MIT Coalition for Palestine Announces Major Divestment Win
09/17/2024, https://nlgmass.org/mit-coalition-for-palestine-announces-major-divestment-win/
The MIT Coalition For Palestine announces a major divestment win for its Scientists Against Genocide (SAGE) movement : MIT has ended the MISTI-Israel Lockheed Martin Fund. This is the first known shutdown of an American-Israeli weapons manufacturer partnership at a U.S. university since the war on Gaza has begun, and MIT has chosen to end this partnership despite renewing its other MISTI projects. The Fund had been a project by MIT International Science and Technology Initiative Israel (MISTI-Israel) to connect students and researchers at MIT to the global arms manufacturer’s Israeli offices.
Lockheed Martin has unquestionably profited from the genocide in Gaza, supplying the Israeli government with Hellfire missiles, attack aircraft, and heavy artillery directly used in destroying Palestinian lives, homes, and society, as well as enabling torture camps and a regime of apartheid. This win is a testament to the sustained pressure from activists, including MIT labor’s refusal to abet the apartheid state via contributing to its weapons research. NLG is proud to have supported and represented MIT SAGE via legal representation and legal observation, especially when they were under threat of police violence and unlawful arrests during the encampment of Apr-May 2024.
Israeli forces continue to escalate in their terror, and MIT maintains ongoing, direct research funding links to the Israeli military supply chain. MIT Coalition for Palestine will continue to fight and resist against the genocidal regime: the NLG will continue to support that fight. No science for apartheid, and free Palestine
Selling War: How Raytheon and Boeing Fund the Push for NATO’s Nuclear Expansion
World Beyond War, By Alan Macleod, Mint Press, September 20, 2024
To “counter Russia’s nuclear blackmail,” the Atlantic Council confidently asserted, “NATO must adapt its nuclear sharing program.” This includes moving B-61 atomic bombs to Eastern Europe and building a network of medium-range missile bases across the continent. The think tank praised Washington’s recent decision to send Tomahawk and SM-6 missiles to Germany as a “good start” but insisted that it “does not impose a high enough price” on Russia.
What the Atlantic Council does not divulge at any time is that not only would this drastically increase the likelihood of a catastrophic nuclear war, but that the weapons they specifically recommend come directly from manufacturers that fund them in the first place.
The B-61 bombs are assembled by Boeing, who, according to its most recent financial reports, gave tens of thousands of dollars to the organization. And the Tomahawk and SM-6 are produced by Raytheon, who recently supplied the Atlantic Council with a six-figure sum.
Thus, their recommendations not only put the world at risk but also directly benefit their funders.
Unfortunately, this gigantic conflict of interest that affects us all is par for the course among foreign policy think tanks. A MintPress News investigation into the funding sources of U.S. foreign policy think tanks has found that they are sponsored to the tune of millions of dollars every year by weapons contractors. Arms manufacturing companies donated at least $7.8 million last year to the top fifty U.S. think tanks, who, in turn, pump out reports demanding more war and higher military spending, which significantly increase their sponsors’ profits. The only losers in this closed, circular system are the American public, saddled with higher taxes, and the tens of millions of people around the world who are victims of the U.S. war machine.
The think tanks receiving the most tainted cash were, in order, the Atlantic Council, CSIS, CNAS, the Hudson Institute, and the Council on Foreign Relations, while the weapons manufacturers most active on K-Street were Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and General Atomics.
These think tanks directly affect conflicts around the world. CSIS, for example, are among the loudest advocates for arming Ukraine, Taiwan and Israel, even as the latter carries out a genocide in Palestine. A recent report lays out a shopping list of U.S. weapons that would help the Israeli military, including Excalibur artillery projectiles, JDAM bomb guidance systems, and Javelin missiles. Those weapons are manufactured by Raytheon, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin, respectively, all of whom are among CSIS’ top funders.
U.S. arms are being used daily to carry out illegal and deadly attacks against civilian populations in Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria, making arms manufacturers directly complicit in war crimes.
One example of this is the recent Israeli bombing of the Al Mawasi humanitarian zone in Gaza. Israel dropped three one-ton MK-84 bombs on the camp, killing at least 19 people. Dozens more are still missing.
According to the UN, MK-84 bomb blasts rupture lungs, tear limbs and heads from bodies, and burst sinus cavities up to hundreds of meters away.
The MK-84 bombs were produced in the U.S. by General Dynamics and sent to Israel with Washington’s blessing. General Dynamics has made huge profits from the slaughter; the D.C.-based arms manufacturer’s stock price has jumped by 42% since October 7.
Conflicts and Conflicts of Interest
Think tanks are an essential part of K-Street, the collective term for the assembly of lobbyists, trade associations and other organizations that attempt to alter government policy……………………………………………………………………………………
There is obviously a massive conflict of interest if groups advising the U.S. government on military policy are awash with cash from the arms industry. This study attempts to quantify that conflict of interest. It analyzed the top 50 most influential foreign policy think tanks in the U.S., according to the University of Pennsylvania’s Global Go to Think Tank Index, and tracked the funding of these 50 organizations to ascertain how much money each received from the weapons industry. A comprehensive funding spreadsheet containing all the numbers used in this study can be found here.
Figures were taken from each group’s websites, funding lists, and financial declarations for the last financial year available. In total, the arms industry donated at least $7.8 million to those think tanks.
This, however, is certainly a significant underestimate for several reasons. ……………………………….
Tanks and Think Tanks
The results were both worrying and unsurprising, as this study found that giant arms manufacturers quietly bankrolled many of the largest and most influential groups advising the U.S. government on its foreign policy. The Atlantic Council alone is funded by 22 weapons companies, totaling at least $2.69 million last year. Even a group like the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, established in 1910 as an organization dedicated to reducing global conflict, is sponsored by corporations making weapons of war, including Boeing and Leonardo, who donate tens of thousands of dollars annually.
The five think tanks that received the most funding from the arms industry are: The Atlantic Council, $2.69 million; Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), $2.46 million; Center for a New American Security (CNAS), $950,000; Hudson Institute, $635,000; and the Council on Foreign Relations, $300,000.
At least 36 weapons manufacturers provided funding to major American think tanks. The most “generous” among them were Northrop Grumman, $1.07 million; Lockheed Martin, $838,000; General Atomics, $510,000; Leonardo S.p.A., $485,000; and Mitsubishi, $443,000.
When presented with these findings, peace activist David Swanson, author of “War is a Lie,” appeared disgusted but not surprised. Swanson described the role of arms industry-funded think tanks as such:
They have to build up through endless repetition and through debates that remain within their bizarre parameters the idea that wars are won, that wars are defensive, that nuclear weapons deter wars, that enemies cannot be spoken with, that weapons spending is a public service that nations should do to the maximum extent possible while stripping funding away from human needs, and similar outrageous pieces of nonsense.”
He Who Pays the Piper
It is no coincidence that the groups receiving the most weapons industry money are home to some of the most hawkish, pro-war voices to be found anywhere. The arms industry, like all corporations, does not donate out of the goodness of their hearts but is instead looking for a return on their investments.
Influential think tanks like CSIS are certainly giving their benefactors bang for their buck, consistently agitating for more military spending and more war around the world, whatever the consequences.
………………………..European countries, CSIS also insisted, must “pull their weight” in NATO, transforming their societies into ones every bit as militarized as the U.S., for the sake of “global democracy.”
Meanwhile, writing in The Atlantic, Eliot A. Cohen, CSIS’ Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy, demanded an escalation in the West’s involvement in Ukraine. “We need to see masses of Russians fleeing, deserting, shooting their officers, taken captive, or dead. The Russian defeat must be an unmistakably big, bloody shambles,” he wrote, adding that “To that end, with the utmost urgency, the West should give everything that Ukraine could possibly use.”
This included long-range missiles and F-16 and F-35 fighter jets.
What neither Cohen nor the Atlantic noted, however, was that the weapons he demanded to be bought and sent to Ukraine are made by General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin, groups that directly fund CSIS……………………….
the relentless pro-war voices were hardly limited to CSIS. In fact, every think tank taking substantial arms industry cash maintained a notably hawkish stance. The Atlantic Council, for instance, policed European nations’ NATO spending in an attempt to pressure them to purchase more arms and has advocated that the U.S. create a new “Indo-Pacific intelligence coalition” that would ramp up tensions with China. CNAS, meanwhile, has claimed that the U.S.’ supposedly muted response to “Chinese provocations” has eroded its “credibility” on the world stage.
Speaking on what think tanks have achieved, Swanson told MintPress:
They’ve normalized the idea of measuring war spending as a percentage of an economy, and the idea that there is no such thing as too much of it. They’ve normalized the idea of only one solution to all problems, even problems created by that one solution, namely war. [And] they present endlessly endlessly endlessly ‘defensive alliance NATO’ with not a soul noticing that NATO’s wars have all been blatantly aggressive.”
The American public is generally skeptical of war. Surveys show that two-thirds of the country wants Washington and Ukraine to directly engage in diplomacy with Russia, even if that means conceding Ukrainian territory. Most Americans are against sending more U.S. troops to the Middle East as well, even if it were only to “defend Israel.”
They hold these positions despite what they are constantly told in the media. A study by the Quincy Institute found that, when discussing Ukraine, 85% of all think tanks quoted in major outlets like the New York Times, Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal received funding from the military-industrial complex. Most prominent among these were CSIS and the Atlantic Council.
Making a Killing from Killing
In his hit 1970 song, “War,” Edwin Starr claimed that the practice was a “friend only to the undertaker.” But war has also been excellent news for weapons contractors. In the past five years, General Dynamics’ stock price has jumped by 103%, Lockheed Martin’s by 107%, and Northrop Grumman’s by 110%.
Arms industry shareholders have seen massive returns on investment, thanks to the actions of a nation addicted to conflict. The United States has been engaged in warfare for 231 of its 248 years as an independent country. According to a report by the Congressional Research Service, a U.S. government institution, America has launched 469 foreign military interventions between 1798 and 2022 and 251 since 1991 alone. This has included special operations, targeted assassinations of foreign leaders, military coups, and outright invasions and occupations of other countries.
More than half of all discretionary Federal spending goes to the military, whose budget is closing in on $1 trillion annually. American military spending rivals that of all other nations combined. The United States also maintains a network of around 1,000 bases around the world, including nearly 400 in a ring encircling China.
This feeds the insatiable appetites of weapons manufacturers, who, therefore, have even more money to spend buying influence and lobbying the government for more war and antagonistic policies that benefit them.
Part of their strategy is funding think tanks in Washington, D.C. For the likes of Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, it is a no-brainer, an astute business investment. A few hundred thousand dollars per year spent bankrolling think tanks like CSIS, CNAS or the Atlantic Council translates into billions of dollars worth of more orders for tanks, ships and aircraft.
By 2016, the United States was bombing seven countries simultaneously. And yet, militarism and the danger to the planet have only increased since then. The U.S. is currently gearing up for potential wars against both Russia and China – two of the largest and most populous states on the planet, and both ones with large stockpiles of atomic weapons. A war with either would risk Armageddon.
This is all great news for the military-industrial-complex, however, who are making a killing. And that is why it is imperative that they be stopped; it is literally a life-and-death issue for all of us.
Feature photo | The North Atlantic Council meeting begins to fill during the meeting of Defence Ministerials at NATO Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium, February 12, 2020. Photo |DVIDS
Alan MacLeod is Senior Staff Writer for MintPress News. After completing his PhD in 2017 he published two books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent, as well as a number of academic articles. He has also contributed to FAIR.org, The Guardian, Salon, The Grayzone, Jacobin Magazine, and Common Dreams.
https://worldbeyondwar.org/selling-war-how-raytheon-and-boeing-fund-the-push-for-natos-nuclear-expansion/
Three Mile Island nuclear reactor to restart to power Microsoft AI operations
Three Mile Island will also be renamed the Crane Clean! Energy Center
Pennsylvania plant was site of most serious nuclear meltdown and radiation leak in US history in 1979
Guardian, Richard Luscombe, 21 Sept 24
A nuclear reactor at the notorious Three Mile Island site in Pennsylvania is to be activated for the first time in five years after its owners, Constellation Energy, struck a deal to provide power to Microsoft’s proliferating artificial intelligence operations.
The plant was the location of the most serious nuclear meltdown and radiation leak in US history, in March 1979 when the loss of water coolant through a faulty valve caused the Unit 2 reactor to overheat. More than four decades later, the reactor is still in a decommissioning phase.
Constellation closed the adjacent but unconnected Unit 1 reactor in 2019 for economic reasons, but will bring it back to life after signing a 20-year power purchase agreement to supply Microsoft’s energy-hungry data centers, the company announced on Friday……………
As part of the agreement, Three Mile Island will also be renamed the Crane Clean Energy Center to recognize Chris Crane, the former chief executive of Constellation’s parent company………………….
Significant investment will be required to restore the plant, including replacing or refurbishing the turbine, generator, main power transformer and cooling and control systems, Dominguez said.
There will also be a comprehensive safety and environmental review by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission before it issues a permit for the restart of the reactor, which is scheduled to be online sometime in 2028. Constellation said it would seek licenses that will extend plant operations to at least 2054.
Tech giants including Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Meta and Apple are consuming ever-greater amounts of energy to power the boom in artificial intelligence. According to Goldman Sachs, demand will grow 160% by 2030, when data centers are expected to account for 8% of the power generated in the US.
With the spike in demand, however, comes rising concerns over the impact on the environment. An analysis by the Guardian published this week found that data center emissions of four of the biggest tech companies, Google, Microsoft, Meta and Apple, are probably about 662% – or 7.62 times – higher than officially reported. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/sep/20/three-mile-island-nuclear-plant-reopen-microsoft
US Navy chief unveils plan to be ready for possible war with China by 2027
The announcement of the goals comes as US leaders are treading a fine line, pledging a commitment to the defence of Taiwan while also working to keep communication open with Beijing to deter greater conflict.
Beijing regards Taiwan as part of China to be reunited, by force if necessary. Most countries, including the US, do not recognise Taiwan as an independent state.
But Washington opposes any attempt to take the island by force and is legally bound to support Taiwan’s military defence capability.
Admiral Lisa Franchetti says lessons from combat in the Red Sea and Ukraine’s Black Sea fight can help the US prepare for an attack on Taiwan
SCMP, Associated Press, 19 Sep 2024
The US Navy is taking lessons from its combat in the Red Sea over the past year and what Ukraine has done to hold off the Russians in the Black Sea to help US military leaders prepare the service for a potential future conflict with China.
From drones and unmanned surface vessels to the more advanced operation of shipboard guns, the US Navy is expanding its combat skills and broadening training. It is also working to overcome recruiting struggles so it can have the sailors it needs to fight the next war.
Admiral Lisa Franchetti, chief of naval operations, is laying out a series of goals, including several that will be highly challenging to meet, in a new navigation plan she described in an interview. The objective is to be ready to face what the Pentagon calls its key national security challenge – China.
“I’m very focused on 2027. It’s the year that President Xi [Jinping] told his forces to be ready to invade Taiwan,” Franchetti said. “We need to be more ready.”
The new plan, released on Wednesday, includes what she considers seven priority goals, ranging from removing delays in ship depot maintenance to improving US Navy infrastructure, recruiting and the use of drones and autonomous systems.
One significant challenge is to have 80 per cent of the force be ready enough at any given time to deploy for combat if needed – something she acknowledged is a “stretch goal”. The key, she said, is to get to a level of combat readiness where “if the nation calls us, we can push the ‘go’ button and we can surge our forces to be able to meet the call”.
The announcement of the goals comes as US leaders are treading a fine line, pledging a commitment to the defence of Taiwan while also working to keep communication open with Beijing to deter greater conflict.
Beijing regards Taiwan as part of China to be reunited, by force if necessary. Most countries, including the US, do not recognise Taiwan as an independent state.
But Washington opposes any attempt to take the island by force and is legally bound to support Taiwan’s military defence capability.
An important element in any Asia-Pacific conflict will be the need to control the seas. Franchetti said the US can learn from how the Ukrainians have used drones, air strikes and long-range unmanned vessels to limit Russian ship activity in the western Black Sea and keep access open to critical ports.
“If you look at the Ukrainian success in really keeping the Russian Black Sea fleet pushed all the way over into the east, that’s all about sea denial and that’s very important,” Franchetti said. She added that Ukraine has been innovating on the battlefield by using existing systems, such as drones, in different ways.
The US Navy’s months-long battle with the Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen has provided other lessons…………………………………………………………………. https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/3279048/us-navy-chief-unveils-plan-be-ready-possible-war-china-2027
Patrick Lawrence: The ‘War Party’ Makes Its Plans
The stipulation Biden and Blinken now purport to insist upon is that they will not assent to letting Kiev use weapons provided by the U.S. — which seems to be different from weapons made by the U.S.—against targets in the Russian interior.
These proposals, if confirmed as Zelensky makes his next trip to Washington, all align in one direction: The Kiev regime’s running theme remains dragging the West further into the war rather as the Netanyahu regime in Israel is forever trying to do the same in West Asia. Zelensky, the Israeli prime minister, Biden: The world’s problem right now, or one of them, is that none of these people can afford to lose the wars their hubris led them to start.
SCHEERPOST, September 18, 2024 , By Patrick Lawrence
The Biden White House and the Democratic Party machine trying to advance Kamala Harris from No. 2 in the regime to No. 1 gets more interesting by the week, I have to say. The Harris campaign has at last, two months after the party’s elites and financiers railroaded her candidacy past any semblance of a democratic process, published a platform it calls A New Way Forward, and I will get to this in due course. I am less interested now in words posted on a website than in two recent developments we ought to consider together even if no one has yet thought to do so.
Slowly and very surely, it becomes clear by way of these weekly turns how a new Democratic regime, should Harris win on Nov. 5, proposes to manage the imperium’s business. And however many foolish voters may be illusioned otherwise, if Harris takes the White House her business will be neither more nor less than managing the imperium—the wars, the provocations, the illegal sanctions and other collective punishments, the terrorist clients in Israel, the neo–Nazis in Kiev.
Last Wednesday, Sept. 4, Liz Cheney surprised Washington and, I suppose, most of the rest of us when she announced she would support Harris’s run for the presidency. The onetime Wyoming congresswoman, a coup-cultivating warmonger who remains among the hawkiest of right-wing foreign-policy hawks, was not the first Republican to jump across the aisle this political season, and she was also not the last: Two days later, Liz’s pop did the same. Dick Cheney, of course, needs no introduction.
Instantly, the Harris campaign declared its delight in having the support of these courageous patriots, as the organization called them in its official statements.
A week after all this high-caliber politicking, President Biden convened in the Oval Office with Keir Starmer, the new British prime minister, to consider Ukraine’s proposal to fire Western-supplied missiles at targets well inside Russian territory. The Brits are ready to oblige the Kiev regime, as are the French, but everyone—London, Paris, Kiev—needs Biden’s permission to widen the war in this fashion.
At the moment, Biden and Secretary of State Blinken are in their “Well, maybe” phase, and we are meant to be on the edges of our seats wondering whether they will assent to these plans. But haven’t we seen this movie before and don’t we know how it ends? Wasn’t it, “Maybe we will send HIMARS rocket systems,” “Maybe M–1 tanks,” “Maybe Patriot missiles,” “Maybe F–16s”? Even before the Biden–Starmer encounter last week, Blinken and David Lammy, the British foreign secretary, during a visit to Kiev for talks with Volodymyr Zelensky, were already dropping heavy hints that Biden will once again acquiesce to the plans the Ukrainian president and the British PM were choreographed to present to him.
The stipulation Biden and Blinken now purport to insist upon is that they will not assent to letting Kiev use weapons provided by the U.S. — which seems to be different from weapons made by the U.S.—against targets in the Russian interior. This is no more than one of those hair-splits in which the Biden White House trades when it wants to look thoughtful and cautious but is neither. Will someone tell me what damn difference it will make to Russia if Moscow takes a hit from a missile sent from Britain, France or the United States?
These people are convening to plan the Western powers’ reckless escalation of a proxy war they have no way of winning and know they have no way of winning. Desperation is as desperation does: This is my simple read of these deliberations.
Between the war-planning and the shifting political loyalties, what have we witnessed over these past couple of weeks? This is our question. …………………………………………………………………
There is a lot of politics in the Democrats’ exuberant greeting of the Cheneys, of course. Harris’s people want to make the most of divisions among Republicans, and, in the case of Liz Cheney, to exploit the animus that has arisen between her and Donald Trump. But we must look more closely than this fully to understand this political ballet. Liz Cheney once had a public spat with Rand Paul over who was “Trumpier.” Dick Cheney is guilty of more war crimes, crimes against humanity and war-profiteering than Donald Trump could dream of in his sweetest dreams.
No mention of this as we think about these two political defections? I have read or heard of none from within the Harris hive.
Stephen Cohen used to joke, except that he wasn’t joking, that there is one party in Washington and it is rightly called the War Party. ……………………..
Read A New Way Forward, a 13–page document. The one and a half pages given to national security and foreign affairs amount to a screed dedicated to Russophobia, Sinophobia, NATOphilia and “the most lethal fighting force in the world,” which seems to be Harris’s idea of a diplomatic corps. This is how Steve Cohen’s War Party thinks and what it sounds like. As a statement of intent, the Harris–Walz platform is entirely accommodating of the Biden White House’s very likely decision to escalate the Ukraine conflict to the point of risking the World War III Biden pretends not to want. …………………………………………………………..
Among the Biden regime’s purported concerns as it considers authorizing Ukraine to widen the war is what difference attacks on the Russian interior would make. The White House and the Pentagon want to see a plan, it has been reported. It is a good question, asking about the point of this kind of escalation, but I am not sure an answer matters much to those who sit at the table in the White House cabinet room. As I have argued severally in this space, the Biden regime has foolishly cast this war as one between democracy and autocracy. Accordingly, it can afford to risk all manner of precipitous escalations, but it cannot afford to lose.
Entering stage right, possibly on cue, Volodymyr Zelensky now says he wants to show Biden, and subsequently Harris and Trump, his “plan for victory over Russia.” The Washington Post reported last Friday this will consist of very few parts. “All the points depend on the decision of Biden,” the Ukrainian president said at a recent forum in Kiev.
As The Post noted, Zelensky is to date shy of revealing these points, but there are reports, well short of confirmed, that there are three of them. The first is the missile authorization, the second is an assurance that NATO will deploy air-defense systems to protect western Ukraine, and the third—get a load of this—is a guarantee that NATO will dispatch ground troops to rear areas of the conflict so that the Armed Forces of Ukraine can deploy more of its own troops to the front.
These proposals, if confirmed as Zelensky makes his next trip to Washington, all align in one direction: The Kiev regime’s running theme remains dragging the West further into the war rather as the Netanyahu regime in Israel is forever trying to do the same in West Asia. Zelensky, the Israeli prime minister, Biden: The world’s problem right now, or one of them, is that none of these people can afford to lose the wars their hubris led them to start.
The Anglos and the Americans are likely to make an official announcement about the use of long-range missiles against Russia after the U.N. General Assembly concludes its business on Sept. 28. Starmer has recently indicated as much. In the best outcome we will find that Putin has rattled Washington and London such that they will step back from this latest plan to escalate. It is possible. But the U.S. and the other NATO powers have not done much stepping back to date, we are well to remind ourselves. …………………………………………………….
The Americans and the Brits can be said to be playing, unserious as they are, but the Russians are not. https://scheerpost.com/2024/09/18/patrick-lawrence-the-war-party-makes-its-plans/
The challenge of long-lived alpha emitters in the Chalk River legacy wastes
Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area, January 22, 2024 (revised September 17, 2024)
Why is so little Chalk River waste suitable for near surface disposal?
Extensive research work at the Chalk River Laboratories on nuclear reactor fuels, and in the early days, on materials for nuclear weapons, produced waste with large quantities of long-lived alpha emitters. This waste is difficult to manage and can even become increasingly radioactive over time.
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, because of the presence of long-lived alpha emitters, waste from nuclear research facilities is generally classified as intermediate level, and even in some cases, as high level. This waste cannot be put in a near surface disposal facility because its radioactivity will not decay to harmless levels during the period that the facility remains under institutional control.
Alpha emitters decay by throwing off an alpha particle, the equivalent of a helium nucleus, with two protons and two neutrons. The external penetrating power of an alpha particle is low, but alpha emitters have extremely serious health effects if ingested or inhaled. They can lodge in your lungs and cause cancer.
Research at Chalk River and all other nuclear laboratories is ultimately based on three long-lived alpha emitters — thorium-232, uranium-235, and uranium-238. These are the “naturally occurring” or “primordial” radionuclides. They were created by large stars and then incorporated into the Earth and the solar system when they formed some 4.5 billion years ago. The waste inventory proposed by Canadian Nuclear Laboratories for the Near Surface Disposal Facility (NSDF) includes over six tons each of thorium-232 and uranium-238……………………………………………………..
Hazards increase when uranium and thorium are mined and concentrated from ores and used in their pure form. Marie Curie, who spent much of her career isolating radium and polonium from uranium, died of radiation-induced leukemia at age 66. She was buried in a lead-lined tomb because her corpse emitted so much radiation.
When thorium-232, uranium-235, and uranium-238 are irradiated in a reactor, as at Chalk River, they absorb neutrons and produce significant quantities of new, man-made, long-lived alpha-emitters. Irradiated uranium-238 absorbs a neutron and temporarily forms uranium-239. Uranium-239 transmutes to neptunium-239, which quickly transmutes to long-lived plutonium-239, with a half-life of 24,000 years.
Plutonium-239 is “fissile” – it can readily support a chain reaction. It is what the early Chalk River researchers produced for the manufacture of U.S. nuclear weapons, by separating the plutonium from irradiated reactor fuel. They also used the separated plutonium to make “mixed oxide” (MOX) reactor fuel, mixing it with fresh uranium………………………………………….
Detecting alpha emitters in mixed waste is expensive and challenging. Putting inadequately characterized waste in the NSDF would invalidate its safety case.
Unfortunately, the NSDF Project lacks adequate waste characterization procedures. If the project is allowed to proceed, workers and future Ottawa valley residents could be exposed to unknown quantities of long-lived alpha emitters and suffer the serious health effects associated with them. https://concernedcitizens.net/2024/09/17/the-challenge-of-long-lived-alpha-emitters-in-the-chalk-river-legacy-wastes/
Biden, Harris sacrificing endless thousands of Ukrainians to retain presidency November 5.
Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coaliton, Glen Ellyn IL, 16 Sept 24
President Biden sent Secretary of State Antony Blinken to Kyiv last week to reassure Ukrainian President Zelensky that Ukraine can prevail against Russia with endless US billions in weapons. He also stated that Ukraine will eventually achieve NATO membership.
Blinken was lying to Zelensky. He, along with President Biden and Democratic nominee Kamala Harris, know full well the US proxy war against Russia in Ukraine is lost. Indeed, it was certain to be lost the day it started over two and a half years ago. It could not be won without direct US/NATO involvement, regardless of how many hundreds of billions we squander supplying Ukraine with weapons. Direct involvement was ruled out because it likely means WWIII. US weapons are worthless because Ukraine is running out of soldiers to use them.
The US essentially green-lighted the invasion believing US weaponry would allow Ukraine to weaken, even defeat Russia, a long sought US foreign policy goal to keep them out of the European political economy.
The result has been a catastrophe for Ukraine, now a shattered country. It spells the end of continued US domination of Europe that offered no seat at the table for Russia.
The Biden/Harris administration must now take the sensible, moral action of forcing Ukraine to sue for peace. Allowing Ukraine to bleed out with further destruction to its economy, infrastructure, demographics and hundreds thousands more casualties is a grotesque policy to pursue.
But Biden and Harris are committed to their declaration this is a holy way of autocracy v. freedom. They are loathe to allow any settlement which allows Russia to achieve their war aims of no NATO membership for Ukraine and independence for Donbas, with security for Ukraine going forward.
It’s even more improbable for them to do that with the election just 7 weeks away. Admitting defeat after squandering over $150 billion simply destroying Ukraine to allow a Russian victory will bring an avalanche of criticism from national security state warhawks. It would rip away the false notion that this was a just war to protect US national security interests. It could cost Harris the election.
So Biden and Harris continue to prevent and cover up Ukraine’s impending collapse till after Election Day. They continue to fling tens of billions in weaponry into Ukraine which will either be destroyed by overwhelming Russian firepower or sit idle unused.
Biden and Harris have made a pact with the Devil over Ukraine. Tens of thousands of Ukrainians must die to keep the Democrats from losing a war shortly before an election. A war that never should have been fought and that signals the impending demise of US unilateral control of the world.
During his first year, President Biden lost the 20 year long Afghan war. Losing 2 senseless wars in one term is a lost war too far to remain in power. Biden and Harris’ message to Ukraine? ‘Keep dying Ukrainians. We’ll figure something out after November 5’.
Tritium into the air?
“You get layers and layers and layers and layers of denial.”
Venting plans at Los Alamos have received scant attention, writes Alicia Inez Guzmán of Searchlight New Mexico
Beyond Nuclear International, 16 Sept 24
Last fall, the international community rose up in defense of the Pacific Ocean. Seafood and salt purveyors, public policy professors, scientists and environmentalists, all lambasted Japan’s release of radioactive wastewater from the disastrously damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant into the sea.
At the heart of the contention was tritium, an element that, by mass, is 150,000 times more radioactive than the plutonium used in the cores of nuclear weapons. Odorless and colorless, tritium — the radioactive form of hydrogen — combines with oxygen to form water. Just one teaspoon is enough to contaminate 100 billion gallons more water up to the U.S. drinking water standard, according to Arjun Makhijani, an expert on nuclear fusion and author of the monograph, “Exploring Tritium Dangers.”
What didn’t make international headlines — but was quietly taking place on the other side of the world — was Los Alamos National Laboratory’s own plans to vent the same radioactive substance into northern New Mexico’s mountain air. Japan’s releases would take place over three decades. LANL’s would include up to three times more tritium — and take place in a matter of days.
There is no hard timeline for the release, but if the plans are approved by the Environmental Protection Agency, LANL is looking at a period with “sufficiently warm weather,” a spokesperson from the National Nuclear Security Administration wrote by email. That could mean as soon as this summer.
Those controversial plans date back to 2016, when LANL discovered that a potentially explosive amount of hydrogen and oxygen was building up in four containers of tritium waste stored in a decades-old nuclear dump called Area G. The safest and most technically viable solution, the lab decided — and the best way to protect workers — would be to release the pressure and, with it, thousands of curies of tritium into the air.
When advocates caught wind of the venting in March 2020, Covid was in its earliest and most unnerving phase. Pueblo leaders, advocates and environmentalists wrote impassioned letters to the lab and the EPA, demanding that they change or, at the very least, postpone the release until after the pandemic. At the same time, Tewa Women United, a nonprofit founded by Indigenous women from northern New Mexico, issued its first online petition, focusing on tritium’s ability to cross the placental barrier and possibly harm pregnant women and their fetuses. Only after a maelstrom of opposition did the lab pause its plans and begin briefing local tribes and other concerned members of the community.
“We see this as a generational health issue,” said Kayleigh Warren, Tewa Women United’s food and seed sovereignty coordinator. “Just like all the issues of radioactive exposure are generational health issues.”
Last fall, the lab again sought the EPA’s consent. A second petition from Tewa Women United followed. Eight months later, the federal agency’s decision is still pending.
The NNSA, which oversees the health of America’s nuclear weapons stockpile from within the Department of Energy, declined Searchlight New Mexico’s requests for an interview.
The crux of the issue comes down to what is and isn’t known about the state of the containers’ contents. Computer modeling suggests they are pressurized and flammable, but the actual explosive risk has not been measured, the lab has conceded.
Critics have requested that the contents be sampled first to determine whether there is any explosive risk and whether venting is even needed. The EPA says that sampling would require going through the same red tape as venting. The lab, for its part, plans to sample and vent the contents in one fell swoop.
But why, critics wonder, are these containers in this state in the first place? Were they knowingly over packed and left for years to grow into ticking time bombs?…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
……………..Tritium 101
Plutonium and uranium are familiar to most people, if by name only. But few know anything at all about tritium — a radioactive isotope of hydrogen that is used to make watch dials and EXIT signs glow bright neon. Tritium’s other, lesser-known use is as a “boost gas,” which, when inserted into the hollow core of a plutonium pit, amplifies a nuclear weapon’s yield. Globally, hundreds of atmospheric weapons tests dispersed tritium into the atmosphere, steeping rain, sea, and groundwater with the element and, ultimately, lacing sediment worldwide.
Tritium is widely produced at nuclear reactors and is today tested, handled and routinely released at Los Alamos National Laboratory
Criticisms of this venting have always centered on two of the element’s key characteristics: First, it travels “tens to hundreds of miles,” according to lab documents. Second, when tritium is in the form of water, it becomes omnipresent and easy for bodies to absorb.
“Tritium is unique in this,” wrote Makhijani. “It makes water, the stuff of life, most of the mass of living beings, radioactive.”
Years of LANL reports depict tritium’s ubiquity in the lands and ecosystem within its bounds, a palimpsest of radioactive decay. This is measured in curies, a basic unit that counts the rate of decay second by second.
The lab’s first environmental impact statement, published in 1979, estimated that it had buried close to 262,000 curies of tritium at Area G and released tens of thousands more into the air from various stacks over the decades. The lab had two major accidental releases of tritium around the same time — 22,000 curies in the summer of 1976 and nearly 31,000 curies in the fall of 1977.
Today, trees have taken it into their root systems on Area G’s southeast edge. Rodents scurrying in and out of waste shafts are riddled with the substance, owing to tritium vapors from years past. A barn owl ate those rodents and had 740 times more tritium concentration in its body than the U.S. drinking water standard, the common reference value for indicating tritium contamination. The lab’s honeybee colonies — kept to determine how radioactive contaminants are absorbed — produced tritiated honey up to 380 times more concentrated than the drinking water standard, reports show.
The EPA set the current standard for radioactive emissions at DOE facilities in 1989, but that didn’t stop the lab from releasing thousands of curies of tritium into the air shortly afterward. In 1991, the EPA issued a notice of non-compliance to the lab for not calculating how much of a radiation dose the public received. Another notice followed in 1992.
Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety filed a lawsuit two years later alleging that the DOE hadn’t properly monitored radioactive emissions, as required by the Clean Air Act. At the time, a former lab safety officer, Luke Bartlein, observed what he described in an affidavit as a “pattern and practice of deception at LANL with respect to the radionuclide air monitoring system.” It was routine for lab staffers and management to vent glove boxes and other materials contaminated with tritium outside so that the contamination would deliberately “not register” on the stack monitors, he recounted, leading to false emissions reports.
The lab settled in 1997; a consent decree followed and would stay in effect until 2003. The lab says it has maintained low annual emissions ever since……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Tewa Women United and others now worry that the region’s famously fitful winds will carry tritium, a consummate shapeshifter, to corners far beyond the lab’s bounds.
The movement will be invisible. First, tritium will transform moisture in the air. Then, that moisture will quickly contaminate other “open water surfaces and biota downwind, including food growing in the area and food in open-air markets, and humans themselves,” according to Ian Fairlie, a London-based radiation consultant for the European Parliament.
A fraction of that tritium can linger in the body, if ingested. In pregnant women, tritium can then stage another imperceptible passage across the placental barrier, concentrating 60 percent more of the element in the fetus than in the mother, according to Makhijani. Radiation exposure can lead to early failed pregnancies and neurological damage in the first weeks of gestation.
While the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has radiation exposure limits for pregnant women in the workplace, there are no specific radiation protections for pregnant women in the public — or their fetuses.
In 1999, Makhijani and more than 100 scientists, activists and physicians across the country and worldwide signed a letter to the National Academy of Sciences. Their ask? To evaluate how radionuclides that cross the placental boundary, including tritium, impact the fetus, a request Makhijani renewed in 2022.
As he put it, tritium — the “most ubiquitous pollutant from both nuclear power and nuclear weapons” — has largely escaped regulatory and scientific scrutiny when it comes to matters of pregnancy.
Cindy Folkers, the radiation and health hazard specialist at Beyond Nuclear, a national advocacy organization, believes the reason is rooted in the radiation establishment’s fear of liability. “You get layers and layers and layers and layers of denial.”
The scant research that does exist comes from pregnant women who survived atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In 1986, the International Commission on Radiation Protection concluded that exposing a fetus to ionizing radiation, the kind that tritium emits, has a “damaging effect…upon the development of the embryonic and fetal brain.” The area most at risk of harm, it went on, is the forebrain, which controls complex and fundamental functions like thinking and processing information, eating, sleeping and reproduction.
Ionizing radiation damages the cell in two ways. On the one hand, it breaks apart the building blocks from which humans are made, causing rifts in DNA. On the other, it fundamentally changes the chemistry of the cell, breaking apart its water molecules and upsetting its metabolism.
That’s what makes it different from, say, an X-ray, Folkers said. “A machine can be shut off,” but “a radioactive particle that’s inside your body will continue irradiating you.” For a pregnant woman, this adds up to “cumulative biological damage,” the kind that cuts across generations.
“We’re dealing with a life cycle,” Folkers said. “And females are an integral part of that life cycle. Not only are they more damaged by radioactivity, and their risks are higher for cancer, but they are also carrying in them the future generations. So when you’re dealing with a female baby who’s developing in the womb, you are dealing with that child’s children at the very least.”
In other words, a mother is like a Russian nesting doll. She holds a fetus and that fetus, if a female, holds all future eggs. Exposure to her is exposure to future generations.
Alicia Inez Guzmán was raised in the northern New Mexican village of Truchas and has written about histories of place, identity and land use in New Mexico. She brings this knowledge to her current role at Searchlight, where she focuses on nuclear issues and the impacts of the nuclear industry. https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/09/16/tritium-into-the-air/
Ukrainian Tipping Points – UPDATE 4: US Blocks Long-Range Missile Attacks Until After Elections?
Russian and Eurasian Politics, by Gordonhahn, September 16, 2024, https://gordonhahn.com/2024/09/16/ukrainian-tipping-points-update-4-us-blocks-long-range-missile-attacks-until-after-elections/
As I expected in my original article (included further below), the, the political wing kicked down the road until after the elections the escalation against Russia that would have occurred by allowing Kiev to hit the country with US long-range missiles.
The US has refrained from removing its prohibition on Ukraine’s use of US ATACM or JSSSAM long-range missiles against targets deep inside Russia’s pre-2014 territory. Against all military and political logic, the UK lobbied hard during its prime minister’s visit to Washington and had approved use of its Storm Shadow missiles for such use (https://ctrana.news/news/471905-london-razreshil-ukraine-bit-po-rossii.html).
The US is operating under military and political logic. The Biden administration demanded that Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelenskiy present a list of potential Russian targets to the White House, after the Pentagon questioned the military utility of such attacks (https://ctrana.news/news/471904-ssha-trebujut-ot-kieva-stratehiju-dalnobojnykh-udarov-po-rf.html).
Politically, as I noted, it is not in the Biden administration’s and Democratic party’s interest to have a crisis of a status of the Cuban Missile Crisis or have have Ukrainian forces suffer a grave collapse before the November 5 presidential elections.
This precluded any lifting of the prohibition before then, but afterwards things could change, and there those such as US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and other neocons will be pressing hard to work out a reversal of this sane decision.
It appears that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s warning that such attacks would require NATO country officers’ involvement and thus would mean that NATO is directly fighting Russia and so Moscow would regard itself to be in a state of war with the country or countries’ the missiles of which were used played a role in the US’s decision to back down. The political configuration after the election could overcome the hesitation Putin induced among top US decision makers.
Welcome to Planet Vogtle! The Lessons of Georgia’s Nuclear Boondoggle
The ADVANCE Act greases the tracks by eliminating regulatory barriers, essentially transforming the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from a safety watchdog into an industry booster. It curtails the licensing process, downgrades health and safety standards, and promotes the export of nuclear technology. The U.S. can now compete with Russia and China to spread “nuclear waste factories” like Vogtle around the globe.
Jul 1, 2024, https://www.stephenwing.com/blog/2024/07/01/welcome-to-planet-vogtle-the-lessons-of-georgias-nuclear-boondoggle/
A global race is on to see who will host the next nuclear disaster, and as always the U.S.A. is determined to take the lead. On June 18 the Senate passed the so-called ADVANCE Act, pledging billions of taxpayer dollars to the most expensive, inefficient, and toxic form of energy ever devised. Thanks to the $37 billion expansion of Plant Vogtle, Georgia Power ratepayers like me know what that means: record-breaking profits for utility companies, record-breaking power bills for the rest of us.
Lavish federal subsidies under the last four presidents and a grandiose “nuclear renaissance” P.R. campaign have failed to reverse decades of decline for nuclear energy. No surprise – it’s an obsolete, dangerous, and financially untenable technology that no private investor or insurance carrier will touch.
Now, like the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, what Naomi Klein calls “disaster capitalism” comes galloping to the rescue. A rare bipartisan consensus hails “clean, safe nuclear energy” as the answer to climate change. The 93-page ADVANCE Act – cleverly concealed within the 3-page Fire Grants & Safety Act – delivers the entire wish list of the nuclear industry. Only Bernie Sanders and Ed Markey voted “no.” Liberal icon Sheldon Whitehouse actually helped to draft the legislation.
Calling nuclear power “clean” and “safe” would be laughable if it weren’t such a grim joke. Radioactive contamination plagues it at every step, from carcinogenic uranium mining to routine radionuclide releases at every operating reactor to the mounting backlog of radioactive waste. “Disposal” is a euphemism; the waste will remain deadly to life for tens of thousands of years, longer than the entire history of civilization, with no safe storage option in sight.
Expecting nukes to help slow global warming is equally deluded. The two new reactors at Plant Vogtle – the nation’s first since the Three Mile Island meltdown in 1979 – took 15 years to construct, double the original estimate. We would have to build 1,400 more within ten years to noticeably impact the pace of climate change. Developing untested technologies such as “Small Modular Nuclear Reactors” will take decades longer.
Electricity as a Byproduct of Profit
The ADVANCE Act greases the tracks by eliminating regulatory barriers, essentially transforming the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from a safety watchdog into an industry booster. It curtails the licensing process, downgrades health and safety standards, and promotes the export of nuclear technology. The U.S. can now compete with Russia and China to spread “nuclear waste factories” like Vogtle around the globe.
Not that the NRC ever seriously hindered the industry it is charged to regulate. The new legislation comes amid a nationwide rush to extend the licensing of nuclear plants from their estimated safe lifespan of 40 years to 60, 80, even 100 years, despite the proven tendency of radioactivity to “embrittle” the concrete that shields us from exposure.
Though media coverage of the ADVANCE Act was largely clueless, several outlets quoted a statement by Ed Lyman of the Union of Concerned Scientists: “Make no mistake: This is not about making the reactor licensing process more efficient, but about weakening safety and security oversight across the board, a longstanding industry goal.”
The only reason utilities are pushing nukes – and the only reason they ever did – is profit. Ever since Eisenhower heralded “the peaceful atom” and the industry promised energy “too cheap to meter,” nuclear power has depended entirely on government subsidies to survive. By far the most costly way to generate electricity, it’s also the most profitable, since We the Taxpayers cover most of the costs, from uranium mining and enrichment to managing nuclear waste to the uninsurable consequences of catastrophic accidents.
Betting on nukes not only wastes irrecoverable time and money; it pre-empts real solutions. Investing the same tax dollars in renewables like solar and wind, energy-efficient retrofits, and upgrading the power grid would displace far more carbon emissions. Renewables already provide more electricity globally than nukes, are far cheaper per kilowatt-hour, and can be expanded much more rapidly while generating exponentially more jobs.
Not to mention sidestepping the risk of another Fukushima, Chernobyl, or Three Mile Island. Factor in the escalating threats of extreme weather and terrorism, declining safety standards, and the industry’s eagerness to sell its radioactive snake-oil to developing nations, and the odds of another deadly meltdown somewhere in the world approach the threshold of inevitability – maybe right here in my home state.
Georgia’s Plant Vogtle: A Cautionary Tale
On the eve of Georgia Power’s triumphant ribbon-cutting for its new reactors, six environmental and consumer groups released “Plant Vogtle: The True Cost of Nuclear Power in the United States,” a 35-page report exposing the political maneuvering and cynical profiteering that made the project a “success.”
The story begins in 2009, when most U.S. utilities had abandoned the “nuclear renaissance” due to plunging natural gas prices, zero growth in energy consumption, and the astronomical cost of nuclear fission. Despite federal loan guarantees, no one was investing – until the Georgia General Assembly solved the problem with a bill allowing Georgia Power (a subsidiary of Southern Company) to charge customers a monthly fee to finance two additional reactors at Plant Vogtle, near Augusta.
Georgia Power’s sales had been flat for two decades and its generating capacity was nearly three times the reserves recommended by the federal agency in charge of our national grid. So why would the company build two expensive, unnecessary new reactors? And why would Georgia’s elected utility regulators, the Public Service Commission, allow it?
“By all appearances,” the report explains, “the Georgia PSC is deep in regulatory capture, a phenomenon where a regulator prioritizes the interests of the companies it regulates (like Georgia Power) over the public good. . . .
Since Georgia Power is a monopoly and operates outside of a competitive business market, it can shift risks and costs onto customers if regulator or legislative bodies enable it. That is exactly what the Georgia PSC did.”
Adding as much as 10% to a typical power bill, the fees raised over $4 billion – 88% of it from residential customers, small businesses, even public schools, and only 11% from major industries, thanks to some canny lobbying. The average household ended up paying about $1,000 up-front to subsidize the reactors. The U.S. Treasury contributed a $12 billion low-interest loan, and the rest of the up-front cost came from other lenders. But Georgia law guarantees that ratepayers must cover loan repayment along with Georgia Power’s other costs – which the PSC repeatedly approved as the budget jumped from an initial $14 billion to $21, then $27 billion.
In effect, ratepayers and taxpayers were forced to shoulder the entire investment, while the profits go to Southern Company shareholders.
Milking a Corporate Monopoly to the Max
That same year, South Carolina authorized a similar customer fee to expand its VC Summer plant. Both projects were contracted to Westinghouse. Construction began in 2013, but according to the report, “Cost overruns at both reactor sites began immediately, and by early 2017 were so extreme that Westinghouse declared bankruptcy.” In South Carolina, an investigation led to criminal charges against Westinghouse and utility executives, four of whom went to prison and paid steep fines “for lying about the costs and progress of the project.”
“Similar behavior by Westinghouse and Georgia Power/Southern Company officials occurred in Georgia,” the report goes on, “but there has been no accountability. . . . Commissioners repeatedly accepted Georgia Power’s budget and schedule forecasts in defiance of documented evidence from the Commission’s own staff and consultants that they were materially inaccurate for over ten years.” The Commissioners also praised the company and nuclear power itself with evangelical fervor, violating state regulations that require neutrality in upholding the public interest.
The two reactors ultimately cost over $36.85 billion, making Vogtle “the most expensive power plant ever built on Earth.” But because the PSC approved an exceptionally high rate of “return on equity” (ROE), every cost overrun and construction delay only bolstered Georgia Power’s profits. “Georgia Power was making substantially greater profits from Vogtle 3 and 4’s delay than if it had finished on schedule,” the report says. “Indeed, commissioners allowed Georgia Power to amass a record $17 billion in profits between 2009 and 2023, while allowing $20 billion in cost overruns for Vogtle 3 and 4.”
In December 2023, the PSC voted to saddle ratepayers with $11.1 billion in cost overruns, often caused by shoddy workmanship, inept management, or poor design. Vogtle-related rate increases will eventually total 23.7% – “in stark contrast,” the report points out, “to claims Georgia Power made in 2016 that completing Vogtle units would put ‘downward pressure on rates.’ . . . It is very likely Georgians will soon be paying the highest power bills in the nation due to Plant Vogtle.”
The report’s conclusion illuminates the fraudulent premises of the ADVANCE Act:
“Fossil fuels and uranium are burned to boil water to produce steam to generate electricity which produces large amounts of waste heat. Renewable energy not only does not produce waste heat, but is more than twice as efficient as steam generated power, thus fossil fuel and nuclear energy can be replaced by less than half as much clean, renewable energy . . .”
“Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and South Dakota produced over 60% of their electricity from renewables in 2023, and ten countries generated 60 to 90% of their electricity from renewables in 2022 including Scotland, Iceland, the Netherlands, Germany, and Guatemala, among others. California’s output from wind, water and solar power exceeded demand for 30 of 38 days early in 2024 . . .”
“Investments in a clean energy transition would save substantial amounts of ratepayer money, and would quickly meet the reduced greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets the world needs to address the climate crisis. Yet these investments are not made as they are not as profitable for monopoly utilities seeking to maximize profits. . . . An immense transfer of wealth is taking place from the people of Georgia to a rich, powerful monopoly whose only motivation is to maximize profits.”
Don’t let your state be taken in by scammers in suits! Download the full report here.
Playing with nuclear fire
Eric S. Margolis, 16 Sept 24, https://thesun.my/opinion-news/playing-with-nuclear-fire-EC13005045
REPUBLICANS in the US Senate have been urging the White House to provide Ukraine with long-range missiles that can strike deep into Russia. Such is the madness of pro-war sentiment.
America’s Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has apparently confirmed that Washington plans to shortly deliver such strategic weapons to Ukraine. This week, Britain’s new prime minister arrived in Washington to discuss more strategic arms for Ukraine.
One is vividly reminded of the mobs who thronged Paris train stations in August 1914, screaming “on to Berlin”. As a British historian aptly noted, “if patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels, then war is the first platform of fools”.
US-supplied long-range missiles are the last step between what was a border conflict and an all-out war that will likely go nuclear.
Russia’s leader Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stated that he reduced conventional forces to divert funds to Russia’s stunted civilian economy. Nuclear weapons, said Putin, will be used to replace conventional forces if Russia is attacked. We must take him at his word.
The border war with Ukraine, which began in 2014, has shown how much Russia reduced its former conventional might. The once mighty Red Army has proven a shadow of its former self. Under Putin, armies of tanks have been replaced by new apartments across the sprawling nation.
The idea of sending more long-range missiles to Ukraine is sheer madness. Ukraine is slowly being ground down in this long war of attrition.
Ukraine’s current strategy is to provoke a direct clash between Russia and the US. Interestingly, Israel used the same strategy to provoke direct US military intervention against Syria and various Arab militias.
The US, dominated by pro-war Republicans and wealthy pro-Israel special interests, appears eager to promote war with Russia. Most importantly, neoconservatives are urging intensified war against Russia to advance their goal of breaking up the Russian Federation into small, weak pieces dominated by Washington.
Such was the case under former Russian president, Boris Yeltsin, who allowed US financial interests to dominate Russia while he made merry. Former KGB officer Putin put an end to Washington’s attempt to turn Russia into an American satrapy.
I interviewed the leaders of KGB at Moscow’s Lubyanka Prison in 1991. They expressed disgust with Russia’s then-Communist leadership and said there would be a housecleaning. The result was, of course, Putin’s surprising rise to power.
Putin quickly became the target of US media hate. He committed terrible brutalities in Chechnya, but without him, Russia may have ended up as today’s supine Germany.
The US overthrew Ukraine’s last pro-Russian government. Ukraine had been part of the Russian state for hundreds of years and the centre of its heavy industries. This coup cost the US $5 billion (RM21.44 billion), according to leading State Department neocon Victoria Nuland.
An actor, the amiable Volodymyr Zelensky, was put in charge by Nuland. US funds and arms poured into Ukraine. Efforts by Washington to shatter the old Soviet Union were a brilliant success, except that Washington had to foot the bill, which has so far reached an astounding US$44 billion, depriving the US military of many important weapons systems.
One also wonders why former president Donald Trump did not raise the issue of Ukraine’s payments to President Joe Biden and his son.
As a veteran war correspondent and old friend of Ukraine, I see the US and Russia heading to a major war. The Western powers have been relentlessly provoking Russia. The idea of supplying Ukraine with a new class of long-range missiles will likely ignite a dangerous war that may likely go nuclear.
Now is the time for the great powers to impose peace, not supply arms. Time to end the unnecessary sufferings of Ukrainians and Russians. Genuine diplomacy, not more weapons, is the answer.
Nuke waste confusion continues with D.C. Circuit ruling
Kennedy Maize, https://energycentral.com/c/um/nuke-waste-confusion-continues-dc-circuit-ruling. 13 Sept 24
The D.C. Circuit appeals court has upheld the authority of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license private, away-from-reactor storage of spent nuclear fuel, adding confusion to the gnarly issue of what to do with high-level nuclear waste. With federal circuit courts in collision, it may take the U.S. Supreme Court to sort it out.
On Aug. 27, a three-judge D.C. Circuit panel rejected a challenge to a 2021 Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to Interim Storage Partners, a subsidiary of Orano USA, for a private, above-ground “temporary” waste storage site in West Texas near the New Mexico state line. Not long after that, the NRC granted a similar license to Holtec International for an above-ground storage site in eastern New Mexico, close to the Texas line.
In granting the Holtec license, the NRC rejected petitions to intervene by Beyond Nuclear, a Maryland anti-nuclear group, the Sierra Club, and Texas-based Fasken Land and Minerals, a Permian Basin oil and gas producer.
Almost exactly a year ago (Aug. 25, 2023), the ultra-conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, with jurisdiction in Texas, Louisiana, and Texas, rejected the NRC license for the Texas site in a case brought by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Fasken. The Fifth Circuit ruled that neither the Atomic Energy Act nor the Nuclear Waste Policy Act authorized private, away-from-reactor storage of spent fuel, at least until a final federal underground repository is available. That prospect is far in the future, if at all.
In March, the Fifth Circuit expanded its ban of the Texas project to Holtec’s New Mexico waste project, despite it being outside the court’s jurisdiction. In an unpublished decision, the circuit court wrote, “Because this court’s holding in Texas v. NRC dictates the outcome here, we GRANT Fasken’s and PBLRO’s petition for review and VACATE the Holtec license.” The court also rejected an NRC petition to move the case to the D.C. appeals court.
That led to the anti-nuclear filing in D.C., challenging to NRC’s decision to deny them intervenor status in the Holtec license case. In the denial of the petition last month, Judge Neomi Rao wrote for the panel that “the Commission reasonably declined to admit petitioners’ factual contentions and otherwise complied with statutory and regulatory requirements when rejecting the requests to intervene.”
Rao also took on some of the Fifth Circuit’s ruling about the authority for away-from-reactor, above-ground storage. Rao wrote, “According to Beyond Nuclear, the [waste policy act] prohibits DOE from taking title to private spent nuclear fuel until a permanent repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel is built, so it is unlawful for the Commission to consider the application.” That’s an assertion the Fifth Circuit also made.
Citing a 2004 D.C. Circuit decision, Rao found, “Even if the NWPA prohibits DOE from taking title to private spent nuclear fuel until a permanent repository for the disposal of such fuel is built, a point we assume without deciding, the statute does not affect ‘the NRC’s authority under the AEA to license and regulate private use of private away-from-reactor spent fuel storage facilities.’
” The Commission correctly determined that Beyond Nuclear did not raise a genuine dispute of law or fact, so we deny its petition for review.”
Rao, 51, a Trump appointee, has served on the D.C. Circuit Court since March 2019.
As the online legal site Justia noted, “Additionally, the court determined that Fasken’s late-filed contentions were procedurally defective, untimely, and immaterial.”
An analysis by the D.C. law firm Hogan Lovells commented, “This decision is contrary to recent Fifth Circuit decisions, but in line with prior D.C. Circuit and Tenth Circuit decisions—further deepening the circuit split on such authority and increasing the likelihood the Supreme Court will consider the issue in its upcoming term.”
The analysis noted that “commercial interim storage” (CIS) “was initially challenged in federal courts in the early 2000s, when the NRC was licensing the first commercial CIS, known as the Private Fuel Storage facility. At that time, a number of court challenges were brought contesting the NRC’s authority to license a CIS facility, and in two circuit court decisions—specifically, in the D.C. Circuit and the Tenth Circuit—the court upheld the NRC’s authority to license the CIS under the AEA. For NRC licensing decisions, as a general matter, the federal circuit courts have direct appellate review, and the appeal can be brought in either the D.C. Circuit or the circuit court where the proposed facility is located.”
How to Make a ‘War Reserve’ Nuclear Bomb
Earlier this year, at the annual Nuclear Deterrence Summit in Washington, D.C., there was a palpable sense of excitement at the return to Cold War strategies of shoring up our nuclear arsenal. Today, with what some call the two-peer problem—Russia and China—and the specter of nuclear-armed rogue nations and terrorists, the NSE is racing against what-if targets. The language is aggressive. Opposition is largely mute. Congress has opened the tap. The NSE is hiring, training, building, and spending billions a year.
The dark art of crafting nuclear ‘pits’ was almost lost. Now it’s ramped up into a multibillion dollar industry.
The Progressive Magazine, by Jim Carrier , September 5, 2024
Sometime in the next few months a technician at Los Alamos National Laboratory, using an arc welder, will seal together two half-domes of plutonium, creating a “pit,” a seven-pound ball the size of a grapefruit, which, if tucked into America’s newest nuclear warhead and triggered above Times Square, would destroy most of Manhattan and kill more than 1.2 million people.
The bomb is part of a $1.7 trillion plan to rebuild the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The new pit, and hundreds like it, are being made for the W87-1, a new warhead designed to sit atop the Sentinel, a new intercontinental ballistic missile design that will replace all 400 Minuteman III missiles that have been on alert in silos across the Upper Midwest for the last five decades.
Not since the Manhattan Project, the crash program during World War II to invent the atomic bomb, has so much money and urgent energy been spent by the United States to create a weapon of mass destruction. In a paradox of nuclear madness, production of the W87-1—each one with a yield of around 400 kilotons, twenty times larger than the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki—is breathing life into the U.S. Nuclear Security Enterprise (NSE), the agency that makes nuclear weapons and runs the planes, missiles, and submarines that deliver them.
The warhead “is reinvigorating and transforming the production complex such that NSE can once again produce all of the components typically required for modern nuclear warheads,” according to the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which designed the W87-1. “This work will give the nation expanded options for maintaining an effective nuclear deterrence posture for decades to come.”
Earlier this year, at the annual Nuclear Deterrence Summit in Washington, D.C., there was a palpable sense of excitement at the return to Cold War strategies of shoring up our nuclear arsenal. Today, with what some call the two-peer problem—Russia and China—and the specter of nuclear-armed rogue nations and terrorists, the NSE is racing against what-if targets. The language is aggressive. Opposition is largely mute. Congress has opened the tap. The NSE is hiring, training, building, and spending billions a year.
At Los Alamos, the urgency can be seen inside Plutonium Facility Building 4, known as PF-4, the only building in the United States where plutonium pits are made. Working around the clock, technicians are dismantling old contaminated glove boxes—the laboratory apparatus that allow technicians using built-in gloves to work with toxic or volatile substances inside a sealed chamber—before a new shift of workers arrives to install shiny new steel glove boxes for work on the new pits…………………….
The process of turning plutonium into a bomb is a dark art—an alchemy invented in 1945 on the same New Mexico mesa. Wizards of physics and math who divined the immense energy locked within its atoms, together with master machinists, created the first atomic bomb, “Trinity,” and its copy, “Fat Man,” which destroyed Nagasaki with the power of twenty kilotons, or 20,000 tons of TNT. These two plutonium bombs produced enough heat and radiation to ignite, or trigger, the kind of fusion fire present in the sun.
One year later, as Baby Boom children were teething, Los Alamos blew up a similar plutonium bomb named “Baker” on Bikini Atoll. Its twenty-one-kiloton underwater eruption captured both the bounty of nuclear power and America’s intent to weaponize it.
During the Cold War, Los Alamos produced ninety-four different nuclear weapons—bigger, smaller, deadlier, more accurate. Many were thermonuclear, or hydrogen bombs, whose design, first revealed to the public by Howard Morland in this magazine in 1979, was theorized during the Manhattan Project. In 1952, Los Alamos, using a plutonium pit as a trigger, detonated its first thermonuclear bomb. That same year, the United States built the Rocky Flats Plant, a plutonium pit factory outside Denver. It produced 1,000 pits a year.
The hands-on, metallurgical master craft of fashioning pits was almost lost, though, when Rocky Flats was raided and closed in 1989 by the FBI for massive environmental crimes—the year the Soviet Union began to collapse, ending the Cold War. The NSE fell into a funk, reduced to cleaning up its messes and “stockpile stewardship.”……………………………………………………………………………………………….
“The reestablishment of pit production capabilities is the largest and most complex infrastructure undertaking at NNSA since shortly after the Manhattan Project,” Jill Hruby, administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, told the Strategic Weapons in the 21st Century Symposium on April 18. “Our current total estimated acquisition cost range for pit production is $28-37 billion . . . . I know that’s a lot of money . . . . Los Alamos is on track to diamond stamp the first fully qualified War Reserve pit for the W87-1 this year. We anticipate Los Alamos achieving the capability to produce the thirty pits per year envisioned by the two-site plan in or near 2028, with increased manufacturing rate confidence as we install equipment through 2030.”
he United States will never need to make plutonium again. During the Cold War, nuclear reactors at Hanford, Washington, produced more than sixty tons of plutonium. Some 14,000 pits, made by Rocky Flats, each bearing the War Reserve diamond stamp, are warehoused in Pantex, Texas.
As Los Alamos cranks up its program, pits are brought from Pantex, torn apart, and subjected to pyrochemistry, which removes impurities. The metal is then heated into a hot syrup and poured into molds, creating two halves of a sphere. These are welded together. This process is done in rows of connected glove boxes, the plutonium moving from one to another in an overhead trolley system, and dumbwaiters that raise and lower it.
Today at Los Alamos, hundreds of people work at the plutonium factory, some of them making plutonium heaters for space vehicles. But on the pit side, fewer than ten people in the world are trained or are being trained to perform final pit assembly, which must be done by hand inside a large, walk-in glove box, wearing multiple layers of personal protective equipment to prevent plutonium contamination. These master machinists and welders hold Q clearances and undergo annual physical and mental exams. It can take up to four years to train them.
…………………………………………………………………………… fundamental questions are being raised. Scientists debate whether new pits are really needed when existing pits might last for decades. And the need for the W87-1 and the Sentinel missile itself is being questioned because of rising costs and its vulnerability as a land-based, easily targeted weapon. The Pentagon reported in July that the missile’s estimated cost has risen 81 percent over budget to $141 billion.
In New Mexico, two longtime watchdog organizations, the Los Alamos Study Group and Nuclear Watch New Mexico, list dozens of reasons to not make pits at Los Alamos: waste disposal, radiation deposits, earthquake potential, cost and schedule overruns among them.
“Every dollar spent at LANL [Los Alamos National Laboratory] on this program is wasted,” wrote Greg Mello of the Los Alamos Study Group. “Every drum of waste produced in the process need not have been produced. Every career spent making these pits, or supporting the work, is a career that could have been spent building a sustainable, moral, responsible future. The LANL pit production program is a symptom of pure arrogance, greed, and management failure at the highest levels of government.”
………………………. As America’s nuclear train chugs forward, it is virtually certain that if the Sentinel missiles containing the Los Alamos pits are in their silos by the early 2030s, as planned, they will inflame an arms race that is already underway, while posing—if we’re lucky—nothing more than an apocalyptic threat in a new Cold War. https://progressive.org/magazine/how-to-make-a-war-reserve-nuclear-bomb-carrier-20240905/
‘Obvious Conflict of Interest’: Report Reveals 50+ US Lawmakers Hold Military Stocks
“It’s abjectly terrifying that the personal benefit of any member of Congress is factored into decisions about how to wield and fund the largest military in the world,” said one critic.
Brett Wilkins 12 Sept 24, https://www.commondreams.org/news/members-of-congress-who-own-defense-stock
At least 50 U.S. lawmakers or members of their households are financially invested in companies that make military weapons and equipment—even as these firms “receive hundreds of billions of dollars annually from congressionally-crafted Pentagon appropriations legislation,” a report published Thursday revealed.
Sludge‘s David Moore analyzed 2023 financial disclosures and stock trades disclosed in other reports and found that “the total value of the federal lawmakers’ defense contractors stock holdings could be as much as $10.9 million.”
Melanie D’Arrigo, @DarrigoMelanie
Over 50 members of Congress, who vote to approve the military budget and approve the sale of weapons, own up to $10.9M in military contractor stocks. Military contractors have also donated $29M this year to election campaigns. That isn’t national defense. That’s corruption.
According to the report:
The spouse of Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the ranking member of the Defense Appropriations subcommittee, holds between $15,000 and $50,000 worth of shares in each of Boeing and RTX, as well as holdings in two other defense manufacturers. Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas), another Defense Appropriations subcommittee member, holds up to $50,000 in the stock of Boeing, which received nearly $33 billion in defense contracts last year. On the Democratic side of the aisle, Sen. John Hickenlooper (Colo.) holds up to a quarter of a million dollars’ worth of stock in RTX…
The most widely held defense contractor stock among senators and representatives is Honeywell, an American company that makes sensors and guiding devices that are being used by the Israeli military in its airstrikes in Gaza. The second most commonly held defense stock by Congress is RTX, formerly known as Raytheon, the company that makes missiles for Israel’s Iron Dome, among other weapons systems.
All 13 senators whose households disclosed military stock holdings voted for the most recent National Defense Authorization Act, which, as Common Dreams reported, allocated a record $886.3 billion for the U.S. military while many lawmakers’ constituents struggled to meet their basic needs.
“It is an obvious conflict of interest when a member of Congress owns significant stock investments in a company and then votes to award the same company lucrative federal contracts,” Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist at the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, told Sludge.
“Whether or not the official action is taken for actual self-enrichment purposes is beside the point. There is at least an appearance of self-enrichment and that appearance is just as damaging to the integrity of Congress,” Holman added. “This type of conflict of interest is already banned for executive branch officials and so should be for Congress as well. The ETHICS Act would justly avoid that conflict of interest by prohibiting members of Congress and their spouses from owning stock investments altogether.”Holman was referring to the Ending Trading and Holdings In Congressional Stocks (ETHICS) Act, introduced earlier this year by Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.).
In the House of Representatives—where the 2024 NDAA passed 310-118, with the approval of over two dozen members who own shares in military companies—House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Michael McCaul’s (R-Texas) household owns up to $2.6 million in General Electric, Oshkosh Corporation, and Woodward shares. Rep. Dave Joyce (R-Ohio), who sits on the Defense Appropriations subcommittee, owns as much as $100,000 worth of Boeing and General Electric stock.
Other House lawmakers with potential conflicts of interest include Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who owns Leidos shares worth as much as $248,000; Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), who owns up to $100,000 worth of RTX stock; and Rep. Patrick Fallon (R-Texas), a member of the Armed Services Committee who holds Boeing stock worth between $100,000 and $250,000.
“Every American should take a long, hard look at these holdings to conceptualize the scope of Congress’ entanglement with defense contractors,” Public Citizen People Over Pentagon advocate Savannah Wooten told Sludge. “It’s abjectly terrifying that the personal benefit of any member of Congress is factored into decisions about how to wield and fund the largest military in the world.”
“Requiring elected officials to divest from the military-industrial complex before stepping into public service would create a safer and more secure world from the outset,” she added.
NuScale Power Is Great. Here’s Why You Shouldn’t Buy It.
The Motley Fool, By Reuben Gregg Brewer – Sep 14, 2024
NuScale Power (SMR 12.17%) is at the leading edge of the nuclear power sector. It is doing great things and making important progress toward its goal of mass-producing small-scale modular nuclear reactors. In a world increasingly looking toward carbon-free energy sources, it is positioning itself well for a bright future. But it won’t be a good fit for every investor. Here’s why you might want to buy the stock and why you might not want to buy it.
NuScale is moving (slowly) toward the nuclear future
Today, nuclear reactors are giant infrastructure assets that cost huge sums of money to build and years of effort to get up and running. NuScale Power is working to upend that inefficient model by offering small, modular reactors that would be built in a factory and then delivered where they are needed.
If one reactor isn’t enough, they can be linked to create a larger reactor………….
Adding to the allure here is a balance sheet with zero debt and $136 million in cash. In other words, it is working from a strong financial position. Also, NuScale Power’s largest shareholder is Fluor (FLR 2.21%), a large construction company.
Clearly, Fluor has its own motives in backing NuScale, like supporting the growth of a new market (small-scale nuclear power plant construction), but it means that NuScale has a strong parent to help it along. That’s showing up right now, too, as a project from Fluor is going to help add revenue to NuScale’s earnings statement, helping the upstart nuclear power company pay for its own product development plans.
There are indeed some good reasons to like the future prospects for NuScale power, including that, as management likes to highlight, it is “the only SMR certified by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.” So, it basically has a leg up on the competition right now.
NuScale Power comes with some big risks
Despite the positives, NuScale Power is not going to be a good fit for every investor. In fact, only aggressive types should really be looking at the stock today. There are a host of reasons.
For starters, NuScale Power’s product plans are approved by U.S. regulators, but not fully approved to the point where it can start building and selling units. So, there’s more work to be done before NuScale Power even has a product to sell. And while it has inked a tentative deal to sell its first units, it can’t actually do that yet. It has to spend even more money on the effort to get the final government nod to start building and delivering a product.
That, in turn, means more red ink. NuScale Power is basically still in start-up mode, so it isn’t unusual that more money would be going out the door than coming in. The revenue from the work with Fluor will help, but the income statement is likely to look ugly for years to come. That’s because it will still have to ramp up its production abilities even after it gets all the approvals it needs. All in all, NuScale Power has a great story, but that story is still in its early chapters.
NuScale Power is an acquired taste
To highlight the risks here, it helps to look at the stock price. Over the past year, the stock has gone from a low of roughly $2 per share to a high of just over $15, and it currently sits at around $7. If you can’t handle price swings like that, you definitely don’t want to own this nuclear power start-up.
That said, investors with a high tolerance for risk might be interested in NuScale power, given that it has achieved a great deal on its path to producing small-scale modular nuclear reactors. But for most investors, the risks are likely too great at this point in time to justify hitting the buy button. https://www.fool.com/investing/2024/09/14/nuscale-power-is-great-heres-why-you-shouldnt-buy/
1 This Month
29 Jan. Thursday 7-8 p.m. Webinar – World’s Largest Nuclear Station in Port Hope, ON?
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com/
31st January – Challenging the War Machine – a DECLASSIFIED UK SUMMIT
Website of the Week
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- January 2026 (283)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
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 