Furthest from Ukraine frontline, Washington is most eager for war
Washington intends to instigate wars, in a bid to increase the legitimacy of NATO’s existence and the bloc’s internal cohesion to tie Europe – which has shown some signs of departing from Washington – more tightly to the US. Some other analysts say the US can take the opportunity to sell arms – a reasonable suspicion based on history.
Furthest from Ukraine frontline, Washington is most eager for war: Global Times editorial, By Global Times, Feb 07, US President Joe Biden recently approved the deployment of 3,000 US troops to the eastern part of Europe. The first batch has arrived in Germany and Poland. This is an eye-offending move the US made after it withdrew its troops from Afghanistan and Iraq. The Pentagon previously announced that 8,500 US troops are placed on heightened alert to possibly deploy to Eastern Europe. In addition, NATO defense ministers will discuss further reinforcements at their next meeting on February 16 and 17. Although these troops are not deployed directly in Ukraine, the move has de facto made people think Eastern Europe is on the brink of war.
Washington, it must be noted, is furthest away from the Ukrainian frontline but it is most eager for a war, while both Russia and Ukraine have repeatedly announced they have no intention of going to war or solving their problems by force. Ukraine’s president and defense minister publicly stated that the situation is not as tense as the US has portrayed. But Washington, which is far away from the region, has been hyping that war is on the verge of breaking out. US media Bloomberg has even released fake news that “Live: Russia Invades Ukraine.” The US has not only fanned the flames of public opinion, but also provided arms to Ukraine and enhanced military deployment around the European country. The US’ intention is to urge Ukraine to “hold on” and not “fall behind” in its confrontation with Russia.
 | |||
Washington intends to instigate wars, in a bid to increase the legitimacy of NATO’s existence and the bloc’s internal cohesion to tie Europe – which has shown some signs of departing from Washington – more tightly to the US. Some other analysts say the US can take the opportunity to sell arms – a reasonable suspicion based on history.
In short, the US is trying to hit various birds with one stone, but it is playing an immoral and dangerous game. The New York Times reported that “even many reliably hawkish voices in both parties show no appetite for seeing US troops fight and potentially die for Ukraine.” The US is pushing Ukraine into the firing line, but it itself has jumped aside to avoid being implicated.
One of Washington’s aims is to make Russia feel uncomfortable, but Ukraine is very likely to become the victim. Anyone with a discerning eye can figure out that the last thing Ukraine really needs is arms. The US’ donating or selling weapons to Ukraine cannot change the military balance between Russia and Ukraine. What Ukraine does need is a peaceful and stable internal and external environment. The country has to focus on developing its economy, improving people’s livelihoods, and easing tensions with Russia. If the US “stands with Ukraine” as it has claimed, it should have provided Ukraine the necessary and substantial help in these fields. It needs to be underlined that the most difficult thing for Ukraine to withstand right now is to add fuel to the fire, but Washington has repeatedly “created” opportunities to escalate the situation between Russia and Ukraine.
……………. the China-Russia joint statement stated clearly: “Peace, development and cooperation lie at the core of the modern international system… and the international community is showing a growing demand for the leadership aiming at peaceful and gradual development.”
Against this backdrop, Washington still intends to impair other countries and maintain its hegemony by instigating wars. This is a staggering geopolitical daydream. To wake up from such a pipe dream, the bunch of political elites in Washington should carefully read this joint statement and understand how to make the US conform to the trend of the times and become a truly responsible power. https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202202/1251577.shtml
Safety concerns as counterfeit parts found in U.S. nuclear reactors.
Counterfeit parts have been discovered in U.S. nuclear plants, potentially increasing the risk of a safety failure, the inspector general of the federal nuclear industry regulator said in a report released on Thursday.
The report is a blow to a U.S nuclear industry that has shrunk in recent years due to competition from renewable power and plants that burn natural gas and lingering public concerns following high-profile mishaps includinga 2011 tsunami at Japan’s Fukushima plant.
“Counterfeit parts are safety and security concerns that could have serious consequences in critical
power plant equipment required to perform a safety function,” the report from the inspector general’s office of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) said.
Reuters 10th Feb 2022
What You Should REALLY Know About Ukraine
“the United States is standing with missiles on our doorstep.” Putin asked, “How would the Americans react if missiles were placed at the border with Canada or Mexico?”
The US Wants to Expand NATO In addition to integrating Ukraine into the US-dominated economic sphere, Western planners also want to integrate Ukraine militarily. For years, the US has sought the expansion of NATO, an explicitly anti-Russian military alliance. NATO was originally billed as a counterforce to the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War, but after the demise of the Soviet Union, the US promised the new Russia that it would not expand NATO east of Germany. Despite this agreement, the US continued building out its military alliance,growing closer and closer to Russia’s borders and ignoring Russia’s objections.
The West Wants Investor-Friendly Policies in Ukraine The backdrop to the 2014 coup and annexation cannot be understood without looking at the US strategy to open Ukrainian markets to foreign investors and give control of its economy to giant multinational corporations
The US Helped Overthrow Ukraine’s Elected President……. US Officials Were Caught Picking the New Government …
Washington Used Nazis to Help Overthrow the Government The Washington-backed opposition that toppled the government was fueled by far-right and openly Nazi elements like the Right Sector. One far-right group that grew out of the protests was the Azov Battalion, a paramilitary militia of neo-Nazi extremists.
What You Should Really Know About Ukraine https://fair.org/home/what-you-should-really-know-about-ukraine/, BRYCE GREENE 28 Jan 22, As tensions began to rise over Ukraine, US media produced a stream of articles attempting to explain the situation with headlines like “Ukraine Explained” (New York Times, 12/8/21) and “What You Need to Know About Tensions Between Ukraine and Russia” (Washington Post, 11/26/21). Sidebars would have notes that tried to provide context for the current headlines. But to truly understand this crisis, you would need to know much more than what these articles offered.These “explainer” pieces are emblematic of Ukraine coverage in the rest of corporate media, which almost universally gave a pro-Western view of US/Russia relations and the history behind them. Media echoed the point of view of those who believe the US should have an active role in Ukrainian politics and enforce its perspective through military threats.
The official line goes something like this: Russia is challenging NATO and the “international rules-based order” by threatening to invade Ukraine, and the Biden administration needed to deter Russia by providing more security guarantees to the Zelensky government. The official account seizes on Russia’s 2014 annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula as a starting point for US/Russian relations, and as evidence of Putin’s goals of rebuilding Russia’s long-lost empire.
Russia’s demand that NATO cease its expansion to Russia’s borders is viewed as such an obviously impossible demand that it can only be understood as a pretext to invade Ukraine. Therefore, the US should send weapons and troops to Ukraine, and guarantee its security with military threats to Russia (FAIR.org, 1/15/22).
Continue readingEnvironmental Working Group (EWG) urges Biden to reject ‘outrageous’ call for more nuclear power subsidies in clean energy agenda
“Nuclear power is truly an example of privatizing profits and socializing risks.”
EWG urges Biden to reject electric utility executives’ call for more nuclear power subsidies in clean energy agenda. https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news-release/2022/02/ewg-urges-biden-reject-electric-utility-executives-call-more WASHINGTON – President Joe Biden is meeting today with top executives from several investor-owned electric utilities who want Congress to approve vital clean energy tax credits as part of Biden’s Build Back Better agenda. But they are also seeking new federal subsidies for existing nuclear power plants that the Environmental Working Group is urging the president to oppose.“Nuclear power is truly an example of privatizing profits and socializing risks.”
The Build Back Better plan is a broad infrastructure proposal and includes some important tax credits that the utilities support. They would help expand utility-scale solar projects and boost sales of electric vehicles, crucial steps in fighting the climate emergency.
But the call for wasting more federal tax dollars propping up uneconomic and dangerous nuclear power plants too is an outrageous request, noted EWG.
“Nuclear power is a relic of the electricity sector, and a dangerous and extremely expensive one that has cost taxpayers billions of dollars,” said EWG President Ken Cook. “The federal government must stop throwing away money propping up the nuclear industry and instead make critical investments to expand safe, clean renewable energy.”
“President Biden and congressional leaders can and should unravel the federal government’s long history of pouring scarce resources into this failed industry and its legacy of radioactive waste and the enormous threat it poses to the public,” said Cook.
Nuclear power has never been financially viable and never will be, so new subsidies make no sense. It has the distinction of a permanent negative learning curve – costs always rise and never decline – despite 60 years of taxpayer-funded research and development, construction risks dumped onto ratepayers to lure private financing, a series of bailouts worth tens of billions to the industry, and billions wasted on upgrades to keep aging power plants running that could have been much more wisely spent replacing them.
“It is time to systematically replace nuclear power with modern clean energy technology and to stop burdening ratepayers and taxpayers with this financial albatross,” said Cook. “Nuclear power is truly an example of privatizing profits and socializing risks.”
In its 2021“None of the Above” series calling out dirty and dangerous power sources that should quickly be replaced by clean, safe and renewable energy, such as solar and wind, EWG likened nuclear power to “nothing more than a public works project with no prospects for the future that has failed financially while generating huge amounts of radioactive waste, with no viable method of disposal, that will linger for thousands of years.”
The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action. Visit www.ewg.org for more information.
Ahead of regulatory approval the US Dept of Energy wants Govt to grant $4 billion for Small Nuclear Reactors development
Bloomberg Business Week, 7 Feb 22, –………………………… Congress has ordered the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to replace a rules framework that dates to the 1950s. The new guidelines aren’t expected until at least 2025……… To prove the safety of designs, for instance, the commission demands data from similar plants, but none of the smaller installations have been built in the U.S., so there’s no performance history.
……….. the U.S. Department of Energy has gotten ahead of the NRC. The department is asking Congress for as much as $4 billion over seven years for advanced reactor development.
Beneficiaries include TerraPower, a startup founded by Bill Gates that’s working on a project in Wyoming; X-energy, which is planning a high-temperature, gas-cooled reactor in Washington state; and Kairos Power, which aims to build a 35-megawatt salt-cooled test reactor in Tennessee and applied for a construction license last September.
…………… these plants face staunch opposition. Environmental groups say that small reactors—some have a capacity of only 1.5MW, about 0.1% the size of a traditional plant—still produce enough radioactive material to present a contamination risk. And building more plants, even small ones, will add to the pile of toxic waste that no one can figure out what do with. “To the extent that there will be efforts to weaken the regulatory envelope, we will aggressively push back,” says Geoff Fettus, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Globally, more than 70 small modular reactors, with a total capacity of about 12 gigawatts, have been proposed or are under development in at least five countries, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The only one that’s been built is a floating reactor in the Russian town of Pevek, on the Arctic Sea, where it’s used to power mining operations. Gregory Jaczko, who served as NRC chair from 2009 to 2012, says the lack of movement on such plants around the world suggests we would be wrong to count on them as a way out of the climate crisis. “They’re just not ready,” he says. “And by the time they could be ready, they’re not going to be useful.”
UK’s nuclear submarine graveyard- but one is to be recycled – perhaps for Australia?
The first vessel that’s going to be recycled from the so-called ‘submarine graveyard’ in Devonport has been named – but there’s no word yet on when it’ll actually happen. The last one was decommissioned in 1980 – but thirteen of them remain tied up there. HMS Valiant will be the first to be recycled – but no date’s been set for that yet. Planet Radio 9th Feb 2022
Planet Radio 9th Feb 2022
https://planetradio.co.uk/greatest-hits/devon/news/nuclear-submarine-recycled-devonport/
A big pile of Plutonium – UK reprocessing ceases, leaving deadly waste and no plan
in the end, reprocessing became a commercial venture rather than producing anything useful. Nine countries sent spent fuel to Sellafield to have plutonium and uranium extracted for reuse and paid a great deal of money to do so. In reality, very little of either metal has ever been used because mixed oxide fuels were too expensive, and fast breeder reactors could never be scaled up sufficiently to be economic.
UK reprocessing ceases, leaving deadly waste and no plan
A big pile of PU — Beyond Nuclear International https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2022/02/06/a-big-pile-of-pu/120 tons of plutonium is legacy of Britain’s dirty decades of reprocessing, By Paul Brown, The Energy Mix
Seventy years after the United Kingdom first began extracting plutonium from spent uranium fuel to make nuclear weapons, the industry is finally calling a halt to reprocessing, leaving the country with 120 tons of the metal, the biggest stockpile in the world. However, the government has no idea what to do with it.
Having spent hundreds of billions of pounds producing plutonium in a series of plants at Sellafield in the Lake District, the UK policy is to store it indefinitely—or until it can come up with a better idea. There is also 90,000 tons of less dangerous depleted uranium in warehouses in the UK, also without an end use.
Plans to use plutonium in fast breeder reactors and then mixed with uranium as a fuel for existing fission reactors have long ago been abandoned as too expensive, unworkable, or sometimes both. Even burning plutonium as a fuel, while technically possible, is very costly.
The closing of the last reprocessing plant, as with all nuclear endeavours, does not mean the end of the industry, in fact it will take at least another century to dismantle the many buildings and clean up the waste. In the meantime, it is costing £3 billion a year to keep the site safe.
Perhaps one of the strangest aspects of this story to outside observers is that, apart from a minority of anti-nuclear campaigners, this plutonium factory in one of prettiest parts of England hardly ever gets discussed or mentioned by the UK’s two main political parties. Neither has ever objected to what seems on paper to be a colossal waste of money.
Continue readingNuclear baloney in today’s media
Majority support for nuclear energy — which does not appear to be the case publicly, even if it is so politically — is a clear testament to the power of well-funded propaganda campaigns and the deep pockets of lobbyists. None of us engaged on this subject have missed the saturation media campaign, on-going now for months if not years, that sows the erroneous notion in the heads of politicians that nuclear power is an answer — even the answer — to climate change.
Repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it. Today’s media has become especially guilty of this. I recently had to correct a Financial Times reporter who, in an otherwise perfectly good article, described nuclear power as having “no carbon footprint.” There is no stop-and-think going on here. After all, even renewable energy does not have “no” carbon footprint.
Nuclear waste risks can be “minimized” and other myths
Nuclear baloney — Beyond Nuclear International AP story on states’ nuclear choice fails to point out key realities
By Linda Pentz Gunter, 6 Feb 2,
There are geniuses amongst us. We just didn’t know it. They are the supporters of nuclear power, who, according to the Associated Press, “say the risks can be minimized” when it comes to the perpetual and unsolved problem of long-lived, high-level radioactive waste — the main by-product of generating electricity using nuclear power.
This observation comes within an AP story headlined: “Majority of US states pursue nuclear power for emission cuts”, and which has garnered significant pickup in numerous media outlets. (However, we never do learn the secret to precisely how nuclear waste risks can be “minimized”.)
The agency surveyed “the energy policies in all 50 states and the District of Columbia,” finding that “about two-thirds” plan to use nuclear power to replace fossil fuels.
The mantra about solving the nuclear waste problem has been repeated since the dawn of the Nuclear Age, coming up on 80 years this December. That was when, on December 2, 1942, the first cupful of radioactive waste was generated, a result of the first self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction achieved at the Chicago Pile-1 by Enrico Fermi and his team.
At that time, scientists knew that radioactive waste was a problem, but assumed it would be solved later. Well, here we are at “later” and it’s still unsolved. Now, “minimizing” rather than solving the problem is apparently justification enough to keep using this dangerous technology.
The AP reporters chose Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) President and CEO, Jeff Lash (no vested interest there), as the spokesperson for the continued use of nuclear power and says he,“puts it simply” when stating: “You can’t significantly reduce carbon emissions without nuclear power.”
But, of course, it’s not that simple. It’s also arguably dead wrong. As Stanford University’s Amory Lovins and others have demonstrated repeatedly:
“To protect the climate, we must save the most carbon at the least cost and in the least time, counting all three variables – carbon and cost and time.
“Costly options save less carbon per dollar than cheaper options. Slow options save less carbon per year than faster options. Thus even a low- or no-carbon option that is too costly or too slow will reduce and retard achievable climate protection. Being carbon-free does not establish climate-effectiveness.
“To compare nuclear power with other potential climate solutions we should start with two criteria – cost and speed – because if nuclear power has no business case or takes too long, we need not address its other merits or drawbacks.”
The three TVA plants are at Browns Ferry in Alabama, and Sequoyah and Watts Bar, both in Tennessee. The two Watts Bar reactors produce tritium for the nuclear weapons sector — a clear crossing of the supposedly inviolable line between the civilian and military nuclear sectors.
Sequoyah 1 and 2 have also been licensed to produce tritium but, so far, TVA has chosen not to use them for that purpose.
TVA is also, right now, pushing federal regulators to allow it to increase its output of tritium, an essential radioisotope used in thermonuclear warheads to boost the explosive power of an atomic bomb.
As Tom Clements, executive director of the Savannah River Site Watch, told the Chattanooga Times Free Press:
“Using commercial nuclear reactors to produce nuclear weapons materials is a violation of the international nonproliferation agreements.”
Watts Bar 1 has been involved in tritium production for close to 20 years. Meanwhile, Watts Bar 2 holds the unenviable record of taking the longest time ever — a staggering 42 years — between the start of construction and actual operation. It is the poster child for the argument against trying to deliver new nuclear plants as some sort of answer to an urgent climate crisis already upon us that must be addressed today.
Nevertheless, when Watts Bar 2 came on line in October 2016, TVA actually heralded it as “the first new nuclear generation in 20 years.” If a 42-year old reactor is the definition of “new”, then maybe we should all go back to driving Chevrolet Monte Carlos.
The unnamed survey respondents from the state of Georgia apparently told AP that their “nuclear reactor expansion will provide ‘ample clean energy’ for 60 to 80 years”.
But again, there is no context to this bold prediction. In reality, that “expansion” consists
of the only two survivors of another nuclear myth, the U.S. “Nuclear Renaissance”, always an aspiration and never a reality.
The Georgia reactors, Vogtle 3 and 4, have now been under construction since 2013. Their completion dates have been repeatedly pushed into the future — 2024 is the current, optimistic prediction, but it’s equally possible that both reactors will never achieve operational status.
Meanwhile, the costs for Vogtle 3 and 4 are predicted to balloon to $30 billion, while ratepayers, already paying more to cover these excesses, will see their monthly bills double if and when the reactors come on line. Imagine the “ample clean energy” that might have already been producing electricity in Georgia, if a renewable energy program had been initiated in 2013 instead of the nuclear boondoggle.
Majority support for nuclear energy — which does not appear to be the case publicly, even if it is so politically — is a clear testament to the power of well-funded propaganda campaigns and the deep pockets of lobbyists. None of us engaged on this subject have missed the saturation media campaign, on-going now for months if not years, that sows the erroneous notion in the heads of politicians that nuclear power is an answer — even the answer — to climate change.
Repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it. Today’s media has become especially guilty of this. I recently had to correct a Financial Times reporter who, in an otherwise perfectly good article, described nuclear power as having “no carbon footprint.” There is no stop-and-think going on here. After all, even renewable energy does not have “no” carbon footprint.
As John Le Carré wrote in his 1996 book, The Tailor of Panama, paraphrased from the mouth of one of his more cynical characters:
Nothing is more predictable than the media’s parroting of its own fictions and the terror of each competitor that it will be scooped by the others, whether or not the story is true, because quite frankly dears, in the news game these days, we don’t have the staff, time, interest, energy, literacy or minimal sense of responsibility to check our facts by any means except calling up whatever has been written by other hacks on the same subject and repeating it as gospel”.
Fortunately, there remain some good investigative reporters amongst the lapdogs. But our task is made all the harder by that constant parroting of nuclear propaganda as if it is gospel. We have an uphill climb to change it, but we must keep climbing.
This article first appeared on Counterpunch.
US created Ukraine mess, now it must repair Russia relationship
But the US and NATO’s interest in Ukraine is not really about resolving its regional differences, but about something else altogether. The US coup was calculated to put Russia in an impossible position. If Russia did nothing, post-coup Ukraine would sooner or later join NATO, as NATO members already agreed to in principle in 2008. NATO forces would advance right up to Russia’s border and Russia’s important naval base at Sevastopol in the Crimea would fall under NATO control.
Underlying all these tensions is NATO’s expansion through Eastern Europe to the borders of Russia, in violation of commitments Western officials made at the end of the Cold War. The US and NATO’s refusal to acknowledge that they have violated those commitments or to negotiate a diplomatic resolution with the Russians is a central factor in the breakdown of US-Russian relations.
US created Ukraine mess, now it must repair Russia relationship https://johnmenadue.com/us-created-ukraine-mess-now-it-must-repair-russia-relationship/ By Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J.S. DaviesFeb 5, 2022 Western media accounts of the current Ukraine crisis are forgetting the US’s role in the 2014 coup, which forced the then-president to flee.
By Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J.S. DaviesFeb 5, 2022 Western media accounts of the current Ukraine crisis are forgetting the US’s role in the 2014 coup, which forced the then-president to flee.
Feb 5, 2022 Western media accounts of the current Ukraine crisis are forgetting the US’s role in the 2014 coup, which forced the then-president to flee. So what are Americans to believe about the rising tensions over Ukraine? The United States and Russia both claim their escalations are defensive, responding to threats and escalations by the other side, but the resulting spiral of escalation can only make war more likely. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is warning that “panic” by US and Western leaders is already causing economic destabilisation in Ukraine.
By Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J.S. DaviesFeb 5, 2022 Western media accounts of the current Ukraine crisis are forgetting the US’s role in the 2014 coup, which forced the then-president to flee.
US allies do not all support the current US policy. Germany is wisely refusing to funnel more weapons into Ukraine, in keeping with its long-standing policy of not sending weapons into conflict zones. Ralf Stegner, a senior Member of Parliament for Germany’s ruling Social Democrats, told the BBC on January 25 that the Minsk-Normandy process agreed to by France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine in 2015 is still the right framework for ending the civil war.
“The Minsk Agreement hasn’t been applied by both sides,” Stegner explained, “and it just doesn’t make any sense to think that forcing up the military possibilities would make it better. Rather, I think it’s the hour of diplomacy.”
By contrast, most American politicians and corporate media have fallen in line with a one-sided narrative that paints Russia as the aggressor in Ukraine, and they support sending more and more weapons to Ukrainian government forces. After decades of US military disasters based on such one-sided narratives, Americans should know better by now. But what is it that our leaders and the corporate media are not telling us this time?
The most critical events that have been airbrushed out of the West’s political narrative are the violation of agreements Western leaders made at the end of the Cold War not to expand NATO into Eastern Europe, and the US-backed coup in Ukraine in February 2014.
Continue readingIndigenous support for Tularosa Basin Downwinders Consortium
“Fix your damn mistakes before you ask us to risk anymore,” Pino said
recently during an interview from his home in Albuquerque. “The money
that we get from the nuclear industry is a pittance to what we pay out in
medical bills and suffering.”
As he learned more about the blast and the
impacts of the nuclear industry on his native community, about five years
ago Pino joined with the Tularosa Basin Downwinders Consortium, an activist
group in New Mexico that promotes awareness for those affected by nuclear
activities and exposure to radiation.
Pino and the Downwinders join a
diverse group of interests across New Mexico who’ve put aside their
differences to oppose Holtec International’s plan to send nuclear waste
stranded at nuclear power plants across the country to a 1,000-acre site in
the New Mexico desert halfway between Carlsbad and Hobbs.
Carlsbad Current Argus 5th Feb 2022
As Ukraine Crisis Raises Specter of Nuclear War, Veterans Call for Disarmament and Peace.
As Ukraine Crisis Raises Specter of Nuclear War, Veterans Call for Disarmament and Peace, https://www.laprogressive.com/veterans-call-for-disarmament/ Gerry Condon, 5 Feb 22, The US/NATO showdown with Russia over Ukraine is a stark reminder of how close the world is to a possible nuclear war. The one-sided reporting in the U.S. media, with little historical context, is what we see whenever the U.S. is getting ready to go to war. The lack of any meaningful opposition in Congress, even from supposed progressive Democrats, is alarming. Are there no adults in the room?
Is President Biden a captive of the neocons and their patrons in the weapons-of-mass-destruction industry? Is the tail wagging the dog? No wonder the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is maintaining its Doomsday Clock at only 100 seconds from midnight.
We can hope that quiet diplomacy taking place in the background will overshadow the stubborn public refusal to acknowledge Russia’s understandable security concerns. Can you imagine the U.S. response if Russia was positioning missile systems and troops in Canada or Mexico?
Given that the U.S. and Russia possess the lion’s share of nuclear weapons – over 6,000 each – the world will breathe a collective sigh of relief if war is avoided. But how long before the next crisis? Is the world really safer with nuclear “deterrence” (aka “mutually assured destruction”)?
The Pentagon is currently putting its finishing touches on the Biden Administration’s Nuclear Posture Review. Rumors are that it will not reflect President Biden’s stated goal of reducing the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. security defense strategy. It will not call for the U.S. to adopt a policy of No First Use of nuclear weapons. It will not call for the U.S. to sign the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. It will not call on the U.S. to adhere to its obligations under the 1970 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which require it to negotiate in good faith to reduce and eventual eliminate all nuclear weapons.
Veterans For Peace has therefore stepped up to provide its own Nuclear Posture Review, one that abandons the policy of full spectrum dominance and replaces it with full spectrum cooperation.
“Veterans are all too familiar with the horrible costs of war,” says retired Marine Corps Major Ken Mayers, who serves on the Board of Veterans For Peace. “It is appropriate that military veterans are standing up for nuclear disarmament and peace.”
The Veterans For Peace document reviews the U.S. posture toward each of the nuclear-armed states, plus Iran, which has no nuclear weapons. The veterans call on the U.S. to take immediate steps to reduce the risk of accidental nuclear war, such as implementing a No First Use policy and taking nuclear missiles off hair trigger alert. It calls on the U.S. to sign the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
“If the United States takes the first steps toward eliminating nuclear weapons, other nuclear-armed states will follow,” says Ken Mayers of Veterans For Peace. “This is the kind of leadership that the people of the world want to see today.”
The Veterans For Peace Nuclear Posture Review contains sixteen specific proposals for reducing the risk of nuclear war and building momentum for nuclear disarmament. Veterans For Peace is sending it to President Biden, to Vice President Kamala Harris, and to every Member of Congress.
The current crisis over Ukraine demonstrates what a dangerously unstable world we are living in today. The elimination of nuclear weapons must go hand-in-hand with non-intervention in the internal affairs of other nations, as called for in the UN Charter. If we prioritize mutual respect among all peoples, we can survive the current crisis and avoid a future war that could literally destroy human civilization.
Decommissioning is just the beginning of the huge nuclear legacy problem
Nuclear power concerns outlast decommissioning, Great Lakes Echo, By Cameryn Cass 4 Feb 22,
Editor’s note: This is part of a package of two articles and a podcast about nuclear power in Michigan.
As Michigan and other states gradually move away from coal and other brown energy sources, there’s growing interest in carbon-free alternatives, including nuclear energy,
As Michigan and other states gradually move away from coal and other brown energy sources, there’s growing interest in carbon-free alternatives, including nuclear energy, which some advocates call a “clean alternative” that now fuels 30% of Michigan’s total electricity.
One nuclear plant in the state, Big Rock Point in Charlevoix closed in 1997 and has been fully decommissioned. In the spring of 2022, the Palisades Nuclear Plant in Southwest Michigan’s Van Buren County will close because of a “business decision.”
Michigan also has the Fermi Nuclear Power Plant in Newport, near Monroe, and the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant in Berrien County’s Bridgman, according to the Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy.
With Palisades and other plants in the Great Lakes region scheduled to shut down in the coming decades, more people are considering the long-term impacts of this energy source.
After decommissioning, radioactive waste remains on-site, said Susan Chiblow, an Indigenous environmental scholar in Ontario.
The waste stays in the environment for trillions of years, so calling nuclear power clean is propaganda, she said.
In short, risks don’t disappear when a plant is decommissioned, a process that can take up to 60 years, said Edwin Lyman, the nuclear safety project director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit science advocacy organization based in Massachusetts.
Although closed plants no longer have to worry about accidents post shut-down, their operators remain responsible for managing the radiated materials and spent nuclear waste, Lyman said.
He said waste now stored on-site is vulnerable to security threats and climate disasters.
For five years, the waste is kept in large swimming pool-like structures where it’s mixed with water to keep it cool. Then, it’s transferred to dry casks, he said.
The U.S. Department of Energy is technically responsible for removing the waste, but it has nowhere to bring it, Lyman said.
“It’s going to be a long-term storage problem for any nuclear plant that’s shut down,” Lyman said……………………………
Thirteen states have banned construction of new nuclear plants.
In the Great Lakes region, Minnesota adopted its ban in 1994. ……
Because the Great Lakes account for one-fifth of the world’s freshwater, Chiblow and other environmentalists are especially interested in protecting it……….c
Bill To Ban Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage In New Mexico Passes House Committee
“It’s inconceivable why New Mexico has to be the dumping ground for the nation’s ill-advised investment in nuclear energy and nuclear weapons,” said Paul Gibson, co-founder of Retake Our Democracy. “The risk to our community is far greater than the benefit.”
Although the site is termed temporary, Holtec is seeking a 40-year license to operate there, which opponents say would make it permanent.
By SCOTT WYLAND, The Santa Fe New Mexican, 4 Feb 22, A bill clearly aimed at blocking Holtec International from building an underground storage site for spent nuclear fuel in southeastern New Mexico is moving forward.
The House Energy, Environment and Natural Resources Committee voted 5-4 to advance a bill that would ban the storage or disposal of spent nuclear fuel in the state — and would essentially kill Holtec’s plans to build a repository for this high-level radioactive waste in the Carlsbad area.
It now will go to the House Judiciary Committee.
A key point in the debate was whether the state has the authority to stop the federal government from approving what’s described as an interim storage site to keep the material until a permanent place is created.
Some lawmakers and regulators who back House Bill 127 say although the state can’t interfere with how the commission regulates the waste, it can block storage sites that could cause adverse environmental impacts.
The bill’s opponents argue the state still would be preempting the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s authority in managing commercial nuclear waste. That simply is not allowed, no matter what criteria the state uses, they said.
But Sen. Jeff Steinborn, D-Las Cruces, who strongly supports the bill, said the state is well within its rights to say no to nuclear disposal sites that could contaminate vital resources, such as groundwater, and pose risks to communities when the waste is transported by rail across the country.
“Does New Mexico have the authority to do this? Yes, we do,” Steinborn said. “The Nuclear Regulatory Commission absolutely has primacy over regulating spent fuel. But what we’re talking here is the siting of this material, and our concerns on multiple grounds.”
Still, Rep. Larry Scott, R-Hobbs, contends the federal government’s power to regulate radioactive material overrides any state authority, including on environmental matters.
“I’m looking at your legislation, which seems to completely contradict that,” Scott said.
Last year, the state sued the federal government, contending the commission hadn’t done enough to ensure Holtec’s proposed site wouldn’t harm the environment, communities or the oil and gas industry in one of the nation’s richest fossil fuel regions.
Although the site is termed temporary, Holtec is seeking a 40-year license to operate there, which opponents say would make it permanent.
State Deputy Environment Secretary Rebecca Roose said no permanent disposal site has been established, so the waste has nowhere else to go.
“It’s more likely to stay there — the inertia will be to keep it there as opposed to move it someplace else permanent,” Roose said, “if and when a permanent facility is identified.”…………………
The bill’s proponents say it’s necessary to prevent a massive amount of high-level radioactive waste from coming to New Mexico and disproportionately affecting poor and minority communities.
“It’s inconceivable why New Mexico has to be the dumping ground for the nation’s ill-advised investment in nuclear energy and nuclear weapons,” said Paul Gibson, co-founder of Retake Our Democracy. “The risk to our community is far greater than the benefit.” https://ladailypost.com/bill-to-ban-spent-nuclear-fuel-storage-in-new-mexico-passes-house-committee/
Nuclear power: CO2 fix or cost disaster?
Nuclear power: CO2 fix or cost disaster? E and E News | 02/04/2022 President Biden’s plan to decarbonize the U.S. electricity sector by 2035 could give a boost to nuclear power, but that may hinge on two key questions: Can carbon targets really incentivize the technology, and can it compete cost wise with natural gas?
It’s a debate that is resurfacing, considering recent surging prices of natural gas.
Yet industry hasn’t answeredwhether nuclear will be more economic for producing power, especially after costs for two new reactors at Plant Vogtle in Georgia skyrocketed. The actual costs of 75 of the more than 90 existing nuclear power reactorsin the U.S. exceeded the initially estimated costs of the units by over 200 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.
There are many facets of the cost question — existing nuclear plants in competitive markets face economic challenges that could force them to close early, saddling operators with stranded costs and removing emissions-free electrons [not really emissions-free] from the grid. Meanwhile, no large, baseload reactors are on the table. The industry is working to develop smaller, next-generation reactors by the next decade, but the fate and final costs of projects are uncertain.
“There doesn’t seem to be, in the near term, a big thing that’s going to be pushing” nuclear, said Paul Patterson, a utility analyst with Glenrock Associates LLC. Whether the nuclear industry builds new reactors could help shape the electricity mix for decades. Falling renewable energy costs and higher gas prices may also influence investment decisions for nuclear in unexpected ways.
………… Southern Co.’s Vogtle expansion project hasn’t helped the case for baseload nuclear. The project, which was supposed to lead a resurgence of larger reactors in the 2000s, remains theonly major nuclear power construction project in the United States. Vogtle’sprice tag is twice an earlier $14 billion budget, andthe project is more than seven years behind schedule.
……more than one big electric company has shelved its plans to build large reactors using similar technology because of the litany of troubles at Vogtle…………………….
it’s unclear whether SMRs will face some of the same cost challenges as traditional reactors.
In the past, the higher price tag for nuclearin comparison to expectations was tied to safety regulations, which are the most stringent of all power plants. What’s more, if any work needs to be redone to meet strict codes, that pushes out the deadline to finish the plant.
The longer it takes to get it right, the more expensive the reactors become.
“There are so many concerns about radioactive material, etc., so that’s what drives much of the cost,” Glenrock’s Patterson said. “You don’t have the same issues associated with regulations for other power plants, understandably so.”
………… A group of former nuclear regulators in the United States, Germany and France argued last month that nuclear isn’t safe, clean or smart.
It’smore expensive than renewables in terms of producing energy and mitigating carbon dioxide, even accounting for costs such as pairing renewable energy with storage, according to the group, which alsoincludes a former secretary to a United Kingdom radiation protection committee.
The former regulators said nuclear is unlikely “to make a relevant contribution to necessary climate change mitigation” that’s needed by the 2030s………………………………..
Gas and renewables
Ultimately, the trajectory of nuclear will directly affect how wind, solar, batteries and fossil fuels are used in the coming decades.
Coyle pointed out that while the cost of Vogtle has doubled during the seven-year delay, the price of renewables, including storage, has dropped. Going forward, she argues that Georgia Power should compare the cost of planned generation with not only combined-cycle natural gas but also with renewable options such as utility-scale solar and long-term agreements to buy wind power.
“This argument that, ‘Well, it’s reliable, it’s low-cost, it’s carbon-free,’ then why are we still comparing it to combined-cycle natural gas?” Coyle said.
“There are now significantly more cost-effective renewable energy options than any of us anticipated back in the day when Vogtle 3 and 4 were certified.”……………
Chomsky: US Approach to Ukraine and Russia Has “Left the Domain of Rational Discourse”
Chomsky: US Approach to Ukraine and Russia Has “Left the Domain of Rational Discourse” C.J. Polychroniou, Truthout 4 Feb 22, ”………….In a new exclusive interview for Truthout on the ongoing Russia-Ukraine crisis, world-renowned public intellectual Noam Chomsky outlines the deadly dangers of U.S. intransigence over Ukrainian membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) even when key Western allies have already vetoed earlier U.S. efforts in that direction. He also seeks to shed some light on the reasons why Republicans today seem to be divided on Russia…………..
C.J. Polychroniou: Tensions continue to escalate between Russia and Ukraine, and there is little room for optimism since the U.S. offer for de-escalation fails to meet any of Russia’s security demands. As such, wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that the Russia-Ukraine border crisis stems in reality from the U.S.’s intransigent position over Ukrainian membership in NATO? In the same context, is it hard to imagine what might have been Washington’s response to the hypothetical event that Mexico wanted to join a Moscow-driven military alliance?
Noam Chomsky: We hardly need to linger on the latter question. No country would dare to make such a move in what former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Secretary of War Henry Stimson called “Our little region over here,” when he was condemning all spheres of influence (except for our own — which in reality, is hardly limited to the Western hemisphere). Secretary of State Antony Blinken is no less adamant today in condemning Russia’s claim to a “sphere of influence,” a concept we firmly reject (with the same reservation).
There was of course one famous case when a country in our little region came close to a military alliance with Russia, the 1962 missile crisis. ………
The tensions over Ukraine are extremely severe, with Russia’s concentration of military forces at Ukraine’s borders. The Russian position has been quite explicit for some time. It was stated clearly by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at his press conference at the United Nations: “The main issue is our clear position on the inadmissibility of further expansion of NATO to the East and the deployment of strike weapons that could threaten the territory of the Russian Federation.” Much the same was reiterated shortly after by Putin, as he had often said before
There is a simple way to deal with deployment of weapons: Don’t deploy them. There is no justification for doing so. The U.S. may claim that they are defensive, but Russia surely doesn’t see it that way, and with reason………………………
It is sometimes claimed that NATO membership increases security for Poland and others. A much stronger case can be made that NATO membership threatens their security by heightening tensions. Historian Richard Sakwa, a specialist on East Europe, observed that “NATO’s existence became justified by the need to manage threats provoked by its enlargement” — a plausible judgment……………………………
It is indeed curious to watch what is unfolding. The U.S. is vigorously fanning the flames while Ukraine is asking it to tone down the rhetoric. While there is much turmoil about why the demon Putin is acting as he is, U.S. motives are rarely subject to scrutiny. The reason is familiar: By definition, U.S. motives are noble, even if its efforts to implement them are perhaps misguided………………………………… https://truthout.org/articles/us-approach-to-ukraine-and-russia-has-left-the-domain-of-rational-discourse/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=0ec432a8-b38b-4908-8c62-c8ef785a8e3d
1 This Month
26 April – Chernobyl: Inside the Meltdown airs on National Geographic on Sunday 26th April from 4pm
29 April – Nuclear Expert Webinar #1 – Radiation Impacts on Families with Mary Olson and Cindy Folkers
- 12:15 PM MT – 1:45 PM MT
- Location: Virtual – REGISTER TODAY
4 May -West Suburban Peace Coalition to discuss Iran war at May Educational Forum
Monday, May 4, 7:00 – 8:00 PM Central Standard Time
Title: : How Trump’s Narrative Tries to Shape the Reality of the War on Iran.
Contact Walt Zlotow, zlotow@hotmail.com 630 442 3045 for further information
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
Pine Ridge Uranium is the real threat, not Tehran- Tell Burgum: Stop the Extraction.
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (317)
- 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)
- May 2025 (261)
-
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 