Campaign against nuclear fuel waste storage in South Bruce, Canada
People in communities near the Municipality of South Bruce may receive a leaflet from the group Protect Our Waterways-No Nuclear Waste with information on the proposal to store used nuclear fuel deep underground near Teeswater.
Spokesman Michelle Stein said 50,000 leaflets were sent out this week to let people know some of the group’s concerns about the plan to store Canada’s nuclear waste in a Deep Geologic Repository or DGR.
Stein said the Nuclear Waste Management Organization is assembling land in the municipality of South Bruce to store irradiated nuclear fuel from 4.6 million spent fuel bundles.
“The proposed site includes the Teeswater River flowing through it, and that leads to Lake Huron. And 40 million people get their drinking water from Lake Huron,” she said.
“It’s a decision that is going to affect so many people, and change our community in such a large way, I think each individual deserves to have a vote,” she added.
Stein says 1,600 residents of South Bruce signed a petition opposing the proposed DGR. Stein wants to see a referendum on the issue, as both the Nuclear Waste Management Organization and the municipality have stated that the project needs broad community support to go ahead.
If the proposed nuclear waste dump is approved there will be two loads of spent nuclear fuel travelling by truck every day for forty years from Canada’s nuclear reactors. And if there is a radioactive leak underground it could affect 40 million people in Canada and the US,” said Stein.“People need to know the risks. Nowhere in the world is there an operating DGR for high-level nuclear waste as is being proposed here. Underground storage sites for low-medium level nuclear waste in the US and Germany have leaked radioactive material and required multi-billion-dollar clean-ups”, says Stein. “I encourage everyone who lives in a community near South Bruce to contact their own Mayor and tell them you oppose NWMO’s proposal for a nuclear waste dump.”
POW-NNW believes that the “rolling stewardship” method of managing nuclear waste is better because it maintains it in a monitored and retrievable state at all times, with continual improvements to packaging and environmental protection.
Stein added that ongoing scientific studies examine how spent nuclear fuel can be reused, reduced, and even neutralized. In its initial report to Parliament, the NWMO did not say that on-site storage at the reactor sites was unsafe or not feasible.
Bruce County divided over becoming permanent site to store Canada’s nuclear waste,
Bruce County divided over becoming permanent site to store Canada’s nuclear waste,
Canada has 57K tonnes of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel and nowhere to put it, Colin Butler · CBC News · Feb 21 2020, Bruce County calls itself a place “where the smiles are bigger and a little more frequent,” but those smiles belie a deepening divide among neighbours over what to do with Canada’s growing stockpile of nuclear waste.
The town of South Bruce, on the rim of the sparkling waters of Lake Huron, is one of two sites selected by a federal agency tasked with finding permanent locations to store Canada’s nearly three million bundles of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel.
On Thursday, politicians in Bruce County debated whether their community should be home to a place to put that waste, what’s called a deep geologic repository, or DGR; a multi-billion dollar high tech nuclear waste dump that would see the material stored in perpetuity hundreds of metres below the Earth.
At issue in the debate are the ethics of leaving the burden of some of Canada’s most dangerous nuclear material to future generations, the possible development and devaluation of prime Ontario farmland and concerns over the potential safety of the drinking water for 40 million people in two countries.
‘I am strongly opposed’
On Thursday, that politically-fraught debate took centre stage in Walkerton, Ont. before a packed council chamber where politicians debated whether DGRs were “settled science” in an argument that has already played out at dinner tables, arenas and coffee shops in the area for years, dividing neighbours and leaving communities deeply polarized.
“I am strongly opposed,” said Brockton Mayor Chris Peabody, whose township includes Walkerton, a place that two decades ago grappled with a tainted water crisis where e. coli killed six people and sickened thousands.
“The proposal is to bury the waste under the Teeswater River,” he told council. “I can’t support that. I’ve got several communities down river that get their drinking water from aquifers along that river.”
Peabody said if a deep geologic repository were to be located west of Teeswater, it would potentially devalue prime farmland and the resulting stigma of burying nuclear waste near his community might affect the ability of local farmers to sell their wares.
“It would make it very difficult for them to market their produce and survive,” he said. “I don’t think the scientific consensus supports burying nuclear waste in class one farmland in Southern Ontario.”
Utilizing a deep geologic repository isn’t simply a matter of “burying nuclear waste in class one farmland” as Peabody suggests. The proposed underground project is a highly sophisticated $23 billion nuclear waste disposal site designed to contain and isolate some of the most dangerous materials on Earth for thousands of years.
The sprawling complex of tunnels and chambers would occupy a footprint of about 600 hectares underground, where nuclear waste would be stored at a depth as low as the CN Tower is tall (500 to 600 metres). The idea is the material would be encased in containers below natural bedrock to keep the harmful effects of radiation at bay for millennia.
While proponents of the system claim a DGR is a safe way to store nuclear waste, those opposed argue it has a spotty record at best, pointing out that similar facilities in New Mexico and Germany have leaked – and by that token, opponents say a DGR near Lake Huron would potentially put the drinking water of 40 million people at risk.
It’s not the first time the debate has come to the area. Ontario Power Generation recently abandoned a 15-year campaign for a similar proposed facility to store low to intermediary waste at a site not far from the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station.
The failure to move ahead with the project is part of a larger problem of Canada’s struggle to find a permanent home for its growing stockpile of nuclear waste.
As of 2018, it’s estimated Canada had some 57,000 tonnes of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel and nowhere to put it.
So far, the federal agency tasked with disposing it, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, or NWMO, has identified two potential communities with the right geological makeup; Ignace in Ontario’s north and South Bruce, in Ontario’s Great Lakes Basin. ……. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/canada-nuclear-waste-1.5469727
Donald Trump says US has incredible nuclear weapons; denies leaking classified info
Donald Trump says US has incredible nuclear weapons; denies leaking classified info https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/donald-trump-says-us-has-incredible-nuclear-weapons-denies-leaking-classified-info/articleshow/78053124.cmsSynopsis– 11 Sept 20, “Woodward writes that anonymous people later confirmed that the US military had a secret new weapons system, but they would not provide details, and that the people were surprised Trump had disclosed it,” The Washington Post said.
WASHINGTON: President Donald Trump has said the US has some “incredible” nuclear weapon systems that nobody knows about but refuted allegations of leaking classified information about them to a renowned investigative journalist in his upcoming book.
Penned by American journalist Bob Woodward, the book ‘Rage’ to be launched on September 15 has stirred several controversies around Trump’s presidency, weeks before the US election to be held on November 3.
According to the excerpts of the book released by The Washington Post, Trump during an interview with Woodward said, “I have built a nuclear — a weapons system that nobody’s ever had in this country before. We have stuff that you haven’t even seen or heard about. We have stuff that (Russian President Vladimir) Putin and (Chinese President) Xi Jinping have never heard about before. There’s nobody — what we have is incredible.”
“Woodward writes that anonymous people later confirmed that the US military had a secret new weapons system, but they would not provide details, and that the people were surprised Trump had disclosed it,” The Washington Post said.
Speaking to reporters on Thursday, Trump denied having talked about classified information about US nuclear weapons.
“We have great weaponry. No, I’m not talking about classified (information). I’m talking about what we build. We’re building great weaponry,” the president said when asked if he shared classified information about a nuclear weapons system with Woodward.
“What were you talking about when you talked about that?” Trump was asked.
“Our military is stronger now than it’s ever been. We spent USD 2.5 trillion on our military over the last three-and-a-half years. We now have new rockets and missiles. And, frankly, our nuclear — we have to hope to God we never have to use it — but our nuclear now is in the best shape it’s been in decades,” he asserted.
Trump told reporters the US has some nuclear systems that nobody knows about. ..
James Acton, co-director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s nuclear policy programme, tweeted that Trump might have been mentioning about a 2017 announcement of a plan to reduce the explosive power of some nuclear warheads on submarine-launched missiles.
“The timing was kept secret. My guess is that Trump told Woodward about the first deployment before it was made public. This weapon is usually called the low-yield D5 (because the missile is the Trident D5 sea-launched ballistic missiles). The warhead is the W76-2,” he tweeted on Thursday.
“I don’t believe that the US could build an actually new nuclear weapon in secret. Too much money for classified budgets. Too many people involved for it not to leak,” Acton said in another tweet.
Meanwhile, addressing a public rally in Michigan on Thursday, Trump asserted that he did not leak any information and asserted that he just wanted to inform the people that the US has the greatest weaponry in the world.
“I said, we have systems and missiles and rockets and military – we have systems that you’ve never even seen before. (Chinese) President Xi (Jinping) has nothing like it. Russian President (Vladimir) Putin has nothing like it.
“They (the media) said he may be giving away classified information. These people are sick. Never speak well about our technology…I just want to let people know we have the greatest systems, the greatest equipment and the greatest people anywhere in the world. There is nobody like the US military,” Trump told the crowd.
Donald Trump says US has incredible nuclear weapons; denies leaking classified info https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/donald-trump-says-us-has-incredible-nuclear-weapons-denies-leaking-classified-info/articleshow/78053124.cmsSynopsis
“Woodward writes that anonymous people later confirmed that the US military had a secret new weapons system, but they would not provide details, and that the people were surprised Trump had disclosed it,” The Washington Post said.
v
WASHINGTON: President Donald Trump has said the US has some “incredible” nuclear weapon systems that nobody knows about but refuted allegations of leaking classified information about them to a renowned investigative journalist in his upcoming book.
Penned by American journalist Bob Woodward, the book ‘Rage’ to be launched on September 15 has stirred several controversies around Trump’s presidency, weeks before the US election to be held on November 3.
According to the excerpts of the book released by The Washington Post, Trump during an interview with Woodward said, “I have built a nuclear — a weapons system that nobody’s ever had in this country before. We have stuff that you haven’t even seen or heard about. We have stuff that (Russian President Vladimir) Putin and (Chinese President) Xi Jinping have never heard about before. There’s nobody — what we have is incredible.”
“Woodward writes that anonymous people later confirmed that the US military had a secret new weapons system, but they would not provide details, and that the people were surprised Trump had disclosed it,” The Washington Post said.
Speaking to reporters on Thursday, Trump denied having talked about classified information about US nuclear weapons.
“We have great weaponry. No, I’m not talking about classified (information). I’m talking about what we build. We’re building great weaponry,” the president said when asked if he shared classified information about a nuclear weapons system with Woodward.
“What were you talking about when you talked about that?” Trump was asked.
“Our military is stronger now than it’s ever been. We spent USD 2.5 trillion on our military over the last three-and-a-half years. We now have new rockets and missiles. And, frankly, our nuclear — we have to hope to God we never have to use it — but our nuclear now is in the best shape it’s been in decades,” he asserted.
Trump told reporters the US has some nuclear systems that nobody knows about. ..
James Acton, co-director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s nuclear policy programme, tweeted that Trump might have been mentioning about a 2017 announcement of a plan to reduce the explosive power of some nuclear warheads on submarine-launched missiles.
“The timing was kept secret. My guess is that Trump told Woodward about the first deployment before it was made public. This weapon is usually called the low-yield D5 (because the missile is the Trident D5 sea-launched ballistic missiles). The warhead is the W76-2,” he tweeted on Thursday.
“I don’t believe that the US could build an actually new nuclear weapon in secret. Too much money for classified budgets. Too many people involved for it not to leak,” Acton said in another tweet.
Meanwhile, addressing a public rally in Michigan on Thursday, Trump asserted that he did not leak any information and asserted that he just wanted to inform the people that the US has the greatest weaponry in the world.
“I said, we have systems and missiles and rockets and military – we have systems that you’ve never even seen before. (Chinese) President Xi (Jinping) has nothing like it. Russian President (Vladimir) Putin has nothing like it.
“They (the media) said he may be giving away classified information. These people are sick. Never speak well about our technology…I just want to let people know we have the greatest systems, the greatest equipment and the greatest people anywhere in the world. There is nobody like the US military,” Trump told the crowd.
NuScam’s ”small” nuclear reactor design approved – but cost, safety, public acceptance hurdles loom against them
First U.S. Small Nuclear Reactor Design Is Approved, Concerns about costs and safety remain, however, Scientific American 
By Dave Levitan on September 9, 2020
- The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has approved the design of a new kind of reactor, known as a small modular reactor (SMR). The design, from the Portland, Ore.–based company NuScale Power, is intended to speed construction, lower cost and improve safety over traditional nuclear reactors…………
- some experts have expressed concerns over the potential expense and remaining safety issues that the industry would have to address before any such reactors are actually built. ………
- The NRC’s design and related final safety evaluation report (FSER) do not mean that the firm can begin constructing reactors. But utility companies can now apply to the NRC to build and operate NuScale’s design. With almost no new nuclear construction completed in the U.S. over the past three decades, SMRs could help reinvigorate a flagging industry.
NuScale’s SMR, developed with the help of almost $300 million from the U.S. Department of Energy, has a generating capacity of 50 megawatts—substantially smaller than standard nuclear reactors, which can range to well more than 1,000 megawatts (MW). A utility could combine up to 12 SMRs at a single site, producing 600 MW of electricity—enough to power a midsize city. The NRC says it expects an application for a 60-MW version of NuScale’s SMR in 2022……….
In a July 2020 report, NRC nuclear engineer Shanlai Lu discussed a complicated issue known as boron dilution, which could possibly cause “fuel failure and prompt criticality condition”—meaning that even if a reactor is shut down, fission reactions could restart and begin a dangerous power increase. And in another report, the NRC’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards also noted that “several potentially risk-significant items” are not yet completed, though it did still recommend that the NRC issue the FSER. The agency’s response to the latter report stated that those items will be further assessed when site-specific licensing applications—the step needed to actually begin building and operating a reactor—are submitted. ……..
Lyman says that in general, the NRC’s design certification process should reduce uncertainty for utilities aiming to build nuclear plants because they can reference a completed safety review. But he thinks the NuScale approval undermines that advantage. Whether the gaps in safety will result in further delays to NuScale’s time line remains to be seen. The NRC will undertake another review when the company’s 60-MW design is submitted. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-u-s-small-nuclear-reactor-design-is-approved/
Connecticut senate candidate Ryan Fazio’s very bad idea – to buuild more nuclear power plants
CT senate candidate Ryan Fazio wants to build more nuclear reactors, https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/opinion/article/Opinion-CT-senate-candidate-Ryan-Fazio-wants-to-15553213.php By Sean Goldrick, September 9, 2020 Ryan Fazio wants to build you a nuke. Yep, that’s right. Fazio, the Republican candidate for state senate in Connecticut’s 36th district — Greenwich, north Stamford, and New Canaan — has at the top of his power plan for Connecticut building new nuclear power plants: “As your state senator, I will advance an all-of-the-above clean energy strategy that incorporates more nuclear, hydroelectric, and other affordable power sources to our grid.”
“More nuclear …”? Does he want to replace the Indian Point, the nuclear power plant on the Hudson River just minutes’ drive from Greenwich that’s shutting down next spring, with a new nuke in Connecticut? Perhaps he wants to build a second Shoreham nuclear power plant, the Long Island nuke that was shut down due to overwhelming opposition by residents without ever delivering a single watt of power. Fazio thinks that Connecticut, the third smallest and fourth most densely populated state in the nation, is the perfect place to build more nuclear? Before we hand him the keys to the reactor, let’s review what nuclear has done to us.
Our downwind location from Indian Point has resulted in thyroid cancer rates in Fairfield County substantially higher than the national average — and rising. Thyroid cancer’s only known cause is exposure to radiation. Thyroid cancer rates are higher in Westchester County, and higher still in Putnam County. The closer one gets to Indian Point, the higher the cancer rates. Residents of Connecticut’s New London County, in which the aptly named Millstone nuclear power plant is located, also suffer high rates of thyroid cancer. In 2012, the federal government initiated a five-year study of cancer incidence in New London County and Fairfield County, but shut it down suddenly in 2015 with little explanation, and no release of data.
Research shows that the unsubsidized levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of large scale wind and solar is a fraction of the cost of new nuclear generators. So nuclear power, which Fazio wants foist on Connecticut ratepayers, is actually not an “affordable power source” at all, but one that can only operate with massive subsidies.
And given that nuclear power plants demand massive quantities of water to cool their reactor cores, a new nuclear plant would have to be built on the Connecticut shoreline. So would you like a new nuke In Norwalk? Shall we foist one onto the people of Bridgeport? Will you feel comfortable with a nuclear reactor in Connecticut even closer to us than Indian Point?
So, high and rising thyroid cancer rates, uncontrolled leaks of tritium into the groundwater, taxpayer subsidies to Millstone for its economically unviable, uncompetitive, and expensive nuclear power, all crowding out wind and solar power, real clean energy that continues to achieve dramatic reductions in cost of generation. But nuclear tops the list on Ryan Fazio’s energy plan?
What a way to spend tax-payers’money! $13.3 billion to Northrop Grumman for new nuclear missiles
 Air Force awards Northrop Grumman $13.3 billion contract for new nuclear missiles, Market Watch Sept. 8, 2020 By Associated Press Critics call project wasteful, but Esper says nuclear arsenal needs to be modernized Critics call the replacement project wasteful and dangerous. Democrat Joe Biden has not said whether he would, if elected in November, support the project, known officially as the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent. The project has bipartisan support in Congress. The announcement came just one day after President Donald Trump assailed Pentagon leaders as eager to fight wars to generate profits for defense contractors. Trump at times has lamented the enormous cost of maintaining a big nuclear arsenal, but his defense budgets have supported nuclear modernization. Award of the contract to Northrop Grumman NOC, +1.45% is a big step in a project that is estimated to eventually cost at least $85 billion. …….. Critics, however, say the $13.3 billion sole-source contract for Northrop Grumman is driven more by political inertia than military necessity. “Our nation faces major security challenges, including a global pandemic that has killed almost 200,000 Americans, and we shouldn’t spend our limited resources on new nuclear weapons that we don’t need and make us less safe,” said William J. Perry, who served as defense secretary in the Clinton administration and has written extensively since then on the dangers posed by nuclear weapons. “The highest probability of starting a nuclear war is a mistaken launch caused by a false alarm and a rushed decision to launch nuclear-armed ICBMs,” Perry said in a written statement. “Instead of spending billions of dollars on new nuclear missiles we don’t need, we must focus on preventing accidental nuclear war.” https://www.marketwatch.com/story/air-force-awards-northrop-grumman-133-billion-contract-for-new-nuclear-missiles-2020-09-08 |
|
Ohio’s House Bill 60 – bailing out nuclear power, will not save consumers money.
Groups pushing for repeal of the bailout of Ohio’s two nuclear plants are challenging proponents of House Bill 6 who say the law will save consumers money. Instead, consumer and environmental groups say the legislation will add about $7 to a monthly bill.
Ohio environmentalists and consumer groups dispute the math that’s been used to justify the bailout of Ohio’s two nuclear power plants. They say House Bill 6, passed last summer, actually will increase the cost of the average monthly electric bill a family pays by about $7, not decrease it, as backers of the law say.
Efforts to repeal HB 6 have gained momentum since the indictment this summer of former House Speaker Larry Householder, who has been charged with four others in a $61 million federal bribery and racketeering scandal tied to the legislation.
“Supporters of House Bill 6 and those that are now arguing for no repeal or partial repeal are presenting similar cost savings information that is inaccurate and incomplete,” said Trish Demeter, chief of staff of the Ohio Environmental Council Action Fund……..
environmentalists and consumer groups said Wednesday that those numbers don’t tell the whole story.
Take energy efficiency, for example.
Those programs carried an average monthly fee of $3.36. The programs provide homeowners and small businesses with rebates and incentives to switch out aging appliances and upgrade old equipment that wastes energy.
When you account for the lost efficiency savings, consumers are much worse off,″ said Chris Neme, principal of Energy Futures Group, which has worked on energy efficiency programs.
Demeter said the $1.50-per-month fee to shore up the two coal plants is supposed to end in 2030, but utilities are allowed to defer costs to operate the plants, which can be recovered later from consumers.
“Millions upon millions more (will be) coming out of Ohioans’ pockets and going to into the coffers of Ohio utilities,” she said.
The groups are calling on the legislature to consider the true costs of the bill and then repeal it.
Demeter also said repeal of the bill is necessary to begin to restore the public trust in the legislative process that’s been hurt by the scandal.
“Not repealing the bill as soon as humanly possible is sending a message the legislature is not interested in restoring that trust,” she said. https://www.dispatch.com/business/20200909/savings-from-hb-6-nuclear-bailout-donrsquot-add-up-advocacy-groups-say
Dominion Energy has filed to keep nuclear station in Virginia going for 80 years!
Dominion files to keep Virginia’s North Anna nuclear plant operating 80 years, Utility Dive, 9Sep 20,
Dominion Energy announced on Friday it has filed with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a 20-year extension of its license to operate two generating units at the North Anna nuclear power plant in Louisa County, Va.
The United States and its allies must learn how to live safely with a nuclear North Korea
On North Korea, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,Toby Dalton, Co-director and Senior Fellow Nuclear Policy Program, 9 Sep 20,
The United States and its allies must learn how to live safely with a nuclear North
Three practical goals should inform a new U.S. policy toward North Korea:
- Prevent crises that could lead to war
- Cap North Korea’s arsenal of nuclear and long-range missiles and prevent their export
- Buffer the alliances with Japan and South Korea against likely North Korean provocations
Additional objectives—for instance, preventing illicit trafficking and improving human rights—are important but ultimately secondary. Though desirable, regime change is too risky and uncertain to pursue, as recent experiences in Iraq and Libya suggest.
Accomplishing these three goals will require new negotiations just to establish rules of the road. North Korean demands are bound to be distasteful, but the costs of a negotiated agreement would be far less than those incurred through war or through increased military deployments in East Asia and the construction of a more extensive missile defense shield.
The costs of a negotiated agreement would be far less than those incurred through war.
Reaching a deal will involve helping North Korea overcome its suspicious, hard-nosed attitude. But an even greater challenge will be changing how Washington thinks about detecting and addressing the Kim regime’s possible cheating on a deal……… https://carnegieendowment.org/2020/09/09/on-north-korea-pub-82524
Donald Trump’s claim to have a new secret new weapon system, blowing a defense secret!
 Trump Claims To Have Built A New, Secret Nuclear Weapons System, Forbes, Nicholas Reimann, 9 Sep 20.
President Donald Trump claimed to journalist Bob Woodward that he had overseen the creation of a new U.S. nuclear weapons system, saying, “We have stuff that you haven’t ever seen or heard about,”as the two discussed tensions between the United States and North Korea.
KEY FACTSIt’s not clear what Trump was referring to, but Woodward writes in his new book Rage that he later confirmed with sources that the U.S. military indeed had a secret new weapon system, and the sources said they were surprised Trump had disclosed the information, according to The Washington Post. It’s possible that Trump was referring to the W76-2 warhead, according to the defense publication Task & Purpose. That weapon was announced in Feb. 2018 as a relatively “low-cost” addition to the U.S. nuclear arsenal, and has a smaller explosive yield than the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Trump made the comments to Woodward during one of 18 on-the-record interviews the famed Watergate journalist had with the president between December and July for his for his upcoming book, which is billed as providing an inside look at the Trump White House. CRITICAL QUOTE“I have built a nuclear — a weapons system that nobody’s ever had in this country before. We have stuff that you haven’t even seen or heard about. We have stuff that Putin and Xi have never heard about before. There’s nobody — what we have is incredible,” Trump said. KEY BACKGROUNDTrump reportedly made the comments when reflecting on how close the U.S. came to war with North Korea in 2017, near the beginning of his presidency……… https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2020/09/09/trump-claims-to-have-built-a-new-secret-nuclear-weapons-system/#4dcea85f1a1e |
|
|
More reports of drones flying near Paolo Verde nuclear power plant, and others, and over spent nuclear fuel storage sites
Dozens More Mystery Drone Incursions Over U.S. Nuclear Power Plants Revealed, Forbes, David Hambling– 7 Sept 20, Forbes recently described how a swarm of drones flew in a restricted area at Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant on two successive nights last September. A new cache of documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) reveals how 24 nuclear sites suffered at least 57 drone incursions from 2015 to 2019 – and Palo Verde itself was overflown again in December, despite new security measures.
A 2003 report noted how vulnerable such pools were to terrorist action, simply by making a hole in the pool to drain out the cooling water and causing the stored fuel to overheat: “We warned that U.S. spent fuel pools were vulnerable to acts of terror. The drainage of a pool might cause a catastrophic radiation fire, which could render an area uninhabitable much greater than that created by the Chernobyl accident.”
Climate change should be the central focus of the American presidential debates
 Green groups press for climate focus at presidential debates https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/03/green-climate-focus-presidential-debates-408453The effort is calling on debate moderators to press President Donald Trump and Democratic nominee Joe Biden to lay out their plans to fight climate change. ANTHONY ADRAGNA, 09/03/2020
A coalition of more than three dozen environmental groups is pressing the moderators of the upcoming presidential debates to make climate change “a central focus” of this year’s contests — after moderators in the 2016 debates failed to ask a single question on climate policy. The effort, led by Evergreen Action and the collection of green groups working together in the independent organization Climate Power, is calling on debate moderators to press President Donald Trump and Democratic nominee Joe Biden to lay out their plans to fight climate change. Biden listed the issue as one of the top problems facing the country during his speech at last month’s Democratic National Convention, while Trump’s administration has dismantled many of the rules and policies put in place to address climate change under his predecessor. “It is imperative the candidates seeking our nation’s highest office explain how they will address and prepare us for the current and increasing effects of the climate crisis and how they will combat the environmental injustice that has plagued Black and brown communities for decades,” the coalition of 41 groups wrote in a letter Thursday. The details: Along with the letter, Evergreen launched a petition inviting signers to demand “climate be front-and-center in the 2020 debates” and soliciting potential questions to be asked.
The commission in charge of the debates announced Wednesday that “Fox News Sunday” anchor Chris Wallace, C-SPAN political editor Steve Scully and NBC News White House correspondent Kristen Welker would moderate the three presidential contests. Susan Page, Washington bureau chief for USA Today, will handle the vice presidential debate between Vice President Mike Pence and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.). Dozens of House Democrats sent their own letter Wednesday to the Commission on Presidential Debates demanding it “break precedent and publicly call on the moderators to include climate in the topics” discussed during the sessions.“In 2016, there was not a single question on climate change in any of the four presidential and vice-presidential debates. This cannot happen again,” the lawmakers, led by Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) wrote. “We need a dedicated discussion on the climate crisis that matches the importance of this moment.” Other signers of the environmental letter include Center for American Progress Action Fund, the League of Conservation Voters, the National Wildlife Federation, NRDC Action Fund, Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Sierra Club and the Working Families Party. The context: Trump has recently softened his long-held view that climate change is a “hoax,” though has consistently derided efforts by Democrats to address the problem and slammed efforts like the Green New Deal as “radical” and “unthinkable.” He’s also eased regulations to the benefit of fossil fuel producers and weakened rules around vehicle fuel efficiency and power plant emissions designed to fight climate change. Biden has called climate change one of the four crises currently facing the nation, along with the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, racial justice reckoning and economic devastation linked to the pandemic. However, despite significant support from all wings of the party, the Democratic National Committee ultimately opted against holding a climate-specific debate during the primary. The only question remotely related to climate change during the 2016 cycle came from coal plant operator Ken Bone, who asked the candidates about energy policy, and he subsequently became an internet celebrity. What’s next: The three presidential debates are slated for Sept. 29, Oct. 15 and Oct. 22, while the vice presidential session is due to take place on Oct. 7. |
|
Joe Biden if president will push allies like Australia to do more on climate, adviser says
Joe Biden if president will push allies like Australia to do more on climate, adviser says
Jake Sullivan says the former vice-president, if elected, won’t ‘pull any punches’ on what is a global problem. Guardian Daniel Hurst @danielhurstbne, Mon 7 Sep 2020
Joe Biden will not pull any punches with allies including Australia in seeking to build international momentum for stronger action on the climate crisis, an adviser to the US presidential candidate has said.
If elected in November, Biden will hold heavy emitters such as China accountable for doing more “but he’s also going to push our friends to do more as well”, according to Jake Sullivan, who was the national security adviser to Biden when he was vice-president and is now in the candidate’s inner circle……..
While Australia’s prime minister, Scott Morrison, is likely to welcome the pledge of US coordination with allies on regional security issues, there may be unease in government ranks about the potential for tough conversations about Australia’s climate policies.
The Coalition government has resisted calls to embrace a target of net-zero emissions by 2050 and it proposes to use Kyoto carryover credits to meet Australia’s 2030 emission reductions pledge. Some Coalition backbenchers still openly dispute climate science.
Sullivan said climate change would be a big priority for Biden, both in domestic policy – with climate and clean energy issues placed at the heart of his economic recovery visions – and in foreign policy, where he would do more than just reverse Donald Trump’s decision to abandon the Paris agreement.
He has said right out of the gate, we’re not just rejoining Paris – we are going to rally the nations of the world to get everyone to up their game, to elevate their ambition, to do more,” Sullivan told the Lowy Institute. ………. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/07/joe-biden-if-president-will-push-allies-like-australia-to-do-more-on-climate-adviser-says
Bob Halstead has done a great job defending Nevada from nuclear waste dumping at Yucca Mountain
|
Nevada grateful for Halstead’s many years fighting nuclear waste, Las Vegas Sun , Monday, Sept. 7, 2020 On this Labor Day, t
 he Sun salutes a recently retired Nevada leader whose three decades of tireless public service unquestionably made a difference in our state.
Bob Halstead, who stepped down last month as the executive director for the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, will be long remembered for his staunch defense of the state against the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository project. It’s scary to think where Nevada might be today if not for Halstead and his guard-dogging against the federal government’s attempts to shove the nation’s high-level nuclear waste down our throats.
Halstead was the state’s foremost expert on the project, a walking encyclopedia of its many flaws. His credibility, geniality and commitment allowed him to work with Republican and Democratic governors, Nevada congressional delegates, state legislators and local officials alike. That helped forge a unified front on the project that continues to this day. Outside of a few misguided officials, it’s difficult to find a Nevada leader who wants anything to do with Yucca Mountain. Halstead also spearheaded the state’s response to the feds’ 2018 secret shipments of weapons-grade plutonium to the Nevada National Security Site, among other efforts. Along the way, he became a nemesis of the Department of Energy, beating them back with legal and scientific challenges and poking their arguments full of holes…………. It’s certainly been an impressive fight, and a long one. It dates to 1987, when Congress passed the so-called “Screw Nevada” bill that designated our state as the national waste repository site — without our consent. Since then, the project has been killed and resurrected repeatedly, most recently when the Trump administration pushed for funding to restart the licensing process. When President Donald Trump finally capitulated, it was a high point for Halstead after a career of bedeviling pro-Yucca presidents, bureaucrats and Congress members who were intent on shipping waste out of their own districts and dumping it on Nevada. But as Halstead has noted, the fight isn’t over. It won’t be until there’s legislation that permanently shuts down the site. With Halstead’s departure, that means the current and next generations of Nevada leaders will have to take up the cause just as fervently as he did. We simply can’t let down our guard on this monstrosity, which would result in more than 110,000 metric tons of highly radioactive waste being shipped into the backyard of Las Vegas and stored there. Transporting the material is dangerous, especially for Las Vegas, given that one of the main routes takes shipments directly through the heart of the city. Think about the effects of an accident or a terrorist attack on a shipment going through the middle of Las Vegas. As for storage, seismic activity in the region makes Yucca Mountain a terrible place to put this waste. A leak could contaminate groundwater for thousands of years — and keep in mind that we’re talking about enough material to cover a football field about seven yards deep. There’s nothing close to scientific proof that the waste could be safely stored in the repository for the tens of thousands of years it will remain radioactive. Halstead knew this, and for 30 years he refused to yield on it……..https://lasvegassun.com/news/2020/sep/07/nevada-grateful-for-halsteads-many-years-fighting/ |
|
A Republican voter changes sides – wants nuclear disarmament
|
Nuclear policy her deciding factor https://www.hutchnews.com/opinion/20200907/letter-to-editor-nuclear-policy-her-deciding-factor, – Dawn Olney, Prairie VillageI In early 2020, at President Trump’s request, the U.S. built and deployed “low yield” nuclear missiles. This new model, W76-2, is currently armed on submarines and is an escalation of nuclear armament. As recently as May 2020, Trump and his administration have been in discussions to test nuclear weapons, which the US has not done since 1992. The Republicans in the Senate approved at least $10 million in the 2021 budget for nuclear testing. It is unfathomable that the US would again spread radiation in our own country by detonating nuclear bombs, yet plans are being laid to do just that. These steps surely increase the likelihood of nuclear development and warfare escalation by other countries, a vicious circle we have tried to avoid for decades. This behavior is obviously alarming to our allies, as our leadership position in the world continues to erode. At the recent Republican convention, it was decided their platform would be to support President Trump’s agenda. Electing Trump and any Republican to the U.S. Senate and U.S. House would enable Trump to proceed with these dangerous plans that would escalate global violence and wars. I used to be a Republican, but these decisions would be disastrous to the U.S. and the world. The best hope to avoid irradiation of our country by our own government, and to discourage the spread of nuclear weapons in the world, is to vote for Biden, Bollier and De La Isla.
|
|
1 This Month
Read the Public Inquiry Report, the Commissioners’ report, Surrendering Australia: The AUKUS Deception is available to download for free at aukuspublicinquiry.com. Or just watch the replay of the National Press Club Luncheon.
19 November – Webinar – The Reality of Reprocessing
Time: 11:00 AM Pacific Time (US & Canada) / 2:00 PM Eastern / 7:00 PM UK / 8:00 PM CET
Register for the Zoom Event Here
Shut down the radiation-damaged Heysham nuclear reactors now
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
-
Archives
- November 2026 (94)
- October 2026 (302)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
-
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
