China’s CGN Halts Funding for UK’s Hinkley Nuclear Plant
- EDF may have to fund completion of £32.7 billion plant alone
- Britain took over CGN’s stake in a similar project last year
By Francois De Beaupuy, December 14, 2023
China General Nuclear Power Corp. has halted funding for the UK’s Hinkley Point C nuclear station in a fresh sign of tension between London and Beijing.
CGN skipped several installments in recent months, according to people familiar with the matter. That means Electricite de France SA, which was building the £32.7 billion ($41 billion) plant with CGN, may have to pay for its completion alone, they said, asking not to be named,
because the information isn’t public.
The withdrawal of funding comes
after the UK took over CGN’s stake in a similar nuclear project in
Sizewell last year following concerns over national security. Back then,
the government didn’t rule out that it might intervene in other cases of
Chinese involvement in UK energy supply, arguing that it would need to
consider risks to security and energy independence.
CGN’s plan to build a
Chinese-designed atomic plant in Southeast England is also up in the air.
It’s unclear whether the funding halt is temporary or definite, some of
the people said, adding that the project will continue in any case. A
spokesperson for EDF declined to comment when reached by Bloomberg, and CGN
didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Bloomberg 14th Dec 2023
Fukushima nuclear plant worker exposed to radiation
TOKYO. 12 Dec 23 https://japantoday.com/category/national/fukushima-nuclear-plant-worker-exposed-to-radiation
A plant worker at the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex may have ingested radioactive materials after his face was exposed to the substances, the plant operator said Monday.
The operator Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc said the man in his 20s was wearing a protective full-face mask and suit while working in a room near the plant’s No. 2 reactor building, decontaminating fences and other equipment ahead of the removal of 615 spent nuclear fuel rods from the building.
But radioactive material was found on his face during a routine radiation test as he was leaving the site and he was decontaminated immediately.
The incident follows one in October when two men were exposed to radioactive liquid while cleaning a water filtration facility at the same plant.
Chinese Nuclear Weapons and Canada: An Uncivil-Military Connection
The United States should take action to ensure that domestic and foreign actors are not boosting the nuclear programs of adversaries.
by Henry Sokolski, https://nationalinterest.org/feature/chinese-nuclear-weapons-and-canada-uncivil-military-connection-207727 6 Dec 23
For decades, the Defense Department made little or no connection between China’s civilian nuclear power program and its military nuclear weapons buildup. No longer.
For the last three years, the Pentagon has explicitly linked Beijing’s “peaceful” fast reactor power program to China’s ramped-up weapons plutonium efforts and the projection China will acquire more than 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2030. In its latest annual China military power report, the Defense Department went further and revealed that China is using its civilian nuclear reactors to produce tritium to fuel its thermonuclear weapons.
China is doing this by placing lithium rods in power reactors and bombarding the rods with neutrons. This produces tritium, which subsequently is separated, much like how America makes its weapons tritium. It’s unclear if China uses all its power reactors—American, Canadian, Russian, French, or Chinese-designed—for this purpose.
The Pentagon report, however, notes that China uses a tritiated heavy water extraction process to cull tritium produced when hydrogen atoms absorb neutrons and become tritium atoms. The only reactors in China that use heavy water are located in Haiyan and operated by China National Nuclear Power Corporation (CNNC)—Beijing’s premier nuclear weapons contractor.
Canada supplied these reactors through Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), a Canadian government-owned firm. In addition, AECL agreed to work with CNNC on advanced heavy water reactors and related technologies. In 2011, AECL sold its heavy water reactor business to SNC-Lavalin Inc. (recently renamed AtkinsRealis). AtkinsRealis continues to collaborate with CNNC on its heavy water reactors.
However, Canada’s nuclear transfers to China aren’t limited to reactors. In late October, the Canadian firm Cameco, one of the world’s largest uranium suppliers, announced it had contracted to sell more than 97,500 metric tons of uranium to CNNC. Cameco says it will send the CNNC more than 12,700 metric tons annually for the next four years. 12,700 metric tons is roughly 200 to 300 metric tons more than China’s entire civilian sector consumes annually. The 200-to-300-ton surplus alone could fuel as many as 100 bombs each year.
This should raise eyebrows. With poor domestic uranium resources, China insists it’s only building up its uranium reserves for future nuclear power use. Perhaps, but there is no agreed way to verify this. The same is true with tritium. Currently, there are no effective controls on either nuclear substance to assure their peaceful end-use. Both, however, are critical to making nuclear weapons, and CNNC, China’s top weapons vendor, controls these materials.
What should be done?
First, our government needs to name and shame firms exporting critical nuclear materials and technologies to America’s nuclear-armed rivals. This would require spotlighting Canada’s Cameco and AkinsRealis. It also would require listing France’s nuclear firm, EDF, which this spring announced it would work with CNNC in developing advanced spent fuel recycling, a process critical to producing weapons plutonium. Yet, another entity that deserves dishonorable mention is Rosatom, Russia’s prime nuclear weapons developer, in addition to firms in business with the company. The House has already spotlighted Rosatom as a bad actor, asking the White House to sanction it for assisting China’s fast reactor program.
To expose these entities further, the Departments of Defense and the Intelligence Community should produce an unclassified annual report clarifying which domestic and foreign firms might be transferring nuclear materials and technologies to hostile states’ nuclear weapons entities.
Second, the U.S. government should prohibit government purchases and subsidies to these firms. Congress and the White House may be reticent to sanction firms for trading with hostile states’ nuclear weapons entities. But our government should, at least, not buy goods from such firms or subsidize them.
Finally, the United States and other like-minded nations should call on the International Atomic Energy Agency to track and safeguard tritium and unenriched uranium to prevent their diversion to make bombs. Fortunately, there is little commercial demand for tritium. Most of what is produced is then extracted from reactors for occupational safety reasons and is accounted for.
Similarly, most uranium ore is used to fuel legitimate civilian reactors. Yet, it too is critical to make nuclear weapons, and it is not currently tracked or safeguarded. Given that the government already tracks and sanctions certain oil and gas transfers—a daunting task—it’s difficult to understand why we don’t do the same for uranium and tritium. In the lead-up to the next Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference in 2026, the United States should close this gap.
Henry Sokolski is the executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center in Arlington, Virginia, and the author of Underestimated: Our Not So Peaceful Nuclear Future (2019). He served as deputy for nonproliferation policy in the office of the U.S. Secretary of Defense during the George H.W. Bush administration.
Would A Nuclear Weapon Make South Korea Safer?
By Emma Sandifer, 4 Dec 23, https://armscontrolcenter.org/would-a-nuclear-weapon-make-south-korea-safer/—
The question of whether a nuclear deterrent might be necessary for South Korea has experienced a resurgence over the past few years, becoming a “mainstream feature of South Korea’s national security discourse”. With recent escalation in the pace of North Korea’s nuclear provocation, China’s aggressive buildup of its nuclear arsenal, and waning confidence in the U.S. commitment to extended deterrence, the public perception in South Korea has reflected a sense of increased vulnerability. Consequently, public polling in January of this year found that 71 percent of South Koreans support the return of nuclear weapons to their country — even if it means engaging in indigenous development. In 2023, South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol spoke openly, for the first time, of the perceived need to either redeploy American non-strategic nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula or build their own. The reality is that it is not in South Korea’s national interest to have a nuclear weapon — politically, militarily or economically.
Despite this, the debate on the Peninsula is real and the country’s legitimate security concerns should be considered. With the North making regular threats, the trepidations of South Koreans are understandable and the need to take measures to reduce the threat from the North clear, but it remains questionable if nuclear weapons would serve such a purpose. More likely, a South Korean nuclear weapon would serve to fuel a destabilizing arms race in Asia and could actually undermine South Korea’s negotiating position vis-a-vis North Korea.
Politically, a nuclear weapon would not make South Korea safer. As an active member of multiple non-proliferation agreements including the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the 1992 Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, South Korea uses these agreements to condemn North Korea’s proliferation and mobilize international support against the nuclear activities of its adversary. South Korea’s own proliferation would jeopardize its ability to do so as well as damage its standing in the international community and its relationship with its primary security ally, the United States.
Militarily, a nuclear weapon would not make South Korea safer. The ROK already has the conventional capabilities needed to strike any target in North Korea through the use of short-range ballistic missiles and precision strike weapons, has recently committed $81 billion toward strengthening its pre-existing defense capabilities, and has established a strategic command to oversee its “three-axis” defense system. Nuclear weapons would add little while increasing paranoia north of the DMZ.
To reinforce reliability of the U.S. commitment to extended deterrence, Presidents Joe Biden and Yoon announced the Washington Declaration in early 2023, as well as the creation of the bilateral Nuclear Consultative Group. In early November, the two countries updated their Tailored Deterrence Strategy agreement for the first time in a decade to reflect their “ironclad” commitment to collective security underscored by the symbolic deployment of major U.S. military assets to the country, such as a nuclear ballistic missile submarine and a nuclear capable B-52 bomber. South Korea is not only conventionally capable of deterring a nuclear attack by North Korea, but it is also protected by a renewed commitment to extended deterrence by the United States, making the development of a nuclear weapon redundant and escalatory.
Economically, a nuclear weapon would not make South Korea safer. A withdrawal from the NPT would bring an array of potential sanctions with the ability to cause real economic damage. Even if the impact of these sanctions is mitigated by allies to protect regional security interests, the impact of potential Chinese sanctions would be severe. Moreover, this withdrawal would impact international cooperation with Seoul’s nuclear energy program, an economic and energy priority.
Thus, although a nuclear weapon might make South Koreans feel safer, at least temporarily, it would not make the country any more secure. Conversely, creation of a nuclear weapon will undermine South Korean efforts to protect itself against a North Korean threat. Instead, the legitimate security concerns voiced by South Koreans could be addressed by strengthening conventional capabilities as well as engaging with international arms control efforts and dialogue across the DMZ. Such measures would do more to promote confidence among Korean citizens than engaging in a destabilizing arms race.
Closer to nuclear plant than ever, latest Korean quake renews calls to retire aging reactors
A 4.0 magnitude earthquake struck Gyeongju at dawn on Thursday only 10 km from a nuclear plant.
A shallow, magnitude 4.0 earthquake hit the city of Gyeongju in North Gyeongsang Province at 4:55 am on Thursday. It was the second biggest quake Korea has seen this year, following a 4.5 magnitude quake that occurred 52 km off the coast of Donghae, Gangwon Province, on May 15. The Gyeongju quake is the biggest to strike on land in Korea this year.
As the quake occurred not too far from the city’s Wolsong nuclear power plant, critics of nuclear power are becoming more vocal about safety concerns. Many are calling for the immediate decommissioning of aging nuclear power plants at a time when operators are trying to extend their lifespans.
Gyeongju saw a much larger quake of 5.8 magnitude in September 2016, the largest to be recorded in the area, but the recent quake’s epicenter was a mere 10.1 km away from the Wolsong nuclear plant, while the 2016 quake’s epicenter was 27 km away from the plant.
…………………………….. A study published by the Ministry of the Interior and Safety on faults in the southeastern region (North and South Gyeongsang provinces, Busan, Ulsan) revealed 14 active faults that have the potential to produce an earthquake of 6.5 magnitude or larger. The study was published in early 2023. Based on earthquake magnitude and proximity, five of these 14 faults were judged to have the potential to affect the structural integrity of the Wolsong plant. These faults are referred to as “faults for consideration in seismic design.”
Among the 16 nuclear plants operating in regions along the southeastern coast, only Shinkori nuclear power plants unit Nos. 3-6, which were built relatively recently, were designed to withstand an earthquake of 6.5 magnitude or larger (0.3 g).
Joint Action of Gyeongju Citizens Opposing Nuclear Power, a local anti-nuclear power activist group, released a statement that opposes attempts to extend the lifespan of the already aging Wolsong power plant……….
“The Wolsong nuclear power plant’s construction was based on faulty inspections of the geological integrity of the ground and surrounding region. Its earthquake-resistance designs are subpar, and today’s earthquake only magnifies our concerns about the plant’s safety,” the statement said
.“The South Korean government must begin the processing of shutting down Wolsong power plant units 2,3 and 4, as they are exposed to the risks of active faults,” the statement continued……………. https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/1118764.html
Possibly irradiated items stolen at site 3 km from Fukushima plant
THE ASAHI SHIMBUN, November 26, 2023
OKUMA, Fukushima Prefecture–Potentially highly radiated items have been stolen from a temporary storage site for contaminated waste here and were likely put up for sale, The Asahi Shinbun has learned.
Although the site is strictly controlled, managers on the front line said there is a limit in what they can do to monitor the waste. So it is unknown if or how many possibly dangerous goods have been sold to unsuspecting buyers.
The site, located about 3 kilometers from the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, features a home improvement center that was abandoned after the triple meltdown in March 2011. The building and merchandise inside were left untouched.
The site and the surrounding area are now used for temporary storage.
Nishimatsu Construction Co., a second-tier general contractor, has been commissioned to demolish the commercial facility.
The special measures law concerning the handling of radioactive materials states that contaminated waste should be taken to temporary storage sites to measure their radiation levels before deciding where they should be disposed of………………………………………
The ministry has yet to announce the theft.
RISK OF RESALE
Each entrance to the temporary storage site has a gate to keep out unregistered workers and vehicles.
But an on-site manager said it was practically impossible to check all the comings and goings of people and vehicles.
“A total of 1,000 workers were involved in the demolition project, with 30 to 40 of them coming in and going out of the site on a steady basis,” the manager said. “Frankly speaking, if they put merchandise into their pockets and took them outside, I wouldn’t know.”…………………………………….
A worker said several 4-ton trucks have entered the demolition site on a few occasions after employees of Nishimatsu Construction, which oversees the site, finished their shifts and left their posts.
“The truck beds were covered with tarps, so I don’t know what was inside,” the worker said.
He added that a rumor was going around that merchandise taken from the demolition site was being sold on flea market app Mercari…………………………..
Recently, four former workers were arrested on suspicion of stealing iron scraps from a demolition site of a library and folklore museum, which lie within the “difficult-to-return zone” in Okuma.
It is impossible to recover the iron scraps because they were already sold and distributed in the market, according to the Environment Ministry.
(This story was written by Yukiko Sakamoto, Nobuyuki Takiguchi and Takaoki Yamamoto.) https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/15045134
A Photographer Goes Inside the Ruins of the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant
The first tests, during which remotely operated underwater robots were launched into the containment structure, were unsuccessful……… The extremely high levels of radiation (650 Sv/h) would destroy the vehicles’ electronic circuits in minutes. A person would die in seconds in such conditions..
Peta Pixel NOV 26, 2023, ARKADIUSZ PODNIESIŃSKI
This article has copious photographs. They are not very interesting, as the photographer was banned from photographing the seriously dangerous parts of place
For more than a dozen years, I have been documenting the aftermath of the disasters at the Chornobyl and Fukushima nuclear power plants, the progress of the cleanup, and the decontamination and revitalization of the contaminated areas. During this time, I made many visits to the Chornobyl plant. Finally, it was time to visit the Fukushima plant………………
Given my critical attitude towards nuclear power, as demonstrated by my published album about the tragic consequences of the two disasters as well as my photographs and films that have been shown around the world, obtaining permission was not easy or straightforward. However, after several months of trying and dozens of emails and phone calls, I finally managed to get approval.
Interestingly, I was told no photographer before me had ever had such an extensive itinerary for a visit. Despite this, I hope that my two-day visit will not be the last. The decommissioning of the power plant is a process that will take several decades, so I hope there will be more than one opportunity to return.
……………………………..nowhere else in the world have I seen so many workers guarding the exits of underground garages, building sites and intersections, or thousands of flashing bollards shaped like frogs, mice, and other animals.
..For security reasons, taking pictures of many places is prohibited……………………………………..
Similarities or Differences
Only when I’m standing in front of the damaged units do I grasp the scale of the tragedy and destruction. The first unit has no roof, as it was destroyed by a hydrogen explosion. Only the jagged remnants of the steel skeleton now protrude from it. There is less external damage to the second unit, but inside the meltdown of the reactor core produced a similar effect. When I look at the exposed roof of the first reactor building, comparisons to Chornobyl automatically come to mind.
Units 3 and 4 have already been covered with new structures that are intended to strengthen their substructures and enable the removal of the spent fuel inside. Probably to avoid comparisons with Chornobyl, these are not called sarcophagi, but they serve an identical purpose – they reinforce the damaged buildings, prevent radioactive substances from escaping, and serve or will be used to extract the fuel inside. At Chornobyl, one reactor was damaged, while at Fukushima it was as many as three.
On the one hand, in Chornobyl, the areas around the nuclear power plant are still closed 37 years later. The damaged reactor has already been covered by a second sarcophagus and the removal of the fuel inside of it is still a subject of debate. On the other hand, in Japan, after 12 years most of the areas around the plant have already been cleaned and returned to their residents.
The process of removing the fuel from the damaged reactors is expected to begin in 2024. This very complex and dangerous task will be divided into two separate phases. The first involves removing the melted fuel from the damaged reactors, while the second consists of removing the spent fuel stored in the spent fuel pools. Fuel remains in the first two units as debris is still being cleaned up and other obstacles blocking access to the interior are being removed. The next two units are in much better condition: the spent fuel has already been removed from the pools, and only one of them has had a nuclear core meltdown.
After a while, we drive up to the reactor buildings themselves. Standing next to the vertical walls of the structure, I realize their magnitude. For obvious reasons, I can’t go inside any of them. It’s a red zone, where the damage is greatest, and the radiation levels are deadly high.
Inside of Primary Containment Vessel
I also visit Units 5 and 6, which sustained less damage. They were shut down when the earthquake and tsunami hit, although there was still nuclear fuel in the reactors and spent fuel pools the entire time. Due to the power outages and the cessation of the cooling processes, they did not operate properly and had to be monitored constantly. After the damage was repaired and cooling restored, the remaining fuel in the reactors was moved to a spent fuel pool several floors above. Besides having the chance to take photos, visiting these units is an excellent opportunity for me to better understand how the disaster unfolded and the work to clean up the resulting damage, particularly the melted fuel from inside the reactors.
In Unit 5, I enter the safety enclosure known as the PCV (Primary Containment Vessel) that houses the reactor. This is already a yellow – more radioactive – zone, so once again I must change my clothes. The safety enclosure is shaped like a huge steel pear, more than 30 meters high. Inside it is the reactor, which is surrounded by hundreds of pipes, valves, and pumps. I squeeze between them and come to a small opening in the wall. This leads to a tiny room where the control rod drive hydraulic system is located.
The room is cramped and not even a meter high – definitely not a place for people who have claustrophobia. The reactor is just a few meters above me. It is identical to the ones whose cores melted down due to the power outages and lack of cooling. Under the extreme heat, their uranium fuel rods melted like candle wax and dripped to the bottom of the reactor casing. The hot mass then burned through the steel walls and seeped into the bottom of the containment enclosure, exactly where I stand now.
Because of these similarities, Unit 5 is currently being used to test various methods of removing fuel from damaged reactors. The first tests, during which remotely operated underwater robots were launched into the containment structure, were unsuccessful. More often than not, they got stuck while maneuvering underwater amid piles of debris, cables, and rusted structures. The extremely high levels of radiation (650 Sv/h) would destroy the vehicles’ electronic circuits in minutes. A person would die in seconds in such conditions………………………………
According to a report by the Japanese Atomic Energy Commission – not disclosed to the public for fear of causing panic – in the event that the situation went completely out of control and the direction of the wind changed, there would have been so much contamination that it would have necessitated the evacuation of the 50 million people living within a 250 km radius of the plant, an area that includes Tokyo. Thus, the fact that the worst-case scenario was avoided is not only due to the superhuman efforts of hundreds of power plant workers, firefighters, and other emergency responders, but also to chance or, if you prefer, luck.
Although the danger was averted, fuel remains in the spent fuel pools in Units 1 and 2 (the most damaged ones) as well as in Units 5 and 6. I was allowed to enter the last of these. It stores over 1,600 fuel assemblies………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..more https://petapixel.com/2023/11/26/a-photographer-goes-inside-the-ruins-of-the-fukushima-nuclear-power-plant/
South Korea does not need nuclear subs
The Hill BY DOV S. ZAKHEIM, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR – 11/24/23
South Korea is again debating whether to develop and build a nuclear-powered submarine.
During a National Assembly confirmation hearing that took place last week, Admiral Kim Myung-Soo, the nominee for chairman of South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, responded positively to a question about the utility of nuclear-powered submarines, stating that “those capabilities are needed.” He noted, however, that the current U.S.-Korean nuclear agreement restricts the use of nuclear materials for military purposes.
Nevertheless, there appears to be a growing sentiment on the part of both of South Korea’s leading parties and the general public in favor of Seoul acquiring nuclear-powered boats. The government should resist the temptation to do so.
In theory, South Korea could avoid America’s restrictions by turning to France to help it develop or acquire a nuclear-powered submarine. France could help South Korea develop its own nuclear-powered sub, much as Paris has assisted Brazil with its own nuclear-powered submarine program.
However, there are many reasons why Seoul should not imitate the Brazilians and forge ahead with its own program. To begin with, it was only in April of this year that President Biden and South Korean president Yoon Suk Yeol reached an agreement that not only calls for greater consultation on nuclear matters between the two countries, in the form of a newly created nuclear consultative group, but also provides for an enhanced American nuclear presence around the peninsula to deter North Korean aggression…………………………………………………..
In any event, it is not clear how Seoul could afford to undertake a nuclear-submarine program unless it were to dramatically increase its defense spending beyond current levels…………………………………
…………………… Lastly, there are good operational reasons why South Korea should continue to acquire conventionally powered submarines rather than nuclear powered boats. The waters around the Korean peninsula are relatively shallow, which favors the employment of quiet conventional subs. South Korea now operates seven Son–Won II–class diesel-electric submarines, powered by a hybrid diesel‐electric/fuel cell with air-independent propulsion technology. These subs are extremely quiet; they can travel up to 20 knots when submerged and remain under water for seven weeks. They are perfectly suited for operations around the Korean Peninsula.
The South is currently planning both to upgrade the Son-Won II for about $100 million per boat and is proceeding with a new Son-Won III class at about $900 million per submarine. In other words, the country could acquire three state-of-the-art conventional submarines for less than the cost of one nuclear-powered sub.
The costs, the technologies, and operational realities all weigh against South Korea acquiring nuclear-powered submarines. If that were not enough, America’s recent commitment to bolster the nuclear umbrella that it has long provided to South Korea and that is so critical to its deterrent should settle the argument once and for all.
Dov S. Zakheim is a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and vice chairman of the board for the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He was undersecretary of Defense (comptroller) and chief financial officer for the Department of Defense from 2001 to 2004 and a deputy undersecretary of Defense from 1985 to 1987. https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4324038-south-korea-does-not-need-nuclear-subs/
In softening on China, the West may be trying to avoid a nuclear arms race
SCMP, Bob Savic 26 Nov 23
Why the West is suddenly softening on China: power grows out of nuclear warheads
- Weeks before Xi Jinping met various leaders in San Francisco, the US released an estimate of China’s nuclear stockpile
- Now, the EU and UK seem to be holding out an olive branch to China, especially with the surprise appointment of David Cameron as foreign secretary
In a much-publicised report issued on October 19, the US Department of Defence estimated China’s stock of operational nuclear warheads to be at 500, and exceeding 1,000 by 2030. This contrasts with its 2020 report that estimated a stockpile “in the low-200s”, which would grow to about 400 by the end of the decade.
Beijing has consistently dismissed these reports, asserting they are used to serve Washington’s strategic interest of portraying China as a threat to global security.
Irrespective of whether the reports are accurate or fictional, the West has probably decided to err on the side of caution and accept the findings. There has been a discernible shift as Western governments actively seek areas of mutual cooperation with Beijing.
Ultimately, this turn of events probably reflects Western concern over a nuclear arms race fuelled by dangerously destabilising great-power rivalry between China and the United States, at a time when the West is grappling with so-called fatigue in its conflict with Russia over Ukraine.
Further, there is the Israel-Hamas conflict in Gaza. The major Western powers’ failure to back a non-binding UN resolution calling for a truce, which was supported by China and the vast majority of non-Western states, has opened a yawning rift between the West and the Global South.
In any case, one cannot rule out both factors in the West’s approach to China. The most high-profile rapprochement with China was clearly reached when Chinese President Xi Jinping met US President Joe Biden on the sidelines of the Apec summit in San Francisco.
After a year of hyper-tense relations between Beijing and Washington – over then US House speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan and the Chinese “spy balloon” over mainland America – the Biden administration’s four-hour talks with Xi and senior Chinese officials signified a new strategy of constructive engagement.
As widely reported, the meeting concluded with an agreement to resume military-to-military communications, deemed vital in the context of increasingly knife-edge naval and air activities, by both sides, in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea.
Also on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in San Francisco, Xi held talks with Japan’s Prime Minister Fumio Kishida for the first time in a year…………………………………………………………………….
Other leaders, further afield, may also be seeking to offer Beijing an olive branch. In early November, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said a summit with the Chinese government would take place in China in December, the first in-person European Union-China summit in four years………………
Lastly, and in an even greater surprise, was the appointment of Britain’s former prime minister David Cameron as the new foreign secretary on November 13. There has been much speculation about why the current British prime minister, Rishi Sunak, would bring Cameron back into the cabinet after he spent several years outside politics.
Among those reasons is likely to be that Cameron made high-level international contact when in office, not the least of which was crafting the “golden era” of relations with China, even having a pint of beer with Xi at a British pub…………………………………..
the new Pentagon report on China’s substantial upscaling of its nuclear stockpile, no matter whether it is accurate or not, may have been all that was necessary to prompt Western decision-makers to act swiftly, and in concert, thus averting any escalation of geopolitical tensions that might imperil the West’s still dominant global position. https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3242540/why-west-suddenly-softening-china-power-grows-out-nuclear-warheads
Japanese and Chinese top envoys eye more talks on Fukushima row
Jsapan Times, BY JESSE JOHNSON, STAFF WRITER 26 Nov 23
Foreign Minister Yoko Kamikawa met her Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, on Saturday, with the top Japanese diplomat “strongly urging” Beijing to immediately remove its complete ban on seafood imports from Japan over Tokyo’s release of treated wastewater from the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant.
The Fukushima issue has bedeviled Sino-Japanese relations already facing tensions over issues such as China’s growing military assertiveness in the region. Despite this, both sides agreed to find a way to resolve the wastewater matter “through discussion and dialogue in a constructive manner,” Japan’s Foreign Ministry said.
Wang repeated China’s opposition to the discharge of “nuclear-contaminated water,” a move that he labeled as “irresponsible,” according to the Chinese Foreign Ministry.
The two top diplomats also agreed to hold bilateral security talks “at an early date,”…………………………………………………………………………………………….
On Thursday, Wang met with Natsuo Yamaguchi, head of Komeito, the Liberal Democratic Party’s coalition partner in the ruling bloc, for talks in Beijing. China called for independent monitoring of the ongoing Fukushima discharge, according to Yamaguchi.
China’s seafood ban has hit Japanese exporters hard, with Chinese customs authorities reporting last week that imports of fish and shellfish from Japan in October dropped 99% from a year earlier to $332,000. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2023/11/25/japan/politics/japan-china-yoko-kamikawa-wang-yi/
Malaysian Govt urged to halt Australian company Lynas’ thorium extraction plan
https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2023/11/24/govt-urged-to-halt-lynas-thorium-extraction-plan
SEVERAL DAP lawmakers have urged the government to review Lynas Malaysia’s license and stop the plan for thorium extraction from the waste produced at the factory of the rare earth producer.Chow Yu Hui (PH-Raub) said that he remains unconvinced that Lynas Malaysia was capable of extracting thorium.
“Let us not forget that the amount of waste from the Lynas plant was as large as five hills behind its factory. Will the new thorium extraction technology and Lynas be able to manage the radioactive waste which is expected to reach 1.2 million metric tonnes?” he asked reporters at the parliament media centre yesterday.
Oct 24, Science, Technology and Innovation Minister Chang Lih Kang announced that Lynas Malaysia would be allowed to import lanthanide concentrates until its licence expires in March 2026.
He also said that the Atomic Energy Licensing Board (AELB) decided to amend Lynas Malaysia’s license conditions after the company made a proposal to the licensing board about its thorium extraction technology.
With this, Chang said radioactive waste will not be produced after extraction and cracking and leaching activities are carried out on the lanthanide concentrate.
Khoo Poay Tiong (PH-Kota Melaka) said the Science, Technology and Innovation Ministry had announced on May 10 regarding the renewal of Lynas Malaysia’s license until Dec 31.
However, Khoo said that within a period of five months, the government, via AELB, had reviewed Lynas’ licence conditions.
“This matter has raised many concerns regarding the radioactive pollution and safety of locals,” said Khoo, who also wanted to know the parties that came up with the idea of thorium extraction.“We also want clarification from the government on what the possible market for thorium is,” he said.
Tan Hong Pin (PH-Bakri) also pointed out that thorium extraction technology was still in its initial phases, even at the international level.
“To what extent can thorium be extracted, used and commercially extracted? What are the effective measures that can be taken by the government to address the issue and ensure that Lynas will adhere to all the international standards in managing radioactive waste?” asked Tan.
On Nov 16, Chang promised that AELB will closely monitor the thorium extraction process from Lynas Malaysia’s waste material.
Japan’s Fukushima plant completes third water release
Canberra Times By Mari Yamaguchi, November 20 2023 – Australian Associated Press
The release of a third batch of treated radioactive wastewater from Japan’s damaged Fukushima nuclear plant into the Pacific Ocean ended safely as planned, its operator says, as the country’s seafood producers continue to suffer from a Chinese import ban imposed after the discharges began.
Large amounts of radioactive wastewater have accumulated at the nuclear plant since it was damaged by a massive earthquake and tsunami in 2011.
It began discharging treated and diluted wastewater into the ocean on August 24 and finished releasing the third 7800-ton batch on Monday.
The process is expected to take decades.
The discharges have been strongly opposed by fishing groups and neighbouring countries including China, which banned all imports of Japanese seafood, badly hurting Japanese producers and exporters of scallops and other seafood……………………………………………………
Japan’s government has set up a relief fund to help find new markets for Japanese seafood, and the central and local governments have led campaigns to encourage Japanese consumers to eat more fish and support Fukushima seafood producers.
TEPCO is also providing compensation to the fisheries industry for “reputational damage” to its products caused by the wastewater release and said it has mailed application forms to 580 possible compensation seekers…………………………..
TEPCO and the government say the process is safe, but some scientists say the continuing release of water containing radionuclides from damaged reactors is unprecedented and should be monitored closely.
Monday’s completion of the release of the third batch of wastewater brings the total to 23,400 tons.
TEPCO plans a fourth release by the end of March 2024.
That would only empty about 10 of the approximately 1000 storage tanks at the Fukushima plant because of its continued production of wastewater, although officials say the pace of the discharges will pick up later.
The tanks currently hold more than 1.3 million tons of wastewater, most of which needs to be retreated to meet safety standards before release.
TEPCO and the government say discharging the water into the sea is unavoidable because the tanks need to be removed from the grounds of the plant so that it can be decommissioned. https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8430646/japans-fukushima-plant-completes-third-water-release/
The US and China re-engage on arms control. What may come next
Bulletin, By Daryl G. Kimball | November 15, 2023
For more than six decades, the United States has been worried about China’s regional influence, military activities—and its nuclear potential. For instance, in 1958, US officials considered using nuclear weapons to thwart Chinese artillery strikes on islands controlled by Taiwan, according to a document leaked by Daniel Ellsberg in 2021. Now, as then, a nuclear conflict between the United States and China would be devastating for both sides and the world.
The United States has a decades-long experience of nuclear arms control and strategic stability talks with the Soviet Union, and later Russia. However, there has not been a sustained bilateral dialogue between Washington and Beijing on how to reduce the risk of conflict, nuclear escalation, and nuclear arms control and disarmament. Until recently, China had rebuffed US overtures for bilateral talks on nuclear risk reduction and arms control, and on other security issues.
Adding to the tensions, China has embarked since the early 2000s on a major buildup of its relatively smaller nuclear arsenal and has resisted calls for a global halt on the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. In response, some current and former national security insiders, as well as many in Congress, suggest that the US arsenal “should be supplemented” to add more capability and flexibility to counter two “near-peer” nuclear adversaries. In other words, the potential for an unconstrained, three-way arms race is growing.
But things started to change on November 6 with the meeting in Washington between US Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance Mallory Stewart and China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs Director-General of Arms Control Sun Xiaobo.
A modest yet important breakthrough. The US-Chinese discussion on arms control—the first of its kind since 2018—was described by the US side as a “candid and in-depth discussion on issues related to arms control and nonproliferation.” According to the State Department’s readout of the meeting, “the United States highlighted the need to promote stability, help avert an unconstrained arms race, and manage competition so that it does not veer into conflict.” The Chinese Foreign Ministry’s readout also said the “[t]he two sides had an in-depth, candid and constructive exchange of views” on nuclear weapons matters, as well as an exchange on “regular arms control.”
Several participants told me that the meeting was “wide-ranging” and “positive in tone,” but that it did not involve much substantive exchange of views on the issues, which is not surprising. Tangible progress will require time and sustained give-and-take from both sides.
The next step, ideally, will be for Presidents Joe Biden and Xi Jinping, who are set to meet this week, to direct their teams toward concrete nuclear risk reduction and arms control measures that enhance mutual security.
More nuclear capabilities imply more responsibilities.……………………………………………….
China’s arsenal is not only growing (it had less than 200 nuclear warheads in 2000), but it is also diversifying and modernizing. It is now well-documented that China has started to deploy new solid-fueled missiles that can be launched more quickly than its older liquid-fueled missiles. …………………………………………………………………………..
Of course, China’s nuclear arsenal is still modest by comparison to the US and Russian arsenals, each of which are about nine times larger than China’s. But China’s nuclear modernization efforts could have significant strategic implications that make it even more important for the “Big Three” (the United States, Russia, and China) to pursue meaningful progress on nuclear arms control to avoid a destabilizing and dangerous nuclear arms race.
Toward a more serious, sustained dialogue. In response to China’s nuclear buildup, US officials—Republicans and Democrats alike—have prioritized engagement with China in talks to identify measures to reduce nuclear risks and prevent destabilizing and costly strategic weapons competition………………………….
Sullivan’s June 2 address provides some important clues about the types of issues the US side likely raised in the arms control talks. Sullivan suggested that the United States and China, along with the other NPT nuclear-armed states, could engage in new nuclear arms control and risk reduction efforts such as establishing more robust crisis communications channels and “formalizing a missile launch notification regime” for all five permanent members of the UN Security Council—the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and France. “It’s a small step that would help reduce the risk of misperception and miscalculation in times of crisis,” Sullivan added.
These suggestions don’t happen in a vacuum: The United States and Russia have a ballistic missile launch notification agreement already in place, and Russia and China have their own bilateral agreement too.
In his remarks, Sullivan also called for talks on “maintaining a ‘human-in-the-loop’ for command, control, and employment of nuclear weapons” to reduce the risk of miscalculation in a crisis. This would require that the US and China—and other nuclear-armed states—agree to pursue technical discussions designed to reach common understandings on how the use of artificial intelligence, particularly high-risk, cutting-edge deep learning models, can be banned or at least limited so the use of nuclear weapons is effectively kept under human control. This proposal seems to have reached the highest level with Presidents Biden and Xi reportedly discussing limits on the employment of artificial intelligence in the control and deployment of nuclear weapons.
In future meetings, US and Chinese diplomats should go one step further and set out a process for formulating a joint understanding that cyberwarfare capabilities will not be used to try to interfere with other states’ nuclear command and control systems, which could also severely alter decision-making in a crisis……………………………………………………..
From talks to concrete actions. Further down the road, an even more ambitious approach that might be considered in the multilateral, nuclear-five setting would be for Washington and Moscow to propose that China, France, and the United Kingdom freeze the size of their nuclear stockpiles so long as the United States and Russia maintain the current limits on their strategic arsenals—even after New START expires—and make good faith efforts to negotiate deeper verifiable reductions in their stockpiles…………………………………………………………………
With US-Russian relations at rock bottom, the Kremlin still wedging its war on Ukraine, and the last remaining treaty limiting US and Russian strategic nuclear arsenals set to expire in early 2026, the risk of nuclear escalation and a nuclear arms race with Russia is already too high. That makes it all the more important for Xi and Biden to direct their team to work harder and more steadily to reduce tensions and head off the possibility of a costly, dangerous, unconstrained three-way nuclear race that no one can win.
Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant starts 3rd round of wastewater release, potentially impacting seafood quality in U.S.
The Daily Universe, Belle Lewis, November 14, 2023
The Fukushima-Dachii nuclear plant started its third release of nuclear wastewater on Nov. 2 as scientists warn that seafood products from the Pacific Ocean could be contaminated.
Although the International Atomic Energy Agency approved the 30-year water release plan, scientists and civilians in nations bordering the Pacific Ocean have questioned the safety of the plan, especially as it relates to seafood.
In a press release approving of the plan, the IAEA stated, “the discharges of the treated water would have a negligible radiological impact to people and the environment.”
Paul Dorfman, member of the Irish Government Environmental Protection Agency Radiation Protection Advisory Committee and chair of Nuclear Consulting Group, explained that some scientists have questioned IAEA’s approval of the water release.
“I and others are concerned by IAEA’s attitude,” Dorfman said. “Normally even low levels of radioactive pollution will find its way into local seafood, one way or another.”
In 2020, Japan exported 332,926 kilograms of frozen scallops to the U.S. Japan exports many fish products to the U.S.
Samantha Valeriano, a psychology student from Hawaii, said she eats seafood about once a week. She does not often think about where her food comes from but wants to be more cautious following the nuclear water release.
“I think I would be a little more cautious of what I ate, checking labels a little bit more,” Valeriano said. “I would be conscious of what I ate and where it came from.”
As the People’s Republic of China has imposed bans of Japanese fish exports, the U.S. has supported the Japanese market by increasing fish purchases.
In a press release, the United States Embassy and Consulate in Japan explained that military bases in Japan will carry Japanese seafood as a way to buoy up seafood markets and undermine the PRC’s ban.
“United States elected representatives and senior government officials have stood in solidarity with Japan during this baseless ban,” the statement said. “Another step to help provide additional sales to counter the ban was to start selling Japanese seafood at the U.S. military facilities in Japan, both through the commissaries and mess halls.”
According to the statement, government officials like former speaker Kevin McCarthy ate seafood from Japan as a testament to Japan’s safety standards.
However, other U.S. agencies, like the National Association of Marine Laboratories question whether accurate research was conducted by the IAEA and Japanese Government to determine safety of seafood products.
They explain that the lack of data on potential health impacts is a cause for serious concern.
“Many of the radionuclides contained in the accumulated waste cooling water have half-lives ranging from decades to centuries, and their deleterious effects range from DNA damage and cellular stress to elevated cancer risks in people who eat affected marine organisms, such as clams, oysters, crabs, lobster, shrimp and fish,” the statement reads.
Eve Nagareda, medical laboratory science major from Hawaii, shared she wants to avoid seafood from dumping grounds even if levels are considered safe.
“I think I would try to go as far as possible from it,” Nagareda said…………………………………………………………………………..
On Sep. 8, the IAEA conducted seawater sampling off the Japanese Coast. They recorded Tritium levels below the internationally mandated limit of 1,500 bequerels per liter.
Dorfman explained that below-accepted tritium levels does not mean that the ALPS is functioning properly.
“The Japan government and IAEA say that the treatment is sufficient, and levels of radiation, especially tritium, in the water releases are low.” Dorfman said. “However, others note that the treatment process has already failed once before, and may let through a series of radioisotopes, not only tritium.”
A pre-publication scientific paper found that radionucleotides from the Fukushima plant will distribute globally and penetrate into the deep ocean. The highest concentration of these particles would be along the eastern coast of Japan.
This paper contradicts assertions made by the IAEA that once the water is dumped into the Pacific Ocean, the particles will dilute.
Radiation experts often say that “dilution isn’t the solution to pollution,” according to Dorfman.
Why release the water?
After the water is released, the land the tanks occupy will be available for the Japanese government to build facilities to fully decommission the Fukushima-Daiichi Plant.
In the greater scheme of things, it has to be said that the main issue at Fukushima remains the almost impossible task of trying to extract the nearly 880 tonnes of highly radioactive nuclear fuel that have melted in three of the plant’s six reactors,” Dorfman said.
According to Dorfman, decommissioning is far off.
“We are a very very long way away from decommissioning Fukushima,” Dorfman said. “At the moment, there are no feasible plans to do so.”
What is the future of nuclear energy?
As the Fukushima nuclear water release continues its third phase and looks toward its 30-year release plan, scientists like Dorfman consider the overall effectiveness of nuclear power and its potential risks.
“The weight of evidence shows that due to the pace, scale and economics of the renewable evolution, all nuclear can do is make promises it just can’t keep,” Dorfman said.
Dorfman continued to explain how renewable energy will outstrip nuclear soon.
“Nuclear is quite simply just marginal,” Dorfman said. “In terms of cost, time, and do-ability — it’s renewable expansion in all sectors, energy efficiency and management, rapidly advancing storage technologies, grid modernization, interconnection and market innovation from supply to service provision that will power the global net-zero energy transition.”
As Nuclear wastewater disposal continues, organizations like the IAEA and NAML continue to debate the potential health impacts. https://universe.byu.edu/2023/11/14/fukushima-nuclear-power-plant-starts-third-round-of-wastewater-release-potentially-impacting-seafood-quality-in-u-s/
Collective calls on Pacific leaders to oppose Fukushima nuclear wastewater discharge
The Pacific Collective on Nuclear Issues has denounced once again the dumping of radioactive wastewater from the damaged Fukushima nuclear power plant into the Pacific Ocean, calling on Pacific leaders to suspend Japan’s status as a Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) dialogue partner.
The Collective, composed of civil society groups, non-governmental organizations and movements in the Pacific, issued a statement this week, during which the 52nd Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Meeting was held in the Cook Islands.
The statement condemned the Japanese government and the facility operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), for insisting on this flawed and dangerous course of action.
“The findings of the independent panel of scientific experts commissioned by the Pacific Islands Forum were unequivocal – the data provided so far, to support Japan’s claim that the treated wastewater is safe, is inconsistent, unsound and therefore far from reliable,” the statement said, adding that “if the Japanese government and TEPCO believe the radioactive wastewater is safe, they should be prepared to safely dispose of it within terrestrial Japan.”
The Collective also declared that such dumping into the Pacific Ocean is a direct violation of human rights.
Aside from being a brazen violation of international law, the Collective said, Japan’s behavior and handling of this matter is an affront to the very sovereignty of Pacific states and unbecoming of a dialogue partner of the PIF.
Founded in 1971, the PIF is the region’s premier political and economic policy organization which comprises 18 members.
The Collective called on the Pacific leaders to reaffirm the long-held position of the Pacific to keep their region nuclear-free and to review diplomatic relations with Japan at the next Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Meeting in 2024.
They also called on the international community not to turn a blind eye to the threat that dumping radioactive wastewater into the Pacific Ocean poses to Pacific peoples, their livelihoods, safety, health and well-being.
Japan conducted the third round of release of nuclear-contaminated wastewater from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the Pacific Ocean earlier this month, despite numerous and repeated objections by governments and communities, environmental groups, NGOs, and anti-nuclear movements in Japan and the Pacific
1 This Month
of the week– Nuclear Reactor Information Task Force
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (102)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 
