratchets Up Nuclear Warning Against U.S.  Russia isn’t seeking confrontation with the U.S. and wouldn’t make the first move to deploy missiles, WSJ, By Ann M. SimmonsFeb. 20, 2019  MOSCOW—President Vladimir Putin warned Russia would aim new advanced weapons against the U.S. should it deploy intermediate-range missiles in Europe, raising the stakes after the breakdown of a Cold War-era nuclear treaty.

Mr. Putin said Russia wasn’t seeking confrontation with the U.S. and wouldn’t make the first move to deploy the missiles. But if Washington has such plans once it abandons the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, this “will be a serious threat to us” and Russia will be “forced to provide for mirror…https://www.wsj.com/articles/putin-ratchets-up-nuclear-warning-against-u-s-11550668465

February 21, 2019 Posted by | Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »