Rupert Murdoch loses his legal battle, leaving future of media empire in the balance
The Conversation, Matthew Ricketson and Andrew Dodd, December 10, 2024
In the seemingly never-ending psychodrama surrounding Rupert Murdoch and his family, life has imitated art. Again.
A report on December 9 in The New York Times revealed details of the recent secret hearing in a Nevada probate court that was literally prompted by the epic HBO drama Succession…………………………..
The probate commissioner in Nevada who heard Rupert Murdoch’s application, Edmund Gorman “resoundingly” ruled against his attempt to change his family trust in a way that would have secured Lachlan’s position atop the global media empire.
Gorman was scathing in his ruling, saying father and son had acted in “bad faith” in their bid to change an “irrevocable” family trust that divides control of Fox News and News Corporation equally among Murdoch’s four eldest children from his first and second marriages: Prudence, Elisabeth, Lachlan and James.
In the 96-page ruling, Gorman described the plan to change the trust as a “carefully crafted charade” to permanently consolidate Lachlan’s executive roles inside News, “regardless of the impacts such control would have over the companies or the beneficiaries” of the family trust……………………………………….
Gorman’s ruling is not the end of the matter, however. It’s technically a recommendation to the Probate Court, which a district judge will ratify or reject.
Whatever the judge decides is open to appeal, which a lawyer for Rupert and Lachlan has already said they plan to do. Meanwhile, the other three siblings have released a statement welcoming the decision and expressing hope that “we can move beyond this litigation to focus on strengthening and rebuilding relationships among all family members”.
Good luck with that. The strongly worded ruling seems likely only to drive the parties further apart………………………………………………………………………………….
Lachlan’s description of James as the trust’s “troublesome beneficiary”.
By “troublesome” the plan was obliquely referring to the split in the family between Lachlan and Rupert – who are wedded to a media empire that is both right-wing and profitable – and James, who severed all ties with the company over its denialist coverage of climate change and its credulous reporting of baseless conspiracy theories about the result of the 2020 US presidential election………………………………………………………………………………….
If Prudence, Elisabeth and James can assert control, sideline Lachlan, and settle on a unified path forward, they can potentially reshape the company and redefine its journalism.
If they have already war-gamed it, and surely by now they have, the three siblings would know their greatest risk is alienating their current audiences, subscribers and advertisers.
In Australia, News operates in a virtual monopoly, so it can shapeshift with fewer consequences. But the US market is awash with emerging right-wing alternatives, each of which is eager to steal a share of the Fox audience. These viewers are the people who make Fox such a valuable commodity, and they’re the reason why it’s been so hard to stand up to Trump and his anti-democratic tactics, even on the odd occasions when Rupert and Lachlan wanted to.
The challenge is to somehow bring those audiences along for whatever transition the siblings envisage for the company. Can it be done, and if so, how?
The company’s own history suggests editorial change can happen quickly and audiences do tend to retain some loyalty. Murdoch’s takeover of The New York Post in the 1970s shows it is possible to radically change a masthead’s editorial position while expanding its audience, in that case from a mostly Democrat-leaning readership to a larger and more conservative one. But that was a moribund newspaper due for a radical makeover. There’s no guarantee it would work in reverse.
Fox News is arguably at the peak of its powers. The incentive to impose change has everything to do with journalistic standards and nothing to do with finances. In 2023–24 the Fox Corporation’s net income was US$1.5 billion (A$2.35 billion).
Even so, it must be possible to introduce incremental changes that reacquaint Fox viewers with more considered and ethical journalism without scaring them off. This wouldn’t work universally. Some of the demagogues who couldn’t cope would have to go – Sean Hannity springs to mind, as does former Fox firebrand Tucker Carlson.
Under new management, News could reintroduce some of the elements lost to Talk-TV in the mid-1980s, when the US scrapped the fairness doctrine that guaranteed balance and greater civility on the airwaves. It could ensure programs canvas different views, ask devil’s-advocate questions, and investigate issues without fear or favour.
Change of this nature wouldn’t be easy. News Corp has an echelon of editors across its global mastheads, most of whom are culture warriors and battle-hardened loyalists. They can and probably would work together to undermine progressive change.
During his tenure as the Australian head of News Corp, well before he became chair of the ABC, Kim Williams saw how the editors sneeringly white-anted his efforts to introduce reform. Even Lachlan Murdoch discovered that senior staff could undercut him. Paddy Manning recounts in his 2022 biography of Lachlan Murdoch, The Successor, that the infamous Roger Ailes did just this as Lachlan was learning the ropes at Fox in the early 2000s.
The three siblings will need resolve to dispense with those who get in their way, and they’ll need to introduce firm but gradual changes that don’t unduly scare their audiences or the market. But if Prudence, James and Elizabeth do share such a vision and are up for a fight, the world could soon be in for a fascinating media transition. more https://theconversation.com/rupert-murdoch-loses-his-legal-battle-leaving-future-of-media-empire-in-the-balance-245665?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20December%2011%202024%20-%203195432592&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20December%2011%202024%20-%203195432592+CID_9d007a3b0e7578f878c65cbd5b463722&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Rupert%20Murdoch%20loses%20his%20legal%20battle%20leaving%20future%20of%20media%20empire%20in%20the%20balance
Rocket fuel eating away at US, China nuclear weapons
Fast-aging fuel has likely rendered many US and Chinese ICBMs unusable, raising urgent questions about their nuclear arsenals.
Asia Times, by Gabriel Honrada, December 10, 2024
Aging rocket fuel may be quietly crippling the world’s nuclear arsenals, according to a new report exposing the ticking time bomb inside both US and Chinese missiles.
This month, South China Morning Post (SCMP) reported that Chinese rocket scientists have discovered that the solid fuel used in intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) ages much faster than previously known, potentially rendering hundreds of missiles unusable.
Research conducted at China’s National Key Laboratory of Solid Rocket Propulsion in Xian revealed that significant changes in the fuel columns can occur within 30 years, making them unable to withstand the loads during flight. This finding could explain the frequent launch failures experienced by some nuclear powers in recent years.
The study, led by senior engineer Qin Pengju, found that while the aged propellant appeared stable during routine storage, it became significantly more brittle under high pressure. It mentions that the research focused on the solid fuel commonly used in ICBMs: ammonium perchlorate, aluminum powder and hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene (HTPB) binder.
SCMP says the study’s findings suggest that the fuel’s ductility under pressure can be compromised after just 27 years, leading to possible rapid fractures during launch. It notes that the issue has raised concerns about the US’s declining nuclear deterrent capability, which relies on Minuteman III missiles manufactured in the 1970s and Trident II missiles that have been operational for nearly three decades.
Perhaps illustrating the unreliability of aging ICBMs, a failed Minuteman III ICBM test in November 2023 has heightened concerns about the US’s aging land-based nuclear arsenal. The unarmed missile was terminated during a launch from Vandenberg Space Force Base due to an anomaly.
While the Minuteman III as a whole is still considered a reliable weapons system, its subcomponents, such as the silo, electronics and warhead, are old and may have been neglected.
Asia Times has previously reported that the US faces mounting pressure to replace its aging Minuteman III ICBMs as delays and cost overruns plague its next-generation LGM-35A Sentinel program.
Budgeted initially at US$95.8 billion, the Sentinel’s cost has surged to an estimated $160 billion, forcing the Pentagon to justify the increase under the Nunn-McCurdy Amendment. Due to Covid-19 disruptions and inflation, production delays have postponed its deployment until 2029. As a result, the US Air Force must extend Minuteman III’s lifespan.
Aside from old delivery systems, Asia Times reported in January 2024 that the aging of plutonium pits in US nuclear weapons poses a significant challenge to the country’s strategic deterrent. Despite plutonium’s 24,000-year half-life, microscopic changes over time can affect the storage safety and explosive yield of nuclear weapons.
The US National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has struggled to produce new plutonium pits, with current production capacity unlikely to meet the goal of 80 pits annually until 2030 or later. This shortfall is attributed to a post-Cold War culture of complacency, a lack of skilled workers and restrictive environmental regulations.
Existing pits, designed for older weapons, may not perform as required in newer systems, raising concerns about the reliability of the US nuclear arsenal.
Keeping the 1970s-era Minuteman III poses significant challenges. In a February 2014 RAND report, Lauren Caston and other writers mention that central to keeping the aging Minuteman III in service is the aging infrastructure and components that require continuous modernization to maintain operability………………………………………………………………………………….. more https://asiatimes.com/2024/12/rocket-fuel-eating-away-at-us-china-nuclear-weapons/
US, UK consider removing Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS)from terror blacklist to ‘deepen contact’ with Al-Qaeda offshoot
Hayat Tahrir al-Sham toppled the government of Bashar al-Assad on Saturday, accomplishing a long-time goal of US foreign policy
The Cradle, News Desk, DEC 9, 2024
US officials are considering removing Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) from the US terrorist list after the offshoot of the Islamic State of Iraq (later known as ISIS) helped achieve the long-term US goal of overthrowing the Syrian government led by President Bashar al-Assad, The Washington Post reported on 9 December.
“US officials are in contact with all the groups involved in fighting in Syria, including the main group that ousted Assad, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which was once affiliated with Al-Qaeda and remains on a US terrorist list,” the newspaper wrote.
A US official told The Post that the US government has not ruled out removing the terror designation from HTS to enable deeper US contact and cooperation with the group………………………………………………
The UK government is also considering removing HTS from the list of banned terrorist groups.
………………….“The fall of the Assad regime fulfills a longtime US foreign policy goal, after Russia and Iran supported Assad amid the Obama administration’s efforts to oust him,” The Post added.
The former US special envoy to Syria said in an interview excerpt in March 2021 that HTS was an “asset” to US strategy in Syria. ……………………
………the US has supported ISIS in the past, including providing weapons to the organization to conquer Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city, in June 2014. ISIS carried out the genocide of Yezidis in the nearby Sinjar district two months later, in August, with help from Iraqi Kurdish leader Masoud Barzani, a close US and Israeli ally………………………more https://thecradle.co/articles/us-uk-consider-removing-hts-from-terror-blacklist-to-deepen-contact-with-al-qaeda-offshoot
Gabbard has more intelligence than entire Intelligence Service she’s slated to head.
Gabbard had the audacity to speak truth against America’s unhinged proxy war against Russia in 2022 that has failed spectacularly while destroying Ukraine as a viable country. She was spot on in declaring US weaponizing its Ukraine proxies against Russia jeopardizes global security. “This war and suffering could have easily been avoided if the Biden Administration and NATO had simply acknowledged Russia’s legitimate security concerns over NATO membership for Ukraine on Russia’s border.”
Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL, 8 Dec 24
The US national security state, more appropriately referred to as the US war party, is aghast Trump picked Tulsi Gabbard to be Director of National Intelligence.
John Bolton, correctly nicknamed ‘Bonkers’ over his love of endless, failed US military interventions charged, “Gabbard, like Trump’s failed Attorney General pick Matt Gaetz, is like a hand grenade ready to explode. Republicans who throw themselves on those grenades for Donald Trump are risking their own personal reputations and places in history. Bolton appears oblivious his reputation and place in history rests in the warmonger wing of the American Story.
My Illinois Senator Tammy Duckworth warned “I think she’s compromised. The U.S. intelligence community has identified her as having troubling relationships with America’s foes.” Ironically, it’s Duckworth, who exploited her service in America’s criminal Iraq war to gain political power supporting more senseless US wars, who is compromised.
Even progressive hero Elizabeth Warren foolishly bellowed “Do you really want her to have all of the secrets of the United States and our defense intelligence agencies when she has so clearly been in Putin’s pocket.” Warren clearly is in the pocket of US weapons merchants, super hawk congresspersons and their media enablers.
What infuriates these unbridled proponents of US unipolar dominance about Gabbard, a former congressperson, Iraq war vet and current Lt. Col. in the US Army reserve?
Gabbard had the audacity to speak truth against America’s unhinged proxy war against Russia in 2022 that has failed spectacularly while destroying Ukraine as a viable country. She was spot on in declaring US weaponizing its Ukraine proxies against Russia jeopardizes global security. “This war and suffering could have easily been avoided if the Biden Administration and NATO had simply acknowledged Russia’s legitimate security concerns over NATO membership for Ukraine on Russia’s border.”
Gabbard compounds this inconvenient truth by speaking with rulers of America’s imaginary enemies like Syrian President Bashar Assad. America’s refusal to speak with its long list of enemies is a reckless policy that can easily stumble America into further warfare, even nuclear.
Bravo to Gabbard for pushing back against senseless US foreign misadventures that threaten American security, indeed, all peoplekind.
American intelligence has been exploited by our clueless leaders since the end of WWII to destabilize, overthrow dozens of countries worldwide. It seeks new enemies to expand its power and influence promoting US unipolar dominance. Gabbard threatens that terrible sinecure.
The Senate should confirm Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence to make sensible intelligence Job One in the intelligence community.
Biden’s Nuclear Going Out of Business Sale
The only way Ukraine wins is for the West to stop the war and negotiate an agreement with Russia which restores Ukraine’s sovereignty, neutrality and way of life. Otherwise, the war grinds on, the casualties on both sides mount, Armageddon looms and the world gets to indulge in thinking the unthinkable, annihilation.
This is real. This is not a drill. The world is teetering on a precipice of nuclear war.
Dennis Kucinich, 7 Dec 24, https://freepress.org/article/biden%E2%80%99s-nuclear-going-out-business-sale
Has the world forgotten the real danger of nuclear war?
Do we live in a fantasy world where we think we can escalate tensions and put entire portions of the world under threat by using Ukraine as a sacrificial pawn (in what is classically sold as providing humanitarian and ally support) in a decades-long psychopathic foreign policy play to destroy Russia?
According to the laws of war, NATO, the U.S., the U.K., and France have determined to become “direct participants” in Europe’s deadly conflict as their home-grown offensive missiles are being launched from inside Ukraine to attack Russia.
Translated, a state of war exists between the West and Russia.
Putin is not absolved for his invasion of Ukraine. But how are western nations, led by the U.S., protecting Ukraine’s or their own national interests by quickening the dialectic of conflict, bringing nuclear weapons into the calculus?
Russian President Putin and his government have experienced long-standing western policies of encirclement and NATO encroachment through Ukraine, something the U.S. government swore would not happen. It did happen, reawakening Russia’s deepest fears of invasion.
Most Americans are unaware that in 2014, the U.S. forced out the elected President of Ukraine, Victor Yanukovych, which resulted in Kiev ordering attacks on ethnic Russian enclaves of Donetsk and Luhansk, baiting Russia into the beginning of a three year war, with the lure of NATO membership fluttering above Ukraine.
As the war barrels to a climactic, perhaps irredeemably fatal stage, the Ukrainian people have lost at least 600,000 of their fellow countrymen and women. Even so, at this late hour, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken demands that Ukraine lower its age of compulsory military service from 25 years of age to 18, to send even more young Ukrainians into the slaughter. Russian casualties will soar past 400,000 dead, with latest reports of 1,000 casualties a day.
One million Europeans have been killed for a war which was not inevitable, should never have been fought and, once it started, could have been brought to a fast conclusion. According to Naftali Bennett, former Prime Minister of Israel, peace talks were sabotaged by the US, just a month into the conflict.
The constitutions of the U.S., the U.K. and France, which forbid executives to unilaterally wage war, are being circumvented. Leaders have gone rogue and are consciously choosing nuclear brinkmanship over diplomacy.
In the past month, escalation is being stoked by the West. The launch of ATACMS and other advanced missiles necessarily involves U.S. personnel and intelligence data. This new phase of the war compelled the Kremlin to lower its threshold for a nuclear strike in an attempt to stop the use of even higher grade weapons against it from the West.
What happened? … The 2024 Presidential Election happened.
The escalation is intended to sabotage President Trump’s stated desire to bring an end to the Russia-Ukraine war and for the architects of the war to try to escape the blame for miscalculations, bumbling and cynical protraction of a bloody conflict. It is clear the West does not want peace.
Remember, the sacrifice of Ukraine and everything that has led up to this point is due to the West’s long time policy to advance the strategic defeat of Russia.
The Cold War never ended. It has given way to a boiling Hot War whose aim is to antagonize, provoke, diminish and conquer Russia. Key elements are the attempted dismantling of Russia’s energy infrastructure, and the massive transfer of arms to our proxy, Ukraine, through US appropriations which are approaching $200 billiion dollars, an amount equal to over $5,000 dollars for every Ukrainian man, woman and child.
In order to set the stage for this war, Western interests resorted to conjuring Putin as a demon, an arch-enemy of freedom, as was done with Hussein in Iraq, Khaddafy in Libya, and Assad in Syria. Once the enemy machine goes to work, military assets are mobilized to advance the overthrow of the noxious government, and the cash registers of defense contractors ring with the energy of a pinball arcade.
The Democratic Party unleashed an entire kennel of the dogs of war upon Russia, often at the urging of warden Hillary Clinton, mastermind of the Russiagate hoax. The nadir of the Dems descent into the indecent was ballyhooing the support of its 2024 presidential ticket by Dick Cheney, the sterling warmonger whose endorsement is to mass homicide what the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval is to stylish domesticity.
Think of the political consequences to the credibility of the entire Western foreign policy establishment if President Trump succeeds in bringing the war to a close. President Biden’s foreign policy, led by Secretary Blinken, will be forever tainted, as will the Democratic Party’s steadfast support for guns over butter.
The overthrow of the elected Ukrainian government in 2014, Russia’s subsequent invasion; the Prime Minister’s Gambit, Boris Johnson’s April 2022 scuttling of a peace agreement; the severe damage to the European economy through the destruction of Nordstream pipeline, by GUESS WHO, [readers hereby invited to guess]; NATO’S teeter-totter, penny-pinching one moment, saber-rattling burlesque the next, and harrowing brinkmanship — misdirecting public attention during the inevitable collapse of Ukraine. All this chest thumping and war pimping will be called into question, presuming there is time.
Another knock-on effect of the war and the failure of sanctions: Russia and China have been pushed together into a deep long-term military and economic partnership. Could the Biden Administration have been unaware of the military, economic and political fallout from a BRICS+-type alliance?
Rational military observers predict the transfer of the newest missiles will not change the outcome of the war, and some Trump advisers believe the next president’s bargaining position vis a vis Moscow will be strengthened as Ukraine’s offensive capacity is temporarily enhanced.
However, a sharp escalation in the next six weeks could result in a devastating response from an increasingly anxious Russia. Biden isn’t trying to help Trump or the process of peace, he’s handing him, and the world, a poisoned chalice.
The only way Ukraine wins is for the West to stop the war and negotiate an agreement with Russia which restores Ukraine’s sovereignty, neutrality and way of life. Otherwise, the war grinds on, the casualties on both sides mount, Armageddon looms and the world gets to indulge in thinking the unthinkable, annihilation.
Rear Admiral Thomas Buchanan of the US Strategic Command, isn’t calling for nuclear war, but he did say at a Project Atom 24 meeting recently, “If we have to have a(n) [nuclear] exchange then we want to do it in terms that are most acceptable to the United States,” where, presumably, even after nuclear war, we still lead the world, or its ashes – in strategic weapons.
President-Elect Trump, has assessed the extreme danger of the moment, saying: “We have never been closer to World War III than we are today under Joe Biden. A global conflict between nuclear-armed powers would mean death and destruction on a scale unmatched in human history.”
Vladimir Putin has clearly stated that Russia would “mirror” or match all escalations. Russia responded to an ATACM missile launch with a new hypersonic intermediate range ballistic missile, the Oreshnik, that reputedly reaches speeds of MACH 11 and delivers some 36 payloads. It devastated a Ukrainian missile factory.
It was an unmistakable message: Those six major payloads with six submunitions within them could be nuclear ones next time.
The next firing of ATACMs could bring a Russian response endangering or killing the American personnel responsible for firing these munitions. Even a skilled negotiator will find it difficult to diffuse the conflict once American blood has been shed. Why in the world would our government cause our troops, let alone our nation, to be so vulnerable?
Eight trillion dollars of our $36 trillion deficit is due to wars of choice since 9/11. The continued failure of American diplomacy, preferring war to statecraft, has been a persistent hubris. Pray that it not be fatal for our nation and the world.
Everyone who loves our country must speak out, now, to help avert a catastrophe.
Trump’s Pro-Israel Dream Team: Patel Nomination Caps Hawkish Cabinet
December 8, 2024, By Kit Klarenberg / MintPressNews
On November 30, Donald Trump nominated Kash Patel to serve as FBI director. A staunch MAGA activist and loyalist with significant standing in Trump’s orbit, Patel aligns closely with the president-elect on both domestic and foreign policy matters. Indeed, he appears to struggle to pinpoint areas of disagreement with Trump’s agenda.
Patel has consistently advocated for a hardline approach to China and is an unabashed supporter of Israeli interests, often prioritizing them over U.S. considerations. On October 7, marking the first anniversary of the Hamas attack, Patel delivered a fiery interview on Fox News. During the segment, he vowed that the incoming Trump administration would intensify its crackdown on anti-Israeli elements.
We should be side by side [with Israel]…When we are back in power with President Trump…we will shut off the machinery that feeds money into Iran…We need America to wake up and prioritize Israel, and that is not what Kamala Harris is about, we need to bring home Americans and end this war, bring home Israelis, and stand by our number one ally in Israel, and people need to wake up on November 5.”
A relative political outsider who has never occupied high office, the media has been awash with profiles of Patel and fevered speculation about what his management of the Bureau could mean in practice ever since. In the process, he has been subject to a level of mainstream scrutiny and criticism that was entirely lacking over recent weeks, as Trump filled his cabinet with a rogue’s gallery of dedicated hawks, hardcore pro-Israeli elements, and characters both unknown and notorious with potential extremist ties and views.
For some, the composition of Trump’s cabinet is a crushing disappointment. On November 9, Trump caused shockwaves when he announced neither Nikki Haley nor Mike Pompeo would be invited to join his administration in any capacity. The news, coupled with comments he made in a late October appearance on Joe Rogan’s popular podcast, perked optimism in some quarters that the President-elect’s longstanding anti-war posturing could produce real-world results in Ukraine, if not elsewhere.
In his discussion with Rogan, Trump professed that “the biggest mistake” of his first term was he “picked a few people that I shouldn’t have picked” – “neocons or bad people or disloyal people,” among them John Bolton. Haley was the U.S. ambassador to the UN under Trump and perhaps the most ardent, outspoken Zionist ever to fill the role. She, Bolton and Pompeo – who personally orchestrated Iranian General Qasem Soleimani’s assassination, among other hostile deeds – were widely regarded as the administration’s leading hawks.
Yet, any slight hope that the pair’s absence from Trump’s new White House might herald an influx of some doves and, in turn, a more peaceful shift from the U.S. government was comprehensively dashed when the President’s transition team nominations began rolling in. Now the cabinet is fully stocked, countless millions around the world have urgent and grave concerns about what the future could hold for them, their families, countries, regions, and more.
In particular, Trump’s prospective government can already claim the mantle of the most fervently pro-Israel in U.S. history. This is despite replacing an administration that has done more than any before to accelerate, encourage, and facilitate Israel’s war on Gaza. The prospect that Tel Aviv’s deadly assaults on Gaza and Lebanon will escalate somehow further is now not only very real but seemingly inevitable. However, as we shall see, there are minor rays of hope among the mass doom and gloom.
‘Promised Land’
New Secretary of State Marco Rubio hardly needs any introduction as one of the most pro-war members of the modern U.S. political class. Since his career kicked off in 2000, he has been consistently among the loudest voices on how America’s officially designated enemy states should be dealt with, be that China, Iran, Venezuela, or otherwise. Threats of sanctions, coups, and military intervention are almost a daily staple of his political oratory.
A close friend of Benjamin Netanyahu, in 2019, Rubio cosponsored a Senate resolution condemning UN Security Council resolutions designating Jewish settlement expansion in occupied Palestine as a violation of international law. He has referred to Israel’s mass murder in Gaza since October 7, 2023, as legitimate self-defense, claimed Hamas is “100% to blame” for any civilian casualties inflicted by the horrific onslaught, and ominously declared Palestinian resistance must be “eradicated,” as Tel Aviv cannot coexist “with these savages.”……………………………………………………………………………………….
The pro-Israel credentials of Senator Marco Rubio and Representative Michael Waltz are unquestionable. Yet their fervor for supporting Israel’s controversial policies pales in comparison to some of President-elect Donald Trump’s other nominees. Take Mike Huckabee, the ultraconservative former Arkansas governor and twice-failed presidential candidate, now tapped to serve as U.S. ambassador to Israel. Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist pastor, wasted no time declaring his intentions. He vowed to publicly refer to Israel in biblical terms, calling it the “Promised Land,” and proclaimed that Jews hold a “rightful deed” to Palestinian territory………………………
Hegseth, a contender for Defense Secretary, has made his allegiances to Israel unmistakably clear. He has described Israel’s settler population as “God’s chosen people.” He has openly advocated for transforming Jerusalem’s al-Aqsa Mosque into a Jewish-only recreation of the historic Temple Mount, framing such an act as a “miracle.” At a 2018 National Council of Young Israel gala in New York City, Hegseth left no room for ambiguity:
Zionism and Americanism are the front lines of Western civilization and freedom in our world today.”………………………………………………………………………………………. more https://www.mintpressnews.com/trumps-pro-israel-dream-team-patel-nomination-caps-hawkish-cabinet/288783/
Canada’s nuclear waste problem is not solved
A quick media scan shows many casual observers leaping to the conclusion that Canada’s nuclear waste problem is “solved,” erasing a major obstacle to a costly and dangerous expansion of nuclear power. Nuclear promoters are encouraging this misleading assumption.
Without a doubt, nuclear waste owners to the south are watching these developments closely. U.S. utilities and government have even more waste in temporary storage and no permanent solution in sight.
ANNE LINDSEY, 4 Dec 24
ON Nov. 28, right on schedule, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) triumphantly declared they have picked their site for the future Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for all of Canada’s high-level nuclear waste.
NWMO is a federal government-created consortium of companies that own and must manage Canada’s nuclear waste — 130,000 tonnes (and counting) of highly toxic radioactive materials currently sitting in temporary storage at reactor sites. Their chosen repository site is near Revell Lake, between Ignace and Dryden, Ont. The Revell area is on the territory of Treaty 3 First Nations, the closest being Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation (WLON). It sits at the headwaters of Wabigoon and the Turtle-Rainy River watersheds — flowing north and west, eventually into Lake Winnipeg, via the English-Wabigoon system, Lake of the Woods and the Winnipeg River.
In July, the town of Ignace signed a “willingness declaration” agreeing to host a DGR in the Revell area (notwithstanding that Ignace is not even on the same watershed as the Revell site), and only days before the site selection announcement, headlines across multiple news outlets suggested that WLON had also declared itself to be a willing host.
In fact, WLON’s news release about its recent community vote says “the yes vote does not signify approval of the project.” It does say that the nation agrees to further study of the site. This is an important distinction. (The Nation has also since stated that the project will be subject to Wabigoon’s own regulatory assessment and approval process. What this means legally in terms of WLON’s ability to reject the project in the future is not currently known).
NWMO’s process says it must receive a “compelling demonstration of willingness” from a host community before proceeding to site characterization (further geological study of the chosen site to see if it’s even suitable for keeping nuclear waste out of groundwater and the environment for the required hundreds of thousands of years).
NWMO says it is “confident” that specific location studies will prove that their out-of-sight, out-of-mind concept of deep burial of some of the most dangerous toxins on Earth will be safe. They’ve been expressing that cavalier confidence for decades, lulling Canadians into believing that it’s fine to keep producing the waste because eventually it will be dealt with.
A quick media scan shows many casual observers leaping to the conclusion that Canada’s nuclear waste problem is “solved,” erasing a major obstacle to a costly and dangerous expansion of nuclear power. Nuclear promoters are encouraging this misleading assumption.
Without a doubt, nuclear waste owners to the south are watching these developments closely. U.S. utilities and government have even more waste in temporary storage and no permanent solution in sight.
But is the waste problem solved? Even if (predictably), the industry deems its concept technically feasible, and even if WLON eventually decides it is a “willing host,” what about all the other communities impacted by this decision?
They must have their say. This means everyone along the transportation routes from southern Ontario and New Brunswick — let’s remember we are talking about three massive shipments per day for the next 40 years just for existing waste on the sometimes-treacherous highways of northern Ontario.
It also means all the downstream communities (including in Manitoba) whose waters would be affected by any release of radioactivity. Many Treaty 3 First Nations near the Revell site as well as the Grand Council of Treaty 3, Nishnawbe Aski Nation and Anishinabek Nation have already made statements opposing transportation and burial of nuclear waste in northern Ontario.
It’s telling that not a single community or First Nation other than Ignace and Wabigoon Lake has voiced support for the Revell site.
Since Ignace first expressed interest in 2009, both of those communities have been actively courted by the NWMO. Cash and other incentives are known to have been provided to Ignace. Little is publicly known about any agreements that may exist between NWMO and WLON. Those details may never be known as NWMO is mysteriously exempt from freedom of information requests (even though it claims to be transparent).
What is clear is that NWMO has not yet achieved its necessary goal of a “compelling demonstration of willingness.” What it has done is corrupted its own process by claiming consent where none exists, with the blessing of the federal government. Perhaps worst of all — and one might say this is historically predictable — it has created a situation in which neighbouring communities may end up pitted against each other.
Meanwhile, the nuclear waste problem is not “solved.”
Anne Lindsey volunteers with the No Nukes MB campaign of the Manitoba Energy Justice Coalition and has been monitoring nuclear waste since the 1980s. She lives in Winnipeg and spends time in Northwestern Ontario.
NRC Finds Apparent Security Violations at Pilgrim
‘Escalated enforcement action’ may be needed to protect spent fuel storage area
By Christine Legere Dec 4, 2024, https://provincetownindependent.org/featured/2024/12/04/nrc-finds-apparent-security-violations-at-pilgrim/?fbclid=IwY2xjawG_bYNleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHRMjawO4ghOC07jcvzHdYK-Z08vbUu96Mv-XIptTK2WiXfSaQprWaAR6YA_aem_WZtXDCevpDJCECdblhfnww
PLYMOUTH — Inspectors from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) have found apparent violations in the security measures being used to protect the spent fuel storage area on the grounds of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station.
The problems were found in early November, according to a Nov. 26 letter to Holtec International, which now owns the plant, from Paul Krohn, the director of the NRC’s Radiological Safety and Security Division. That notification letter is publicly available, but details of the violations are not, because the infractions relate to security, according to the letter.
The inspection examined activities related to Holtec’s physical security plan for the area where radioactive spent fuel rods used during Pilgrim’s five decades of operation are stored in mammoth steel and concrete casks. The inspectors looked at procedures and records, conducted interviews with personnel, and observed security activities.
Based on the results of that inspection, “escalated enforcement action” is being considered, the letter says.
Holtec was given 10 days from Nov. 26 to notify the federal agency of its acceptance of the violation finding or to provide a written response contesting the report. The company could also request a pre-enforcement conference within the 10 days. If the NRC does not hear from Holtec by the deadline, the agency “will proceed with its enforcement decision,” the letter says.
NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan told the Independent by email on Dec. 3 that Holtec had not yet responded. Holtec spokesman Patrick O’Brien said in an email that because the matter is security related he could not comment other than to say, “Our focus remains on a safe and secure decommissioning of Pilgrim Station.”
Detection Limits
The day before the letter was sent, at a meeting of the Nuclear Decommissioning Citizens Advisory Panel, two scientists from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution gave updates on their assessments as to where the station’s contaminated wastewater would likely flow if it were to be released into Cape Cod Bay.
Holtec is looking to release the wastewater into the bay after filtering it to reduce contaminants including some of the radioactive isotopes it contains.
Initially, Holtec sought to release 1.1 million gallons of radioactive water. That quantity is now down to about 916,500 gallons because some of it has already been released as evaporation, thanks to heaters Holtec is running during the cold months at the former plant. In spite of public criticism of the release by evaporation, those heaters are now running again, according to Dave Noyes, senior compliance manager for Holtec Decommissioning International.
The state Dept. of Environmental Protection has denied the company an amendment to its water discharge permit required to release the water, saying the state Ocean Sanctuaries Act prohibits it.
Holtec has appealed that decision.
At the November NDCAP meeting, Irina Rypina, a physical oceanographer at WHOI, said her models of the currents in the bay, which factor in the seasons, tides, and wind directions, showed the wastewater has a very high probability of flowing toward Provincetown and then hugging the coastline, affecting Wellfleet on both the bay and ocean sides and Dennis inside the bay.
Based on her study, the wastewater would reach Provincetown within a week of its release and would reach the rest of the bay in three weeks.
“We’re talking about putting radioactive material into the ocean,” said Ken Buesseler, a WHOI marine radiochemist. “I can’t do that from a research vessel, and you could not put this material on a ship and take it to the middle of the ocean and release it. It’s not allowed.”
RADIOACTIVITY
NRC Finds Apparent Security Violations at Pilgrim
‘Escalated enforcement action’ may be needed to protect spent fuel storage area
By Christine Legere Dec 4, 2024
PLYMOUTH — Inspectors from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) have found apparent violations in the security measures being used to protect the spent fuel storage area on the grounds of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station.
The problems were found in early November, according to a Nov. 26 letter to Holtec International, which now owns the plant, from Paul Krohn, the director of the NRC’s Radiological Safety and Security Division. That notification letter is publicly available, but details of the violations are not, because the infractions relate to security, according to the letter.
The inspection examined activities related to Holtec’s physical security plan for the area where radioactive spent fuel rods used during Pilgrim’s five decades of operation are stored in mammoth steel and concrete casks. The inspectors looked at procedures and records, conducted interviews with personnel, and observed security activities.
Based on the results of that inspection, “escalated enforcement action” is being considered, the letter says.
Holtec was given 10 days from Nov. 26 to notify the federal agency of its acceptance of the violation finding or to provide a written response contesting the report. The company could also request a pre-enforcement conference within the 10 days. If the NRC does not hear from Holtec by the deadline, the agency “will proceed with its enforcement decision,” the letter says.
NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan told the Independent by email on Dec. 3 that Holtec had not yet responded. Holtec spokesman Patrick O’Brien said in an email that because the matter is security related he could not comment other than to say, “Our focus remains on a safe and secure decommissioning of Pilgrim Station.”
Detection Limits
The day before the letter was sent, at a meeting of the Nuclear Decommissioning Citizens Advisory Panel, two scientists from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution gave updates on their assessments as to where the station’s contaminated wastewater would likely flow if it were to be released into Cape Cod Bay.
Holtec is looking to release the wastewater into the bay after filtering it to reduce contaminants including some of the radioactive isotopes it contains.
Initially, Holtec sought to release 1.1 million gallons of radioactive water. That quantity is now down to about 916,500 gallons because some of it has already been released as evaporation, thanks to heaters Holtec is running during the cold months at the former plant. In spite of public criticism of the release by evaporation, those heaters are now running again, according to Dave Noyes, senior compliance manager for Holtec Decommissioning International.
The state Dept. of Environmental Protection has denied the company an amendment to its water discharge permit required to release the water, saying the state Ocean Sanctuaries Act prohibits it.
Holtec has appealed that decision.
At the November NDCAP meeting, Irina Rypina, a physical oceanographer at WHOI, said her models of the currents in the bay, which factor in the seasons, tides, and wind directions, showed the wastewater has a very high probability of flowing toward Provincetown and then hugging the coastline, affecting Wellfleet on both the bay and ocean sides and Dennis inside the bay.
Based on her study, the wastewater would reach Provincetown within a week of its release and would reach the rest of the bay in three weeks.
“We’re talking about putting radioactive material into the ocean,” said Ken Buesseler, a WHOI marine radiochemist. “I can’t do that from a research vessel, and you could not put this material on a ship and take it to the middle of the ocean and release it. It’s not allowed.”
The wastewater has not yet been treated to filter out contamination. Test samples drawn and analyzed by both Holtec and the state Dept. of Public Health in May 2023 showed the presence of five radioactive isotopes above detection limits: manganese 54, cobalt 60, zinc 65, cesium 137, and tritium.
The results showed those isotopes in “very high numbers relative to the ocean,” Buesseler said. The level of manganese was two million times higher than what naturally occurs in the ocean’s sediment.
Noyes said the company monitors contamination in the sediment, shellfish, finfish, and other marine life.
Buesseler responded that he was not aware of that specific monitoring program but “what I saw were pretty high detection limits, so a ‘no detect’ doesn’t tell me anything as a scientist.”
The dose to humans and sea life will depend on the treatment system used to clean up the wastewater, Buesseler said. He said he thought the dose would likely be low after the water is treated. “You will be able to swim and be able to boat in Cape Cod Bay,” he said. “I never said Cape Cod Bay will be destroyed.” But he said there were better options for dealing with the wastewater than releasing it into the bay.
“Tritium is difficult to get out of water, but if you just cleaned up things that were more harmful, you would be left with water that’s largely tritium, which you could hold for its decay,” said Buesseler.
The plant’s radioactive spent fuel assemblies are now stored in 62 casks on the Pilgrim plant property. “We’re talking about a site where they will have to maintain high-level waste for decades, centuries, and beyond, until we have permanent waste disposal for commercial reactors,” the radiochemist said. If the wastewater were to be treated and then stored on the site, the tritium level would go down to 6 percent in 48 years.
“In 60 years, less than 3 percent would be left,” he said.
The LA Times Makes the Case for Shutting the Diablo Canyon Nukes
Harvey Wasserman, 4 Dec 24 https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/12/03/the-latimes-makes-the-case-for-shutting-the-diablo-canyon-nukes/?fbclid=IwY2xjawG8YRJleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHSQ9odEebiUpHvQEucI8G6sh43u-Rh8KUrx7a82De1V7jLHnoraX19z0Dw_aem_NVnlx2KzztXtkLu2amu4_w
In a landmark front page feature, the Los Angeles Times has made a powerful argument for shutting California’s last two atomic reactors.
The forty-year-old Diablo Canyon nukes are being subsidized by statewide ratepayers to the tune of nearly $12 billion in over-market charges slated to enrich Pacific Gas & Electric through 2030. PG&E’s CEO, Patti Poppe, was paid more than $40 million in 2022. The company has been convicted of more than 90 federal manslaughter charges stemming from fatal fires in San Bruno in 2010, and in northern California in 2017
Taking up a quarter of the Times’s November 25 cover, the feature by Melody Peterson reports that a “glut” of solar-generated electricity is regularly shipped out of state at enormous losses to California rate payers. Green energy capable of powering more than a half-million homes is regularly “curtailed.”
But the cost of generating that electricity with solar panels is a fraction of Diablo Canyon’s hyper-expensive “base load power”, which is currently jamming and jeopardizing the California grid.
During most afternoons, photovoltaic cells in the Central Valley regularly produce electricity “too cheap to meter” (wind turbines in west Texas regularly do the same).
As it pours into the grid, the cheap solar juice is often used to charge industrial-scale batteries that power the state into the evening hours after sunset.
During part of virtually every day now, California’s entire electric supply comes from solar, wind and geothermal sources, at far less cost than what comes from Diablo Canyon. Atomic reactors are shut on average 9% of every year.
A landmark plan to phase-out Diablo Canyon by 2024 and 2025 was signed in 2018 by then-Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom. Compiled through two-years of intense top-level dialog, involving scores of public hearings and countless hours of research, the plan was signed by then-Governor Jerry Brown. It was endorsed by the state legislature and regulatory agencies, neighboring local governments, the plant’s labor unions, a wide range of public safety and environmental groups, leading ratepayer organizations and PG&E itself.
The Diablo phase-out relied on the projected ability of renewable sources and battery back-ups to replace the reactors’ output. As indicated by the LATimes’s cover piece and more, rapid advances in solar, wind, geothermal and battery technologies have far exceeded expectations for replacing Diablo’s base-load output. They’ve also plummeted far below current nuclear price levels…as well as those projected for future Small Modular Reactors in the unlikely event any should come on line within the next decade.
Battery technologies in particular have hugely advanced, all but eliminating the “periodicity” that comes when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow. The industry has been largely dominated by lithium ion technology, which has gotten a huge boost from two major finds in California. But Vanadium, iron air and sodium technologies are also booming toward much cheaper, cleaner and more powerful storage systems that are rapidly accelerating the green-powered paradigm, especially when it comes to the large solid state units that will dominate non-vehicular uses in homes, business and factory settings.
This increasing renewable-based flexibility is accelerating the ability of grid operators synchronize supply with fluctuating demand. By contrast, nuclear power’s rigid base-load mode blocks cheaper renewables off the grid, forcing some to be shipped out of state.
California’s backup battery capability—, much of it decentralized and privately owned—has at least twice saved the state from impending blackouts. The Golden State’s battery-based reserves—-still rapidly expanding—-now exceed Diablo’s maximum output by more than 400%.
But in April, 2022, Newsom shredded the nuclear phase-out plan he signed four years earlier. Allowing no public hearings, Newsom strong-armed the legislature into a widely resented 11th hour rubber stamp.
Newsom’s hand-picked Public Utilities Commission then trashed California’s well-established “Net Metering” system that initially helped foster some two million rooftop solar installations. The moves cost the state more than 17,000 of its 70,000 solar installer jobs (about 1500 workers are employed at Diablo Canyon).
Newsom’s pro-nuclear package gifted a “forgivable” $1.4 billion loan to PG&E. Running the two reactors through 2030 could cost the public $11+ billion in over market billings, a gargantuan hand-out to the state’s biggest private utility. Even consumers who get zero power from Diablo are expected to pay.
Thus it’s no surprise that California suffers the US’s second-highest electric rates (behind only Hawaii, which gets much of its electricity from burning oil…but is rapidly now shifting to renewables).
Newsom has issued an executive order to “research” why our electric rates are so high. But as shown by the LATimes’s cover story (entitled “Solar Power Glut Boosts California Electric Bills. Other States Reap Benefit,” by Melody Peterson) much of California’s solar electricity can’t get access to a grid jammed by a rigid, hyper-expensive nuclear base load.
Diablo now faces federal licensing challenges. Like all commercial US reactors, it has no private liability insurance to compensate the public for catastrophic accidents. Shown to be dangerously embrittled in 2002, Unit One has not been tested since. Some 45 miles from the San Andreas, Diablo is surrounded by a dozen known earthquake faults whose impacts a long-time NRC site inspector (among others) says the plant can’t withstand.
Diablo pours radioactive carbon 14 into the atmosphere along with other greenhouse gasses emitted during the mining, milling and fabrication of its fuel rods. Thousands of tons of radioactive waste sit on site in cracked dry casks with nowhere else to go. .
Diablo’s twin cores operate around 560 degrees Fahrenheit, heating Avila Bay and the Earth in violation of state and federal law.. They kill countless marine creatures with thermal, chemical and radioactive emissions.
Despite their huge economic costs, devastating jobs impacts, and bitter public opposition, Newsom has opted to keep Diablo running.
Without a hint of irony, the LATimes’s latest attack blames the “glut” of green power on the success of renewables.
But it underscores (without ever mentioning Diablo) that Newsom’s $11+ billion “nuclear base-load tax” could be avoided by letting the PV industry fill the grid with its far cheaper power.
The Times also confirms that nothing terrifies the fossil/nuclear industry and its monopoly utilities more than the prospect of a global energy economy run on renewable power produced by rooftop solar, delivered through public-owned green grids and decentralized micro-grids, all backed up by a new generation of advanced batteries.
With the Olympics coming to Los Angeles in 2028, the Games could be totally powered by covering the state’s available rooftops with cheap, reliable, battery-backed solar cells.
The epic drop in electric rates and rise in employment and economic well-being could win the Earth’s ultimate, life-sustaining gold medal.
It would also make great copy for yet another LATimes cover story…this one celebrating rather than denigrating the astonishing success of the Golden State’s sustainable energy industries.
Nuclear industry selects site in northwestern Ontario for waste disposal amidst regional opposition
Assembly of First Nations calls for new approach to Indigenous consultation and consent
Warren Bernauer and Elysia Petrone / December 3, 2024 https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/nuclear-industry-selects-site-in-northwestern-ontario-for-nuclear-waste-disposal-amidst-regional-opposition
Indigenous groups are raising awareness about plans to construct a series of caverns deep underground in the heart of Treaty 3 territory, to be filled with all of Canada’s high-level nuclear waste.
On November 28, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) announced it had selected Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation and the municipality of Ignace as “host communities” for all of Canada’s high-level nuclear waste. According to NWMO resident and CEO Laurie Swami, the decision to dispose of nuclear waste in northwestern Ontario “was driven by a consent-based siting process led by Canadians and Indigenous peoples.” Yet the extent to which the people of northwestern Ontario consent to the proposed waste repository is, at best, unclear.
The NWMO is a not-for-profit corporation, founded and funded by the nuclear power industry, which has been tasked with the management of Canada’s nuclear waste. Since 2005, the NWMO has been advancing plans to construct a deep geological repository (DGR), intended to be the final resting place for all spent nuclear fuel from reactors in Canada. As part of its site-selection process, it has been searching for a “willing host” community. In 2020, the NWMO narrowed its candidates to two Ontario municipalities, both of which have since signed “hosting agreements” with the NWMO: Ignace and South Bruce.
The NWMO has also committed to seeking the consent of the Indigenous communities on whose territories the DGR would be situated. Indigenous consent to nuclear waste disposal is required under the terms of international human rights covenants like the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). According to Article 29 of UNDRIP, “States shall take effective measures to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of Indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent.”
Before announcing that it had selected northwestern Ontario for its waste repository, the NWMO had been negotiating with both the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation (near Ignace, in northwestern Ontario) and Saugeen Ojibway Nation (near South Bruce, within the water shed of Lake Huron).
Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation says ‘yes’ but stops short of consent
On November 18, members of Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation voted ‘yes’ to continuing with the NWMO’s site-selection process. Rather unsurprisingly, the NWMO has characterized Wabigoon Lake’s vote as confirmation that it is “a willing host community for Canada’s repository for used nuclear fuel.”
Yet public communication from Wabigoon Lake stops short of declaring their consent to the proposed DGR. According to a press release from the First Nation, “the yes vote does not signify approval of the project; rather, it demonstrates the Nation’s willingness to enter the next phase of in-depth environmental and technical assessments, to determine safety and site suitability.”
At present, the question Wabigoon Lake members voted on, the official results, and the details of the agreement the First Nation has signed with the NWMO have not been publicly released. It therefore remains unclear whether the NWMO has succeeded in obtaining the consent it requires to move forward with its proposed DGR.
According to a recent newsletter from regional anti-nuclear group We the Nuclear Free North:
NWMO has to date failed to establish that Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation is a ‘willing host’ or to extract from WLON a ‘compelling demonstration of willingness’. The NWMO has repeatedly stated that the project will only be located in an area with an informed and willing host, with acceptance supported by a ‘compelling demonstration of willingness’ and with surrounding communities working together to implement the project.
It is also unclear what sort of financial benefits were offered to Wabigoon members in exchange for agreeing to moving to the ‘site characterization’ stage of the NWMO’s process. There has been significant controversy surrounding the financial payments the NWMO has made to Indigenous and municipal governments, with some suggesting that it is buying or ‘bribing’ its way to community support.Regional opposition
The NWMO’s decision was made in the context of significant regional opposition to NWMO’s plans for a DGR near Ignace.
In September, Darlene Necan led a walk to protest the proposed disposal of nuclear waste in northwestern Ontario. A member of the Ojibway Nation of Saugeen—a First Nation situated north of Ignace, not to be confused with the Saugeen Ojibway Nation near South Bruce—Necan has led annual anti-nuclear protests since 2019. According to Ricochet, the 2024 walk involved roughly 30 participants who walked from Ignace and Wabigoon, along the Trans Canada Highway, to the proposed DGR site.
Multiple First Nations and municipalities along the proposed transportation route, as well as those that are downstream from the proposed Ignace DGR site, have passed resolutions and issued statements opposing the NWMO’s proposed repository.
This past fall, 12 First Nations wrote a joint open letter to NWMO President and CEO Laurie Swami, notifying her that they “say ‘no’ to nuclear waste storage and transport in the North.”
The First Nations behind the letter—including Asubpeeschoseewagong Anishinabek (Grassy Narrows), Kitchenuhmaykoosib Innnuwug, Wapekeka First Nation, Neskantaga First Nation, Muskrat Dam First Nation, Ojibways of Onigaming, Wauzhushk Onigum Nation, Gull Bay First Nation, Netmizaaggamig Nishnaabeg, Fort William First Nation, Gakijiwanong Anishinaabe Nation, and Shoal Lake 40 First Nation—are situated on or near the proposed transportation route and downstream of the proposed DGR.
“Our Nations have not been consulted, we have not given our consent, and we stand together in saying ‘no’ to the proposed nuclear waste storage site near Ignace. We call on you to respect our decision.”
Regional First Nations organizations have similarly indicated their opposition to transporting and storing nuclear waste in northwestern Ontario. For example, in October, Grand Council Treaty 3 passed a resolution reaffirming its opposition to the storage of nuclear waste in Treaty 3 territory, which includes the proposed DGR site near Ignace. The resolution states, “a Deep Geological Repository for the storage of nuclear waste will not be developed at any point in the Treaty 3 territory.”
The NWMO’s announcement that it has selected northwestern Ontario for the proposed repository makes no mention of this groundswell of regional opposition.
NWMO’s ‘willingness’ process criticized by Assembly of First Nations
The NWMO decision also comes at a time when its approach to identifying ‘willing hosts’ is coming under increased scrutiny.
A recent report issued by the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) raises serious questions about the NWMO’s approach to Indigenous consultation and consent, which focuses on obtaining the consent of individual ‘host’ communities. Instead, the AFN argues that seeking consent “from all impacted First Nations is imperative.”
The AFN report is from its Dialogue Sessions on the Transportation and Storage of Nuclear Wastes. The dialogues were hosted by the AFN in Fredericton, Toronto, Thunder Bay, and Vancouver in spring 2024. The report includes a series of recommendations to the NWMO. The NWMO’s decision to select northwestern Ontario for its waste repository appears to ignore one of the AFN’s central recommendations.
The report’s first recommendation calls upon the NWMO to rethink its approach to consulting First Nations about its proposed DGR, including a need to seek the consent of nations that are situated on the transportation route or downstream from the repository, before selecting a site for Canada’s high-level nuclear waste:
The AFN respectfully urges that comprehensive and meaningful dialogue, consultation, and engagement be undertaken with all affected First Nations throughout the site selection process, and before any critical decisions are made regarding the Deep Geological Repository or transportation routes. It is essential that the perspectives of all First Nations who rely on the same watershed as the proposed site, as well as those along the transportation route, be respected and fully integrated, in a manner that honors their inherent right to self-determination.
Resistance likely to continue
Now that the NWMO has selected a site for its proposed DGR, the next step is for it to submit a formal proposal to federal and provincial regulators. The proposed DGR will then undergo impact assessment and licensing processes. Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation has also indicated that the NWMO’s proposal will also have to satisfy the First Nation’s own internal regulatory processes and procedures.
Given the recent upsurge in opposition to the NWMO’s proposed activities in northwestern Ontario, it seems almost certain that resistance to the proposed DGR will continue.
Warren Bernauer is a non-Indigenous member of Niniibawtamin Anishinaabe Aki and research associate at the University of Manitoba where he conducts research into energy transitions and social justice in the North.
Elysia Petrone is a lawyer and activist from Fort William First Nation and a member of Niniibawtamin Anishinaabe Aki.
Why NuScale Power Stock Slumped Today
By Rich Smith – Dec 2, 2024
https://www.fool.com/investing/2024/12/02/why-nuscale-power-stock-slumped-today/
Key Points
GE Vernova is much bigger, with much more cash, and already profitable.
CNBC reported on GE Vernova’s ambitions to dominate the building of small modular reactors.
NuScale Power is a pioneer in this industry, but its business is small and unprofitable.
Will GE Vernova crush NuScale’s nuclear dreams?
NuScale Power Corporation (SMR -0.08%) stock fell 3% through 11:25 a.m. ET — and it has General Electric to blame for it.
NuScale develops small modular nuclear reactors designed to be cheaper and faster to build than traditional nuclear power plants. And as it’s fond of pointing out, NuScale is “the first and only SMR to have its design certified by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.” But leaders aren’t necessarily winners, and as CNBC reports this morning, NuScale faces serious competition from a much bigger nuclear player, GE Vernova (GEV 3.56%), the former energy arm of General Electric.
GE Vernova’s threat to NuScale
NuScale and GE Vernova both aim to develop small modular reactors, but “small” is a relative term. If a standard nuclear power plant produces 1,000 megawatts of electricity, Vernova’s BWRX-300 reactor aims to cut that output to 300 megawatts (which is still substantial, enough to power a small city of 200,000 homes), while NuScale’s Voygr reactor goes even smaller with a 77-megawatt output.
In other respects, the two companies are more direct competitors. Both Vernova and NuScale advertise their ability to deploy multiple modules of their basic SMR in a single location, to amp up total power production capacity.
Both target a global market, with GE Vernova “aiming to deploy small nuclear reactors across the developed world over the next decade,” according to CNBC.
Is NuScale Power stock a sell?
What really sets the two companies apart, though, is their financial capacity to deliver on their promises. While valued at $3 billion in market cap, NuScale boasts less than $10 million in annual revenue and is losing $80 million a year. Analysts don’t expect the company to turn profitable before 2030 at the earliest.
GE Vernova is a $92 billion behemoth earning more than $1.2 billion a year and growing its profits at 40% a year. Just the cash alone on Vernova’s balance sheet is worth twice the price of NuScale’s stock. In any direct contest, I know which stock I’d bet on to win — and unfortunately, it’s not NuScale.,
The First Seven Billionaires Trump Has Tapped for Top Jobs
Out of America’s 800 billionaires, president-elect Trump has so far plucked seven for top spots in his administration.
by Sarah Anderson, December 03, 2024, https://inequality.org/great-divide/billionaires-trump-has-tapped-for-top-jobs/
President-elect Donald Trump has selected an unprecedented total of seven reported billionaires for senior positions in his administration. Including himself, that makes eight.
This figure could continue to grow as Trump fully staffs up. After all, he has nearly 800 additional U.S. billionaires to choose from.
Here’s a quick rundown of the “original seven” members of the nine-figure club on Trump’s employee wish list:
Elon Musk
Position: Co-leader of a new Department of Government Efficiency, a presidential advisory commission tasked with slashing spending and regulations
Estimated net worth: $330 billion
Source of wealth: SpaceX, Tesla, and other businesses
2024 campaign donations: $200 million
Warren Stephens
Position: Ambassador to the UK
Estimated net worth: $3.4 billion
Source of wealth: CEO of private Arkansas-based investment bank Stephens Inc.
2024 campaign donations: $22.7 million (includes $2 million-plus for Nikki Haley’s failed bid for the Republican presidential nomination)
Linda McMahon
tion: Education Secretary
Estimated net worth: $2.5 billion (with her husband, Vince McMahon)
Source of wealth: World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE)
2024 campaign donations: $24 million
Howard Lutnick
Position: Commerce Secretary
Estimated net worth: $2 billion
Source of wealth: majority ownership of investment bank Cantor Fitzgerald
2024 campaign donations: $13.1 million in PAC donations and also hosted a $15 million fundraising event at his home in the Hamptons
Vivek Ramaswamy
Position: Co-leader of the planned Department of Government Efficiency
Estimated net worth: $1.1 billion
Source of wealth: founder of pharmaceutical firm Roivant Sciences
2024 campaign donations: $25,000 (He’d just blown $30.7 million of his own funds on his failed presidential bid.
Doug Burgum
Position: Secretary of the Interior
Estimated net worth: undisclosed. Several media have identified him as a billionaire, while Forbes analysts say he’s worth “at least” $100 million and likely much more if you consider trusts for his adult children
Source of wealth: sold Great Plains Software, which creates accounting packages for small and medium-size businesses, for $1.1 billion in Microsoft stock in 2001
2024 campaign donations: $8,000 (He’d spent $13.9 million of his own funds on his failed presidential bid. This includes the cost of giving $20 gift cards to more than 40,000 donors who gave his campaign at least $1. That expensive but crafty maneuver succeeded in drumming up enough donors to qualify for participation in the presidential debate)
Scott Bessent
Position: Treasury Secretary
Estimated net worth: undisclosed
Source of wealth: Wall Street investments, including as founder of hedge fund Key Square Group
2024 campaign donations: $3.2 million
‘Great British Nuclear Fantasy’ Mirrors SMR Hype in Canada
While Canada touts small modular nuclear reactors and U.S. investors run for cover, the United Kingdom will waste billions watching the industry slowly crumble, writes veteran journalist Paul Brown.
Paul Brown, Dec 01, 2024, https://energymixweekender.substack.com/p/great-british-nuclear-fantasy-mirrors
According to the United Kingdom’s Labour government, the country is forging ahead with large nuclear stations and a competition to build a new generation of small modular reactors.
Great British Nuclear, a special organization created by the last Conservative administration and continued by Labour, is charged with finding sites for new large reactors and getting a production line running to produce the best small modular reactors. These will be mass produced in as yet non-existent factories.
The state of play in the UK mirrors the unbridled hype in Canada, with provinces like Ontario putting nuclear ahead of more affordable, more genuinely green energy options and the industry brazenly hiring departing provincial cabinet ministers to guide its lobbying efforts. That’s in spite of independent analysts declaring SMRs a “Hail Mary” unlikely to succeed and pointing out that, in contrast to the private power market in the U.S., Canada’s mostly public utilities make it easier for SMR proponents to avoid transparency on costs—and let taxpayers/ratepayers assume the risk if things go wrong.
The UK government is cheered on by both the country’s trade unions and the right-wing press which otherwise spends much time attacking the renewables industry and pouring scorn on Labour’s drive to reach net zero.
However, two distinguished academics who have much spent of their careers studying the electricity industry have produced a comprehensive study that says this latest nuclear “renaissance” won’t happen. Better for the country to cut its losses now and cancel the program than continue to waste billions more pounds letting the nuclear industry crumble slowly, they say.
Prof. Stephen Thomas, emeritus professor of energy policy at Greenwich University in London and Prof. Andy Blowers, emeritus professor of social studies at the Open University, pull no punches. Their report is titled: “It is time to expose the Great British Nuclear Fantasy once and for all.”
Currently, the French electricity giant EDF is building two 1,600-megawatt European pressurized water reactors at Hinkley Point in Somerset. The project is 13 years later than EDF’s original schedule, and the cost has escalated from £18 billion when contracts were signed in 2016 to £35 billion in 2024 (and that is in 2015 prices). The first of the two reactor’s start-up date has this year been postponed until 2030 at the earliest.
With this flagship project costing so much, EDF, already deeply in debt, has declined to finance the second planned twin reactors of the same design at Sizewell C in Suffolk. Site preparation work for this station is under way and the British government has sunk £8 billion into the project already without yet making a final investment decision, even though it was promised earlier this year. This is because the government cannot yet find the private capital required to build the reactors. The two professors say the government should cut its losses now and pull the plug on the project.
Even more pointless according to the two academics is the small modular reactor competition which has four companies, Rolls Royce, Westinghouse, Holtec, and GE Hitachi, putting forward designs. All have the same basic idea, which is to build the reactors in factories and assemble them at sites all over Britain. This, they claim, would be more efficient than building large reactors, and therefore produce cheaper electricity.
The government has said it is prepared to spend £20 billion through 2038 to get these up and running. But the report points out that none of the designs have been completed, let alone tested, so there is no evidence that the claims for them can be justified. They point out nuclear power has “a long history of over-promising and not delivering.”
“Rigorous regulatory and planning processes are essential but are necessarily time-consuming, expensive, and place significant hurdles in the way of an accelerated nuclear program,” the report states. “Some projects may fail to gain site licences or planning permission and all will face substantial delays to the commencement of development.”
The report also points to climate change as a potential problem, since nearly all the potential sites are on coastlines vulnerable to sea level rise and storm surges.
“Despite the sound and fury, the Great British Nuclear project is bound to fail,” Blowers and Thomas conclude.
“No amount of political commitment can overcome the lack of investors, the absence of credible builders and operators, or available technologies, let alone secure regulatory assessment and approval,” they write. “Moreover, in an era of climate change, there will be few potentially suitable sites to host new nuclear power stations for indefinite, indeed unknowable, operating, decommissioning, and waste management lifetimes.”
The two authors acknowledge that “abandoning Sizewell C and the SMR competition will lead to howls of anguish from interest groups such as the nuclear industry and trade unions with a strong presence in the sector. It will also require compensation payments to be made to organizations affected. However, the scale of these payments will be tiny in comparison with the cost of not abandoning them.”
So “it is our hope that sanity and rationality may prevail and lead to a future energy policy shorn of the burden of new nuclear and on a pathway to sustainable energy in the pursuit of net zero.”
Biden to Zelensky: ‘Our $210 billion not enough…send 18 year olds to die in our Russian proxy war
Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL, 2 Dec 24
In 34 months of Russian war in Ukraine provoked by US NATO expansion, the US has squandered $185 billion of our precious treasure to keep Ukraine men dying by hundreds of thousands in a lost US foreign misadventure.
But as President Biden heads for the White House exits, he’s demanding and will get another $25 billion from Congress, making the total cost pushing a quarter trillion dollars.
Not a single military or administration strategist believes that will make any difference in American’s unwinnable proxy war. Even Biden’s National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan fessed up “Our view has been that there’s not one weapon system that makes a difference in this battle. It’s about manpower, and Ukraine needs to do more, in our view, to firm up its lines in terms of the number of forces it has on the front lines.”
Biden concurred and now demands Zelensky lower the draft age from 25 to 18. Zelensky lowered the draft age last April from 27 to 25, also at US, urging, but it has done nothing to stem the inexorable Russian advancement fueled by overwhelming manpower. Why? Upwards of 200,000 Ukrainian soldiers have deserted. They are voting against senseles war with their feet.
After squandering $185 billion of US treasure and a half million Ukrainian men, Biden wants more, more, more of both.
Biden could toss a trillion dollars and another half million young Ukrainian cannon fodder into the US proxy war without a prayer of victory on America’s terms.
But a worse fate awaits all of us. By allowing Ukraine to fire long range US missiles into Russia, Biden is risking nuclear war. If that occurs, all discussion about a squandered quarter trillion on weapons and another half million dead Ukrainian youth will be moot.
Listening to indigenous views
Our new study highlights Indigenous nations’ opposition to nuclear projects, write Susan O’Donnell and Robert Atwin, by beyondnuclearinternational, https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/12/01/listening-to-indigenous-views/
The global nuclear industry has been in decline for almost three decades. Almost every year, more reactors shut down than start up. This year, nuclear energy’s share of global commercial gross electricity generation is less than half it was in 1996.
One reason for the industry’s decline is the high cost of nuclear energy compared to the low cost of alternative sources of energy generation. Another reason is the risk and lack of permanent solutions to the long-lived radioactive waste produced by nuclear reactors. Around the world, Indigenous people are disproportionately affected by radioactive pollution and are at the forefront of resistance to nuclear waste dumps.
A new study released in New Brunswick this week analyzed statements about nuclear energy and radioactive waste by Indigenous communities in New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario, the only provinces with nuclear power reactors. The 18 power reactors in Ontario and the one in New Brunswick, as well as the one in Quebec shut down in 2012, have all produced hundreds of tons of radioactive waste.
The study found that overall, Indigenous nations and communities do not support the production of more nuclear waste or the transport and storage of nuclear waste on their homelands. They have made their opposition known through dozens of public statements and more than 100 submissions to the regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.
At the same time, the federal government positions nuclear energy as a strategic asset to Canada now and into the future. The government recently launched a policy to get nuclear projects approved more quickly, with fewer regulations. The government’s position has created an obvious conflict with Indigenous rights-holders.
Radioactivity cannot be turned off – that’s what makes nuclear waste so dangerous. Indigenous opposition to nuclear waste is rooted in values that respect the Earth and the need to keep life safe for generations into the future. The radioactivity from high-level waste can take millennia to decay and if exposed, can damage living tissue in a range of ways and alter gene structure.
The new study analyzed 30 public statements about nuclear energy and radioactive waste and reviewed submissions to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) by Indigenous nations and communities. The report also discusses the status in Canada of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The report, Indigenous Views on Nuclear Energy and Radioactive Waste, states that Indigenous nations understand that producing and storing nuclear waste on their territories without their free, prior and informed consent is a violation of their Indigenous rights.
Also released this week with the report is a video, Askomiw Ksanaqak (Forever Dangerous): Indigenous Nations Resist Nuclear Colonialism.
The study report and the video were co-published by the Passamaquoddy Recognition Group and the CEDAR project (Contesting Energy Discourses through Action Research) at St. Thomas University in Fredericton.
The CEDAR project’s Indigenous partners – Chief Hugh Akagi of the Peskotomuhkati Nation in Canada and Chief Ron Tremblay of the Wolastoq Grand Council – each wrote a foreword to the report. Both Indigenous leaders are opposed to the production of radioactive waste at the Point Lepreau nuclear site on the Bay of Fundy and have not consented to plans by NB Power to develop at least two experimental nuclear reactors at the site that, if built, would produce more and different forms of radioactive waste.
In his foreword, Chief Akagi explains that the existing waste at Point Lepreau should be “properly stored and looked after for the thousands of years it will take until the waste is no longer dangerous.” He stands behind the five principles of the Joint Declaration between the Anishinabek Nation and the Iroquois Caucus on the Transport and Abandonment of Radioactive Waste: no abandonment; monitored and retrievable storage; better containment, more packaging; away from major water bodies; no imports or exports.
Chief Tremblay in his foreword raises the importance of respecting the treaty relationship and the need to protect the Earth. “We believe that the Earth is our Mother, and that she has been violated, she has been hurt, she has been raped, she has been damaged for far, far too long,” he writes.
CEDAR is a five-year project studying energy transitions in Canada with a focus on New Brunswick. One project objective is to support marginalized voices in discussions about the energy transitions. The new report was co-produced to amplify Indigenous voices concerned with the nuclear industry and its waste.
The report’s analysis highlights that colonialism is ongoing in Canada. The report suggests that Indigenous voices are being ignored for the benefit of the nuclear industry, meaning the federal government remains complicit in the violation of Indigenous rights.
Susan O’Donnell and Robert Atwin are co-authors, with Abby Bartlett, of the new report. Susan is an adjunct research professor and lead investigator of the CEDAR project at St. Thomas University. Robert is a research assistant at the Passamaquoddy Recognition Group and a member of Oromocto First Nation.
1 This Month
of the week– Nuclear Reactor Information Task Force
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (116)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 