|
Four Japan firms used foreign trainees to clean up at Fukushima plant after nuclear meltdowns: final report, Japan Times, BY SARAH SUK, STAFF WRITER, 19 Oct 18 The government concluded Friday that four companies had used foreign trainees to perform work cleaning up radioactive contamination after the March 2011 tsunami triggered meltdowns at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant.The headline figure from the final report on a survey conducted by the Justice Ministry, the labor ministry and the Organization for Technical Intern Training was the same as that in the interim report, released in mid-July, which reflected results of surveying fewer than 200 companies with foreign trainee programs.
Officials visited a total of 1,018 such companies with facilities in eight prefectures in eastern and northeastern Japan, interviewing technical interns there to confirm the situation, after the issue came to light in March.
Of the four companies, one in Iwate Prefecture has been banned from accepting foreign trainees for five years. It was found to have neglected to pay allowances for decontamination work, amounting to a combined ¥1.5 million, to three trainees.
The government has issued a similar ban for three years to a firm in Fukushima Prefecture for not paying a total of ¥180,000 to three interns for overtime work.
A company in Fukushima and another in Chiba Prefecture received warnings because foreign trainees there engaged in decontamination work, albeit for short periods of time. The names of the four companies were not revealed……https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/10/19/national/four-japan-firms-used-foreign-trainees-clean-fukushima-plant-nuclear-meltdowns-final-report/#.W8qY8mgzbIU
|
|
October 20, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
employment, Japan |
Leave a comment
|
Newsweek 17th Oct 2018, It is more likely than in the past that China and the U.S. could enter into
a military conflict, and the possibility of such a battle going nuclear is
higher than many analysts believe, a security expert from Georgetown
University has warned.
Caitlin Talmadge, who is an associate professor of
security studies at the Walsh School of Foreign Service, laid out a grim
picture of how military escalation could play out between Washington and
Beijing in an article for Foreign Affairs’ November-December issue.
|
|
October 20, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
China, politics international, USA, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
https://www.independent.ie/world-news/asia-pacific/japan-will-flush-unsafe-water-from-fukushima-nuclear-plant-into-sea-37429128.html, Julian Ryall, October 17 2018 Water the Japanese government is planning to release into the Pacific Ocean from the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant contains radioactive material well above legally permitted levels, according to the plant’s operator.
The government is running out of space to store contaminated water that has come into contact with fuel that escaped from three nuclear reactors after the plant was destroyed in the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami that struck north-east Japan.
Its plan to release the approximately 1.09m tons of water stored in 900 tanks into the Pacific has triggered a fierce backlash from local residents and environmental organisations, as well as groups in South Korea and Taiwan fearful that radioactivity from the second-worst nuclear disaster in history might wash up on their shores.
Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco), which runs the plant, has until recently claimed the only significant contaminant in the water is safe levels of tritium, which can be found in small amounts in drinking water, but is dangerous in large amounts.
The government has promised that all other radioactive material is being reduced to “non-detect” levels by the sophisticated advanced liquid processing system (ALPS) operated by Hitachi Ltd.
Documents provided to ‘The Daily Telegraph’ by a source in the Japanese government suggest, however, that the ALPS has consistently failed to eliminate a cocktail of other radioactive elements, including iodine, ruthenium, rhodium, antimony, tellurium, cobalt and strontium.
Hitachi declined to comment on the reports on the performance of its equipment. The Japanese government did not reply to multiple requests for comment.
A restricted document also passed to ‘The Telegraph’ from the Japanese government arm responsible for responding to the Fukushima collapse indicates that the authorities were aware that the ALPS facility was not eliminating radionuclides to “non-detect” levels.
That adds to reports of a study by the regional ‘Kahoko Shinpo’ newspaper which said confirmed that levels of iodine 129 and ruthenium 106 exceeded acceptable levels in 45 samples out of 84 in 2017.
Iodine 129 has a half-life of 15.7 million years and can cause cancer of the thyroid; ruthenium 106 is produced by nuclear fission and high doses can be toxic and carcinogenic when ingested.
In late September, Tepco was forced to admit that around 80pc of the water stored at Fukushima still contains radioactive substances above legal levels after the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry held public hearings in Tokyo and Fukushima at which local residents and fishermen protested against the plans.
Tepco has now admitted that levels of strontium 90, for example, are more than 100 times above legally permitted levels in 65,000 tons of water that has been through the ALPS cleansing system and are 20,000 times above levels set by the government in several storage tanks at the site.
Dr Ken Buesseler, a marine chemistry scientist with the US Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, said it was vital to confirm precisely what radionuclides are present in each of the tanks and their amounts.
“Until we know what is in each tank for the different radionuclides, it is hard to evaluate any plan for the release of the water and expected impacts on the ocean”, he told the ‘Telegraph’.
Experts agree the danger posed by any release depends on the concentrations of radionuclides and subsequent contamination of fishery products.
The presence of strontium in the bones of small fish that might be consumed by humans could be a major concern. If ingested by humans, strontium 90 builds up in teeth and bones and can cause bone cancer or leukaemia.
October 18, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Fukushima continuing |
2 Comments
Shikoku outlines plans for decommissioning Ikata 2, WNN, 17 October 2018
A decommissioning plan for unit 2 of the Ikata nuclear power plant in Japan’s Ehime prefecture has been submitted to the country’s nuclear regulator by plant owner Shikoku Electric Power Company………
According to the plan, decommissioning of Ikata 2 will take about 40 years and will be carried out in four stages. The first stage, lasting about ten years, will involve preparing the reactor for dismantling (including the removal of all fuel and surveying radioactive contamination), while the second, lasting 15 years, will be to dismantle peripheral equipment from the reactor and other major equipment. The third stage, taking about eight years, will involve the demolition of the reactor itself, while the fourth stage, taking about seven years, will see the demolition of all remaining buildings and the release of land for other uses.
During the first stage, all fuel is to be removed from the unit. This includes 316 used fuel assemblies that will be sent for reprocessing and 102 fresh fuel assemblies that will be returned to the fuel fabricator.
Ikata 2 became the ninth operable Japanese reactor to be declared for decommissioning since the Fukushima Daiichi accident.
In mid-March 2015, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry’s Agency for Natural Resources and Energy revised the accounting provisions in the Electricity Business Act, whereby electric power companies can now calculate decommissioning costs in instalments of up to ten years, instead of one-time as previously. This enhanced cost recovery provision was to encourage the decommissioning of older and smaller units.
Shikoku decided in March 2016 to decommission unit 1 of the Ikata plant, also a 538 MWe PWR, which began commercial operation in September 1977. That unit had been taken offline in September 2011 for periodic inspections. Upgrades costing more than JPY170 billion (USD1.5 billion) would have been needed at the unit in order for it to operate beyond 40 years.
The NRA approved Shikoku’s decommissioning plan for Ikata 1 in June 2017. That plan also sees the unit being decommissioned in four stages over a 40-year period.
Unit 3 at the Ikata plant was given approval by the NRA to resume operation in April 2016, having been idle since being taken offline for a periodic inspection in April 2011. Shikoku declared the 846 MWe pressurised water reactor back in commercial operation on 7 September 2016. However, in December 2017, a Japanese high court ordered the suspension of the unit’s operation. The injunction was effective until the end of last month. The Hiroshima High Court in late September accepted Shikoku’s appeal and cancelled the injunction, allowing the utility to begin the process of restarting the reactor. http://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Shikoku-outlines-plans-for-decommissioning-Ikata-2
October 18, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
decommission reactor, Japan |
Leave a comment
The status of “Station Blackout” is a serious one.
“it will be many years before the Japanese people know exactly what happened at Fukushima Daiichi on 11 March 2011. One of the key mysteries was role, if any, the magnitude 9 earthquake played in damaging the plant’s reactor cooling systems. Until lethal levels of radiation inside the reactors fall and workers can carry out comprehensive investigations, the truth about the tremor’s impact will remain a subject of conjecture and contention”
Mr. Takamatsu states with expert authority that the pipes of cooling system ware not designed for the 50 second vibration of the magnitude quake. Barry Brook, kangaroo expert, disagrees and tells the world the quake caused no damage at Fukushima. Yet Mr. Brook must surely know the earthquake caused grid blackout. For reactors are all shut down by earthquakes. A solar plant would have kept generating until the last panel shattered. No one would have been evacuated from such a solar plant.
I submit that Prof. Barry Brook’s description of the effects of earthquake upon the Fukushima Diiachi on 11 March 2011 is totally ignorant of the facts as presented by many qualified experts and fly in the face of the independent commission set up by the Japanese Parliament (Diet). It is confirmed that expert investigators concern aspects of TEPCO’s explanations regarding the quake are “irrational”.
Thus any narrative based upon the nuclear industry view, in line with TEPCO’s may fairly be said to be “irrational”. For the industry view is that there is no possibility of quake damage to any structure or sub structure, such as coolant pipes and valves.
Earthquake Damage At Fukushima – is Industry’s Narrative Truthful or Certain? Nuclear History, 16 Oct 18 I am again going to contrast the statements made by Barry Brook in regard to the events and outcomes at Fukushima Daiichi in 2011 with the facts as presented by Mark Willacy. These facts are published in Willacy’s book, “Fukushima – Japan’s tsunami and the inside story of the nuclear meltdowns”, Willacy, M., Pan Macmillan, copyright 2013, Mark Willacy.
However, I will also include information related to the events which were first published and discussed in 2011. ………..
The earthquake generated the tsunami. What else did the earthquake cause?
In this blog I have included posts which give the IAEA considerations for the electrical grids which are connected to nuclear power plants. The IAEA states that the level of engineering and resilience built into such grids may be a significant additional cost for any nation considering generation to nuclear power.
It comes as no surprise then the electrical grid connected to the Fukushima Daiichi NPP failed for two reasons. 1. The earthquake caused all the nuclear reactors connected to the same grid to rapidly shut down. Thus the earthquake caused a blackout due to cessation of electrical generation. 2. The physical grid infrastructure – poles and wires – were damaged by the earthquake. At Fukushima this meant that more than one of the reactors was physically separated from the grid by the earthquake.
It can therefore be seen that the earthquake meant A. Fukushima Diiachi could not generate nuclear electricity as the quake had shut the reactors down. B. The Fukushima Diiachi Nuclear Power Plant was in Station Blackout for one reason: earth quake damage to nuclear infrastructure – the electrical grid. Continue reading →
October 16, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Fukushima continuing, Reference, safety, secrets,lies and civil liberties, spinbuster |
Leave a comment
|
North Korea leader sincere, must be rewarded for move to abandon nuclear weapons: South Korean president, 15 Oct 18, PARIS (Reuters) – North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is sincere and really means to abandon nuclear weapons, South Korean President Moon Jae-in told a French newspaper, adding that the international community needed to reward him for that.
……..“This year I have discussed in depth with Kim for hours. These meetings have convinced me that he has taken the strategic decision to abandon his nuclear weapon,” Moon told Le Figaro in an interview before a state visit to Paris. Moon is to meet President Emmanuel Macron on Monday.
……Moon said he hoped another Trump-Kim summit would allow the two leaders to go further than the statements they made at their first meeting in Singapore.
“Declaring an end to the Korea war would be a start to establishing a regime of peace,” he said, also calling for the United States to take “reliable corresponding measures to guarantee the security of the regime”.
“We could also in the future discuss the easing of sanctions, in accordance with progress on denuclearization,” he added. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-southkorea-northkorea/north-korea-leader-sincere-must-be-rewarded-for-move-to-abandon-nuclear-weapons-south-korean-president-idUSKCN1MO0SG?il=0 |
|
October 15, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
North Korea, politics, South Korea |
Leave a comment
Trump’s Latest China Salvo Could Hurt U.S. Nuke Industry, Administration says Beijing is diverting U.S. nuclear technology for military use. BY KEITH JOHNSON, FP.COM OCTOBER 12, 2018, The Trump administration is increasing its economic pressure on China by restricting U.S. nuclear power exports, a move that could end up hurting an American industry desperate to compete in the world’s fastest-growing market for nuclear energy.
Senior administration officials say Beijing is stealing U.S. nuclear technology to gain a competitive edge and is also diverting U.S. nuclear technology toward military uses, such as propulsion systems for submarines and aircraft carriers. In response, after almost a year of review, the administration decided Thursday to restrict the export of some U.S. nuclear technology and components to China.
“The United States cannot ignore the national security implications of China’s efforts to obtain nuclear technology outside of established processes of U.S.-China civil nuclear cooperation,” U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry said in a statement.
The restrictions essentially prohibit any new technology transfers, as well as the export of advanced reactor technologies, including small, modular reactors that are seen by many as the industry’s future. Additionally, the U.S. government is essentially banning any and all U.S. exports to China General Nuclear Power Group, one of the country’s two big nuclear energy developers. China General Nuclear was indicted in 2016 for organizing an espionage campaign to acquire U.S. nuclear know-how.
But the new restrictions won’t apparently affect some of the highest-profile U.S. projects in China, such as the construction of new nuclear power plants using the state-of-the-art Westinghouse AP1000 reactor. Chinese utilities are currently building four Westinghouse reactors at two locations; the first just became operational.
For the U.S. nuclear power industry, further restrictions on its ability to compete overseas come as a blow. For a year, export licenses to China have been held up by the government’s review, and nuclear industry advocates have repeatedly warned U.S. officials of the economic harms of being locked out of the world’s one real growth market, potentially worth tens of billions of dollars in future sales……..https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/10/12/trumps-latest-china-salvo-could-hurt-u-s-nuke-industry/
October 15, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, China, politics international, USA |
Leave a comment
Prof. Brook is probably, in my opinion, clearly very inadequate when he researches things such as nuclear industry. He claims academic privilege when he communicates his mere opinions related to a field he possesses no training or little training or qualifications in. He can’t have it both ways. The privilege which springs from his actual qualifications may give him status in other things on campus. Away from the lecture theatre though, his opinions of the nature of nuclear industry have zero academic weight….“I’m an academic and therefore I am right” does not wash with me
2003 saw Prof. Shimazaki speak at the first meeting of the government’s Disaster Management Council. This council formed government disaster policy. He urged the council to study the Jogan earthquake of 869 and warned the Japanese Trench could generate earthquakes anywhere along Japan’s Pacific coast.
since 2008 TEPCO management had been busy suppressing THE SAME CONCLUSION of grave risk of 15 metre tsunamis hitting the Fukushima coast, made by TEPCO’s own engineers using simulations and mathematics.
Expert fore warning of the 2011 Tsunami Ignored and Suppressed by Nuclear Authorities.Nuclear Exhaust 12 Oct 18
this post is in progress. Not finished.
I am again going to contrast the statements made by Barry Brook in regard to the tsunami defences at Fukushima Daiichi with the facts as presented by Mark Willacy. These facts are published in Willacy’s book, “Fukushima – Japan’s tsunami and the inside story of the nuclear meltdowns”, Willacy, M., Pan Macmillan, copyright 2013, Mark Willacy.
An interesting aspect of the work of Barry Brook is this: The views expressed by Barry are very frequently attributed by Barry to people who are, according to Barry, experts in nuclear industry. I have heard Barry’s public broadcasts in which Barry makes this attribution. I have not heard Barry give the names of his advisors and friends in the nuclear industry. However it is extremely likely Barry is correct in his attributions. Barry’s statements of opinions and claimed facts can reasonably be assumed to have been provided to Barry by unnamed – as far as I am aware – experts in the nuclear industry. The credibility of Barry statements ride therefore upon the credibility of the nuclear industry.
Of course it is no surprise to hear Barry Brook mirror the statements of nuclear experts from around the world in 2011. The narrative of the global nuclear industry as broadcast by the mass media and the narrative provided by Barry Brook were, as I recall, mutually re-affirming.
Here again is a selected, partial transcript of Barry Brook’s Australian ABC TV interview (please watch the complete interview at the youtube link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFs_-8DtZvo
“Prof. Brook: “I think they (events) show the vulnerability of any human infrastructure to the forces of nature. Especially when they are unleashed with such fury as they were with that massive earthquake, the largest one to hit Japan in recorded times, and a 10 metre tsunami. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect any infrastructure along a coastline like that to survive an event like that. But what it does highlight is that decisions were made back in the ‘60s, when that nuclear power plant was planned and built, they did not anticipate the scale of the natural disaster that occurred here.”
Prof. Brook: “They predicted up to a 6.5 metres tsunami and protected against that. But of course, as events turned out, the tsunami was even bigger than that………
In a previous post I pointed out that Willacy had found that Dr.Yukinobu Okamura, the director of Japan’s Active Fault and Earthquake Research Centre, had, in 2007, found evidence in the geologic record that the Fukushima coast had been hit by massive tsunamis in its past. (Fukushima, page 26) Continue reading →
October 15, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Japan, spinbuster |
Leave a comment
Nuclear power continues its decline as renewable alternatives steam ahead, World Finance, Author: Courtney Goldsmith, October 15, 2018“…………
China’s waning nuclear interest
By a wide margin, China is currently the global leader in the construction of new nuclear plants. In fact, for three years in a row, global electricity generation from nuclear power would have decreased if China were removed from the picture. By 2030, the IEA expects the country to overtake the US as the world’s top generator of nuclear power.
Of the 10 reactors that started up globally in 2016, half were located in China. Meanwhile, nearly 40 percent of the total reactors currently in construction are Chinese. However, China has not launched a new construction of a commercial reactor since December 2016.
The country had planned for 58GW of total nuclear capacity to be in place by 2020, but having failed to get 30GW of new plants under construction by 2018, China’s lead in the field of nuclear power may be slipping.
What’s more, even in this hub of nuclear activity, renewable generation is moving even faster. As of July 2017, China had 37 operating nuclear reactors with a total net capacity of around 32GW. In 2017, however, the country added a whopping 53GW of solar power.
“To illustrate the speed with which things change, and [which] the invading species is taking over, if you only go back five years in 2012, Germany was the world record holder in the addition of [solar PV] with 7.5GW,” Schneider said. “Now it’s China with [53GW] five years later. The speed is just unbelievable.”
The return of small reactors
One often-cited glimmer of hope for the nuclear industry is in small modular reactors (SMRs). These shrunken-down nuclear reactors generate electrical output of between 50MW and 300MW on average, compared with the generation of 1,000MW or more from a conventional reactor, but it is unlikely they will be commercially available before 2030.
Proponents say SMRs will be cheaper and safer than conventional nuclear plants, and will be capable of competing with solar and wind power. Desbazeille said SMRs were a “game changer” that could put Europe back at the forefront of nuclear technology…….
But while SMRs are purported to be the key to transforming the nuclear sector, history has painted a troubling picture: SMR designs have been in the works for decades, but none have reached commercial success. In fact, Westinghouse worked on an SMR design for about a decade, but the project was abandoned in 2014. At the time, then-CEO Danny Roderick said: “The problem I have with SMRs is not the technology, it’s not the deployment – it’s that there’s no customers.”
A number of companies continue to work on new designs, however. US firm NuScale Power plans to develop an SMR to re-establish the country’s leadership in nuclear technology. The design is currently under review for approval by US regulators. While NuScale is seen as one of the firms closest to commercialisation, it may be too late by the time the arduous process of securing approvals is completed.
Therefore, by the time SMRs are ready for mass deployment, the energy debate may already be over. “Look at what happened over the past five years,” Schneider said. “But can you imagine what will happen in the next 10 years? This is going to be a completely different world.”…
Although SMRs have been talked about for decades, the progress made so far has been tiny. New technologies in the nuclear sector take a huge amount of time to develop – just look at the struggle to build EPRs in Europe. Plus, opting for a small design cuts out the economies of scale, or the cost advantages that come about due to increasing the size of a project. This is something nuclear projects often rely on.
A report by researchers at Harvard University, Carnegie Mellon University and the University of California, San Diego concluded that in the absence of a “dramatic change in the [US] policy environment”, a convincing case for a domestic market for SMRs is difficult to make.
Much of the nuclear debate is powered by opinions and estimates, but looking at the hard data, it’s strikingly clear that the industry is in a slow and inevitable decline. China’s plans to become a nuclear powerhouse have been overshadowed by its huge investments in renewable energy – in fact, the number of new construction starts (see Fig 2) has fallen around the world as stubbornly high costs and complex designs make new nuclear a hard sell.
Even in spite of nuclear power’s role in reducing carbon emissions, the potential safety issues and environmental impact of a meltdown are too big to ignore. With the cost of renewable and battery technologies expected to continue falling, wind and solar power appear to be the next golden opportunity. https://www.worldfinance.com/markets/nuclear-power-continues-its-decline-as-renewable-alternatives-steam-ahead
October 15, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, China, politics |
1 Comment
US curbs China nuclear exports as Trump warns that Americans are not ‘stupid’
US ‘cannot ignore national security implications’ of supplying China with nuclear technology any longer, Energy Secretary Rick Perry said, SCMP, 12 October, 2018, The United States said Thursday that it will increasingly restrict civilian nuclear exports to China as President Donald Trump vowed a hard line on trade, bluntly warning not to think Americans are “stupid”……..
Energy Secretary Rick Perry said that there were “national security implications” to continuing the trade, but an insider said that the government is concerned by Beijing’s strategy “to acquire nuclear technology to gain economic advantage”………
The Energy Department said it would not end exports to China but would show greater scrutiny and that there “will be a presumption of denial” for new licences related to the state-owned China General Nuclear Power Corp.
The company was indicted last year along with a naturalised US citizen on charges of conspiring to develop sensitive nuclear material with US know-how without going through the required approval process……
October 13, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
China, politics international, USA |
Leave a comment
Campaign begins for Fukushima governor race with reconstruction in focus, Oct. 12 FUKUSHIMA
Official campaigning started Thursday for the gubernatorial election in Fukushima Prefecture, with the incumbent governor’s policies on reconstruction work following the 2011 earthquake and nuclear disaster seen as a main issue.
In the governor election which will be held on Oct 28, incumbent Masao Uchibori, 54, is challenged by three candidates — Jun Kanayama, a 78-year-old self-employed worker, Sho Takahashi, a 30-year-old IT company owner, and Kazushi Machida, a 42-year-old prefectural chairman of the Japanese Communist Party.
Although all of the four candidates are running as independents, Uchibori, currently in his first term, gets support from the ruling and opposition parties except for the communist party.
The eastern Japan prefecture is still on the road to recovery from the nuclear meltdown at Fukushima Daiichi power plant, which was crippled by the earthquake-tsunami on March 11, 2011.
“Taking the important missions of the prefecture’s reconstruction and revitalization into consideration, I’ll challenge,” said Uchibori in Fukushima city after filing his candidacy.
Kanayama said he seeks a prefectural administration which “children can be proud of,” while Takahashi appealed for assistance for start-up businesses. Machida called for the complete abolition of all nuclear power plants in Japan.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/10/11/national/politics-diplomacy/campaigning-fukushima-gubernatorial-race-kicks-off-reconstruction-focus/
October 13, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Japan, politics |
Leave a comment
People in Japan criticize US nuclear test https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20181010_40/ People in Japan have criticized the US government for conducting a subcritical nuclear test last December.
A 39-year-old man expressed regret over the test during a visit with his baby to the Peace Memorial Park in the city of Hiroshima, which was hit by a US atomic bombing in 1945.
He said it’s regrettable that the United States conducted the test, which no one wanted, despite people’s hope for peace.
He said for the sake of children, he does not want nuclear weapons to exist in the future.
A 52-year-old woman in the city said the administration of President Donald Trump is not moving in the right direction, while provoking the world to divide.
She said she hopes the Japanese government will have its own views, without following the US administration.
Shigemitsu Tanaka, the head of the atomic bomb survivors’ organization in Nagasaki, also criticized the subcritical test.
He said it was a move against the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which was adopted last year, and the test is unforgivable.
He said he hopes the US will lead efforts to eliminate nuclear arms as the only country to have used nuclear weapons and will call on other nations to abolish them.
October 11, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Japan, opposition to nuclear, USA, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
China’s Nuclear Diplomacy in the Middle East
China will have to balance its nuclear ‘going out’ with nonproliferation concerns. The Diplomat , By Samuel Hickey, October 09, 2018 On September 21, China’s Ministry of Justice published its draft Atomic Energy Law, which urges its vast nuclear industry to go forth into the world and secure a portion of the nuclear export market. Unlike the “Gold Standard” interpretation of the “1+2+3” agreement in the U.S. Atomic Energy Act of 1954, China will not officially limit a partner country’s access to the full nuclear fuel cycle in exchange for nuclear cooperation.
This is an important distinction and is the same policy that Russia subscribes to in its nuclear export agreements. While both countries may not be willing to export enrichment technology, they will not explicitly state this or preclude any future partnership on the nuclear fuel cycle. Nuclear exports are an extension of their foreign policy as they seek to secure long-term geopolitical influence and they are signaling that negotiations are always on the table with the Global South.
China’s proliferation policy until Deng Xiaoping’s 1978 “reform and opening up” policy was characterized by countering the imperialist powers, and it stood firm with the Third World, arguably advocating proliferation.China now boasts a solid reputation against proliferation and support for the nuclear order, but it has shown a flexibility to negotiate with all actors; this causes concerns for the nonproliferation regime. The nuclear order currently relies on multinational efforts to constrain with whom a supplier state can partner, but this top down perspective challenges China’s nuclear energy promises to the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, including Iran.
China has a unique opportunity to capture a significant portion of the nuclear export market because of their finance schemes and domestic experience. However, MENA states will view China as underperforming in its diplomatic promises if collaboration does not turn into geopolitical gains or enhanced security assurances. China’s efforts to influence the international order will find an audience in the MENA region as states hedge their bets against a distracted and noncommittal United States, but China will not be coaxed into overextension to prove their geopolitical worth — to the distress of MENA states.
The Onus is on the Supplier
China and Russia dominate the civil nuclear import conversation among the MENA states because, for many, the United States’ nuclear export doctrine equates to removing it from the running. The United Arab Emiratesare the only MENA country to sign the gold standard U.S. nuclear agreement, which precludes them from the full nuclear fuel cycle and ensures there cannot be any military dimensions to nuclear cooperation. Even though they have no intentions of completing the nuclear fuel cycle soon, many MENA states refuse to sign this interpretation of the U.S. agreement simply to preserve their sovereign rights guaranteed to them under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).…………
Conclusions
Momentum on regulating China’s nuclear industry increased with China’s Nuclear Safety Law entering into force on January 1, 2018 and the State Council’s issuance of guidelines for the standardization of the nuclear system in August. China’s domestic nuclear expansion has stalled since 2016 so it must expand to new markets and increase its bureaucratic efficiency to support its massive nuclear industry.
China will not upset the nuclear order and prefers to retain the onus of preventing proliferation on the supplier state because that gives it leverage. It is distinctly not in China’s interest for any new nuclear states to crop up and maintaining a little ambiguity in its nuclear export policy allows it to pay lip service to the Global South and keep the West engaged in improving the nuclear order……….https://thediplomat.com/2018/10/chinas-nuclear-diplomacy-in-the-middle-east/
|
|
|
October 11, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
China, marketing, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
First, cooperate on nuclear safety in the Korean Peninsula, The Hill,
BY VIET PHUONG NGUYEN AND NAJMEDIN MESHKATI, OPINION CONTRIBUTORS — 10/06/18 Last month in Pyongyang, South Korean President Moon Jae-in and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un held their third summit in less than a year, concluding with agreements that ranged from security issues to the economy, and even a pledge to make a joint bid for the
2032 Summer Olympics. Yet, despite positive assessments of the summit’s outcome by Presidents Trump and Moon,
many observers remain skeptical about real progress because of the conspicuous lack of a concrete statement by North Korea for denuclearization.
Absent since the restart of dialogue with North Korea is any discussion on inter-Korean nuclear safety cooperation, despite concerns over possible safety risks at the North Korean nuclear complex. Inattention to the facility could have dire consequences for the peninsula: radioactive fallout does not recognize borders.
For example, because of its inability to acquire civil nuclear technology from abroad, North Korea might try to develop its own power reactor from a variation of outdated Soviet designs such as the RBMK-1000 type that resulted in the most catastrophic man-made disaster in history, the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident. On the other hand, the possible dismantlement of nuclear facilities such as the Punggye-ri nuclear test site, which contains hazardous material and radioactive elements, could contaminate the surrounding environment and expose North Korean workers if there is improper clean-up.
In addition, as the operator of several fuel cycle facilities, North Korean leaders and experts no doubt would be interested in learning more about Japan’s costly lessons with nuclear safety. Despite having sophisticated industrial capability and arguably high nuclear safety standards, Japan has experienced deadly accidents in fuel cycle facilities — most notably the accident at a fuel fabrication plant in Tokaimura in September 1999, when the mishandling of enriched uranium led to the death of two workers from acute radiation exposure, and permanent injury of another. The accident, attributed to poor safety culture and inadequate regulatory oversight, exposed 436 people to radiation.
Without strict safety practices and adequate protection, North Korea might experience a similar scenario. Furthermore, the country has issues related to emergency response and communication in the event of a nuclear accident because of the secretive nature of its nuclear program. In particular, because North Korea terminated all cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 2009, it would be difficult for outsiders to learn about any incident and provide support, if necessary. It is equally difficult for North Koreans to improve their safety culture and standards without an adequate, transparent working environment.
Why make nuclear safety an early priority in the high-level diplomatic process with North Korea? The number, pervasiveness and close-to-the-border locations of nuclear facilitates in North Korea are reasons enough.
The significant role of nuclear energy in electricity generation in South Korea, where 24 nuclear power units contribute almost 30 percent of the electricity production, means South Korean experts would have much to share.
Indeed, South Korea has had to overcome its own safety problems, such as the cover-up of a plant blackout at the Kori-1 nuclear power unit in 2012, and the revelation of falsified test results for safety-grade equipment in the same year. Scientists and engineers from these two countries should be enabled to cooperate on nuclear safety by sharing information about their safety practices.
Besides, communication platforms have existed for this kind of engineering diplomacy. Striving for the middle-power status in the region, South Korea has proposed several initiatives aimed at regional integration among Northeast Asian countries; thus, the issue of nuclear safety in North Korea would be a perfect opportunity for Moon to promote a nuclear safety initiative for bilateral cooperation of nuclear safety professionals from the two Koreas. …….. https://thehill.com/opinion/international/409750-first-cooperate-on-nuclear-safety-in-the-korean-peninsula
October 11, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
North Korea, safety, South Korea |
Leave a comment
Why North Korea’s latest nuclear concession isn’t one at all
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo wants you to believe North Korea just gave up something big. It didn’t. Vox By Alex Ward@AlexWardVoxalex.ward@vox.com Oct 8, 2018, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Monday that he and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un made “significant progress” over the weekend toward dismantling Pyongyang’s nuclear program. The problem is it’s not clear what advancement he’s pointing to.
The two met for a nearly three-hour summit in Pyongyang on Sunday to discuss a way to break the impasse in discussions. Speaking after the meeting on Monday, Pompeo told reporters that North Korea has agreed to let international inspectors visit Punggye-ri, the site of all six of North Korea’s nuclear tests. In September 2017, Pyongyang tested a nuke there that was around seven times stronger than the bomb America dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.
Letting inspectors visit the facility may sound well and good, except for one thing: It’s already been destroyed.
North Korea blew up that facility in May. And although the country’s leaders had originally invited international inspectors to witness the demolition, they changed their minds and said they would only allow a small group of foreign journalists to watch. CNN, for example, could only watch the destruction from about 1,600 feet away.
Letting inspectors in now to verify that the site is, in fact, destroyed is certainly a welcome step. After all, North Korea has been reluctant for years to let outsiders into its nuclear facilities and question officials at the sites. And while it’s unclear how much access the inspectors will get, it’s understandable that Pompeo is touting this as a victory……….
A second Trump-Kim summit may be on the horizon
The US and North Korea remain in a stalemate over how to dismantle Pyongyang’s nuclear program.
Washington wants Pyongyang to destroy much of its nuclear arsenal upfront and offer an inventory list of all parts of its program. Kim’s regime, meanwhile, wants President Donald Trump to sign a peace declaration — a nonbinding document that would formally end the Korean War — before Pyongyang makes any concessions.
Experts are split on whether that’s a good idea. Those who want the US to sign the agreement say it’s costless because it’s nonbinding, and therefore America has nothing to lose and everything to gain by signing it………https://www.vox.com/2018/10/8/17952178/pompeo-north-korea-trip-nuclear-site
October 11, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
North Korea, politics international |
Leave a comment
nuclear-news 