Anxieties over proposal to allow some nuclear waste to be disposed in landfills
Advocates raise questions about proposal to allow some nuclear waste to be disposed in landfills The Hill, BY RACHEL FRAZIN – 04/03/20 Scientists and advocates are raising concerns about a proposed relaxation on regulations for disposing of nuclear waste, saying that the government should halt the proposal as the scientific community focuses on the coronavirus.
A March 6 Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proposal would allow for the disposal of some nuclear waste in municipal landfills, rather than a licensed facility.
Advocates say the proposal could put public health at risk, pushing the NRC to give the public more time to weigh in.
“What they’re trying to do is prop up a failing industry so that the cost of decommissioning these [nuclear] reactors is reduced so you don’t have to send it to a place that is expensive because it’s designed to safely handle it,” said Dan Hirsch, the former director of the University of California, Santa Cruz’s Program on Environmental and Nuclear Policy.
“I find it just astonishing that they would do that in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic,” he added. “How the NRC can look themselves in the mirror to propose massive deregulation and do it in the midst of the pandemic, I find it just ethically shocking.”……..
“If they’re going to consider it at all, it should only be considered once the pandemic is behind us,” he said.
Currently, the nuclear waste in question is typically disposed of at licensed waste disposal facilities, which have adequate training and equipment to protect public health.
The proposal would grant some exceptions to this regulation for waste with a cumulative radiation dose level of up to 25 millirem…….
n a statement on Thursday, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility Pacific Director Jeff Ruch also criticized the proposal.
“NRC’s action could transform most municipal dumps into radioactive repositories, with essentially no safeguards for workers, nearby residents, or adjoining water tables,” he said. https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/490988-advocates-raise-questions-about-proposal-to-allow-some-nuclear
Nuclear Regulatory Commission pulls back inspectors, because of Covid 19
|
The agency and the primary industry group say the change in oversight does not pose a threat to the public. “Nuclear power plants also have plans to maintain appropriate staffing under adverse conditions,” the agency said. “The NRC will require plants to shut down if they cannot appropriately staff their facilities.” Still, the decision has raised alarm from the Union of Concerned Scientists. Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear plant safety at the UCS, which monitors the intersection of policy and science, said he was worried plant operators could request that inspections of their plants be delayed during these refueling periods. In part, he said, “other concerns are potential requests from reactor owners to postpone certain inspections that take place during refueling outages until the next cycle, which could result in delays of more than 18-24 months in some of these critical activities. The concern is some of these inspections require personnel to be in tight quarters or might require specialized contractors from off-site.” The agency also said in a March 27 announcement that it was evaluating scheduled inspections of nuclear sites, including reactors being decommissioned and facilities where spent fuel is stored. NRC did not respond to questions about which facilities would be affected……. the industry is running low on protective medical supplies — gloves, wipes, masks and thermometers, Korsnick said — and the scheduled refueling operations could present a problem during a pandemic when authorities have locked down cities and states from non-essential activities. Nuclear reactors need fresh fuel every 18 or 24 months, and to complete these refueling changeovers requires hundreds of specialized technicians to enter each plant and work for a month or two before leaving. “These workers typically stay in hotels or board with local families, and eat in restaurants,” she said……. Nuclear plants are required to maintain a certain number of staffers in their control room, as well as at least 10 armed guards to protect against attacks. They also fall under regulations that bar staff from working too much in a brief period of time, typically no more than 16 hours in a day, 26 hours in two days and 72 hours in a 7-day stretch. …….https://personalliberty.com/citing-virus-nuclear-agency-pulls-back-inspectors/ |
|
Problems of New England nuclear reactors most are offline
Most NE nuclear power offline due to timing fluke and problem, CT Mirror, CAll but unnoticed as the coronavirus pandemic tears through the Northeast: the New England power grid is without 75% of its nuclear power – with more to go. by JAN ELLEN SPIEGEL, APRIL 3, 2020
Many nuclear power plants schedule refueling operations in spring and fall when electricity demand is lower, and that is the case in New England, where the three remaining nuclear plants typically supply about one-third of the electricity. The Seabrook Nuclear plant in New Hampshire went offline on Tuesday for its refueling – that’s 1,245 megawatts of power. Unit 2 of the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, with about 870 megawatts, is due for refueling this spring as well.
But in the meantime, Millstone Unit 3, which carries about 1,230 megawatts , tripped offline less than a day after the Seabrook shutdown due to a circuit fault between the main generator and the switchyard, according to Kenneth Holt, spokesman for the plant’s owner Dominion Energy. The automatic reactor protection system kicked in as it was supposed to and the plant was shut down.
As of Friday noon, the grid mix showed nuclear at 8% and natural gas at a whopping 68%.
While the situation is abnormal and the timing with the health emergency a fluke, it does not pose any special risks for the region, especially since the demand for power is lower than normal because so much commerce and industry has temporarily shut down. ……
Nuclear plants have some wiggle room, but not a lot, for refueling. In the case of Millstone, each unit is refueled every 18 months in an alternating rotation. Unit 3, the one offline now, is due for refueling in the fall. Refueling takes about one month during which one-third of the plant’s nuclear rods, which are about one foot-by-one foot by 12 to 14 feet long, are replaced. They last about 4.5 years.
……….. https://ctmirror.org/2020/04/03/most-ne-nuclear-power-offline-due-to-timing-fluke-and-problem/
Danger in transporting spent nuclear fuel to New Mexico
Why should NM store nation’s nuclear waste? https://www.abqjournal.com/1439716/why-should-nm-store-nations-nuclear-waste.html BY LAURA WATCHEMPINO / MULTICULTURAL ALLIANCE FOR A SAFE ENVIRONMENT, PUEBLO OF ACOMA
Friday, April 3rd, 2020 If the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s conclusion that it’s safe to move spent nuclear fuel from nuclear power plants across the country to a proposed storage facility in Lea County sounds vanilla-coated, it’s because the draft environmental impact statement for a Consolidated Interim Storage Facility submitted by Holtec International did not address how the casks containing the spent fuel would be transported to New Mexico.
It’s likely the casks would be transported primarily by rail using aging infrastructure in need of constant repair. But our rail systems were not built to support the great weight of these transport casks containing thin-wall fuel storage canisters.
Nor was the potential for cracked or corroded canisters to leak radiation studied because an earlier NRC Generic EIS for the Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel assumed damaged fuel storage canisters would be detected during an intermediary dry transfer system or a pool. But Holtec’s proposal only addresses a new destination for the high-level nuclear waste – not the removal and transport of the fuel storage canisters from nuclear power plants to New Mexico.
Even transport casks with canisters that are not damaged will release radiation as they are transported from nuclear power plants to the storage facility, exposing populations along the transport routes in a majority of states and tribal communities in New Mexico to repeated doses of radiation.
Other issues not considered in the draft EIS were the design life of the thin-wall canisters encasing the nuclear fuel rods and faulty installation at reactor sites like San Onofre, or the self-interest of the Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance in using the land it acquired for a consolidated interim storage site.
Thin-wall canisters cannot be inspected for cracks and the fuel rods inside are not retrievable for inspection or monitoring without destroying the canister. NRC does not require continuous monitoring of the storage canisters for pressure changes or radiation leaks. The fuel rods inside the canisters could go critical, or result in an uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction, if water enters the canisters through cracks, admits both Holtec and the NRC. None of us are safe if any canister goes critical.
Yet a site-specific storage application like Holtec’s should have addressed NRC license requirements for leak testing and monitoring, as well as the quantity and type of material that will be stored at the site, such as low burnup nuclear fuel and high burnup fuel.
With so many deficiencies in the draft EIS, a reasonable alternative is to leave this dangerous radioactive nuclear waste at the nuclear plants that produced it in dry cask storage rather than multiply the risk by transporting thousands of containers that could be damaged across many thousands of miles and decades to southeastern New Mexico, then again to a permanent repository.
Interim storage of spent nuclear fuel at existing nuclear plant sites is already happening – there are 65 sites with operating reactors in the United States and dry cask storage is licensed at 35 of these sites in 24 states. But since the thin-wall canisters storing the fuel rods are at risk for major radioactive releases, they should be replaced with thick-walled containers that can be monitored and maintained. The storage containers should be stored away from coastal waters and flood plains in hardened buildings.
Attempting to remove this stabilized nuclear waste from where it is securely stored across hundreds or thousands of miles through our homelands and backyards to a private storage facility also raises some thorny liability issues, since the United States will then be relieved of overseeing the spent nuclear fuel in perpetuity. The states and nuclear plants that want to send us their long-lived radioactive waste will also be off the hook, leaving New Mexico holding a dangerously toxic bag without any resources to address the gradual deterioration of man-made materials or worse, a catastrophic event. It’s a win/win, however, for Holtec International and the Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance.
Environmental justice footnote: When removal of uranium mine waste on the Navajo Nation was being discussed a few years ago, communities got this response from EPA: Digging up the waste and tr+ansporting it to a licensed repository in different states outside the Navajo Nation – which has always been the Nation’s preferred alternative – is the most expensive option. “Off-site disposal, because of the amount of waste in and around these areas, means possibly multiple years of hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of trucks going in and out of the community and driving for miles.”
Finally: 1000s of sailors leaving nuclear Aircraft Carrier and going into Coronavirus isolation
US Sailors Pour Off Aircraft Carrier and Into Coronavirus Isolation on Guam, Defense One , BY BRADLEY PENISTON, DEPUTY EDITOR, 2 Apr. 20 NAVY LEADERS PRAISE SHIP’S CAPTAIN FOR URGENT EVACUATION REQUEST; 3,700 WILL LEAVE THE SHIP WITHIN DAYS.
About one-fifth of the USS Theodore Roosevelt’s 4,865 sailors are off the COVID-stricken aircraft carrier and into isolation on Guam, with about 2,700 more expected to evacuate in the next few days, Acting Navy Secretary Thomas Modly said Wednesday.
Modly’s update comes two days after the ship’s captain sent a stark letter up the chain of command — made public on Tuesday by the San Francisco Chronicle — warning that fully 90 percent of the crew needed to evacuate and isolate for two weeks for their own safety. The secretary’s comments clarify that the Navy was indeed evacuating most sailors from the ship, after Defense Secretary Mark Esper said in a CBS News interview aired late Tuesday that said an evacuation was not yet necessary. Modly praised the captain for the prodding, and said that evacuation efforts already were in the works but not with the right urgency. ….. https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2020/04/us-sailors-pour-aircraft-carrier-and-isolation-guam/164287/?oref=d-topstory
Second: Navy change of heart: nuclear-powered aircraft carrier sailors can evacuate
|
“We are not at war,” Caprain Brett Crozier wrote in a four-page letter to bosses detailing how the ship did not have enough quarantine facilities. “Sailors do not need to die. If we do not act now, we are failing to properly take care of our most trusted asset – our sailors.” Now, his demand to get crew ashore appears to have been met with Acting Navy Secretary Thomas Modly confirming sailors were being taken off board in stages, with 1,000 people already evacuated and placed in isolation on land. It is thought around 100 people on the nuclear-powered vessel have tested positive for Covid-19, although this remains unconfirmed by the navy itself. Modly said the force had been working for several days to get the majority of crew off the ship but that, because Guam was dealing with its own outbreak of Covid-19, there were not currently enough isolated beds. He said he was in talks with officials there to use hotels and set up tents. “It’s not the same as a cruise ship, it has armaments on it, it has aircraft on it, we have to be able to fight fires if there is a fire on there,” he said……..
|
First: Captain of nuclear-powered aircraft carrier begs to have its sailors evacuated
Navy Rejects Captain’s Plea to Evacuate Virus-Ravaged Carrier, Bloomberg, By Roxana Tiron ,Travis J Tritten, and Glen Carey
- Admiral says sailors will be rotated off in smaller numbers
-
A U.S. Navy captain’s dramatic plea to evacuate most sailors from an aircraft carrier struck by the coronavirus was tamped down by an admiral who called for a more gradual rotation of crew members off the ship that’s sidelined in Guam.
Citing an “ongoing and accelerating” danger on board the USS Theodore Roosevelt, Captain Brett Crozier sent his Navy superiors a memo pleading, “We are not at war. Sailors do not need to die.” He called for removing all but a skeleton crew off the carrier, where sailors are in close quarters, so that they can be isolated and tested……
The Roosevelt, meant to be patrolling the Pacific and South China Sea, is sitting dockside in Guam indefinitely as the number of soldiers infected by the novel coronavirus rises daily. Infections started cropping up after an early March port call in Vietnam, which Pentagon leaders say had about 16 known virus cases at the time …… https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-31/carrier-s-captain-pleads-for-coronavirus-action-to-save-sailors?fbclid=IwAR2jMtSh2oHrD8_xM384jGcK52DX3TihqP3brMrzaUrSNBgY17GYBVxcbEg
38 sailors on nuclear-powered aircraft carrier positive for COVID-19, U.S. military secretive on impact of virus
APR 1, 2020
Relying on a high-state of readiness, the nuclear triad is under threat from the coronavirus……….in a War of the Worlds-style twist, humanity’s most lethal weapons could be nullified by an organism that can’t even be seen. ……
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission weakens some regulations in view of COVID-19
Nuclear regulators ease some power reactor regs in response to COVID-19, By Matthew Bandyk Utility Dive, March 31, 2020,
- In response to the COVID-19 pandemic and its strain on available nuclear plant personnel, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is allowing power reactor operators to apply for temporary exemptions from regulations limiting the amount of hours workers can stay on the job, according to a letter released by the agency on Monday.
- In addition, the NRC staff is also working on a separate memorandum that will guide nuclear plants as to which labor and time-intensive tasks they can temporarily waive, such as many of the inspections during refueling outages………
The nuclear industry and the impact of coronavirus
|
Nuclear industry’s response to Covid-19 outbreak, Power Technology, 1 Apr,20 “……..Impact of coronavirus on the nuclear industry’s operations The nuclear industry is assessing measures to safeguard their workforce and implementing business continuity plans to ensure continuous functioning of key aspects of their businesses. The nuclear industry already has a robust safety culture in place worldwide. Based on the guidance and directives put into practice across various countries and regions, actions have been taken. Since the time that coronavirus was first detected in China’s Wuhan region, before becoming a global pandemic, companies worldwide had time to execute business continuity plans and take the necessary steps for the dealing with the impact of the virus. Measures have been taken to screen workers and isolate those who show virus symptoms through temperature checks to detect fever, which is among the common Covid-19 symptom. Few countries have advised their staff to work remotely and not on-site, hence aiding with social distancing measures. For example, in the US, officials have recommended they may isolate or quarantine crucial nuclear power plant (NPP) technicians and allow them to live onsite to decrease their proximity with others in case this is needed. Many operators are getting hold of supplies of food, beds along with other essentials items required to support their staff for this purpose. Key NPP staff could be required to stay in assigned accommodation and commute to and from the nuclear facility in separate transportation. To safeguard the health of workers in regions where the occurrence of coronavirus may rise considerably, actions such as changing shift patterns are being assessed. Companies are also limiting or dropping their non-essential business travel plans and making use of conference video and audio calls for carrying out business meetings. France’s regulator, Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN), is avoiding direct physical contact to stop the spread of the coronavirus and is prioritizing control of operating facilities. A number of inspectors from the UK’s regulator, Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), will go ahead with travel plans to sites where needed but will restrict most of its business operations via phone, email and Skype. Currently, NPP operations are continuing in many countries. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (US NRC) has stated that it may close down any of the country’s 60 NPP if they cannot be aptly staffed. Few nuclear facilities have temporarily shut down their operations to avoid the spread of the coronavirus and secure their workforce. In the UK, authorities have idled a nuclear fuel reprocessing site located at Sellafield after 8% of its 11,500 workforce were asked to self-isolate or quarantine to avoid the spread of the coronavirus infection. This step came after a staff member was tested Covid-19 positive a few weeks earlier, and will eventually lead to a controlled shutdown of the site’s Magnox facility, expected to close down permanently this year. The EDF-owned Hinkley Point C (HPC) NPP in the UK, has also reduced its workforce by more than half and will further decrease its staff members as work in progress is finished. Rosatom’s overseas NPP construction projects have also progressed under the recommendations and guidelines of the disease control services as well as governments of the corresponding countries where construction work is going on. Work was suspended on few nuclear reactors which are under construction in China following the coronavirus outbreak. Now as work is slowly restarting in the country, countermeasures have been taken for all staff members returning to nuclear site. France, the most nuclear dependent country in the world, announced scaling down of staff at its Flameville NPP, operated by EDF, the country’s major nuclear operator. EDF stated that it is decreasing staff at the NPP from 800 to 100, because of the high regional Covid-19 infection rates. Three workers at the EDF’s Fessenheim NPP, Belleville NPP, and Cattenom NPP have already been tested positive for the coronavirus. French grid operator Réseau de Transport d’Électricité (RTE) presumes that nuclear availability will stay 3.6 Gigawatt (GW) below 2015 to 2019 average, in addition to a national fall in nuclear power demand. EDF has withdrawn its 2020 nuclear power generation target amidst an expected drop in its output this year due to the coronavirus outbreak. Orano, an integrated nuclear energy company, has also withdrawn its financial year (FY) outlook for 2020. When it comes to nuclear reactor operations, the Ascó I NPP in Tarragona and Almaraz I NPP in Cáceres, Spain, have notified about rescheduling or delaying of their outages for nuclear fuel loading. In Germany, NPP operators are stepping up precautionary measures to stop the spread of coronavirus. For instance, RWE, is involved in disinfecting radiation meters which are normally used by staffs quite often. The company has also shut down visitor centres and called off its scheduled group visits to decrease the risk of Covid-19 infections. The Finnish state-owned energy company Fortum Oyj’s Loviisa NPP is also undertaking precautionary measures to help stop the spread of the coronavirus. The company is adhering to the Covid-19 recommendations and guidelines put forward by the World Health Organization (WHO) and national authorities. External visitors are also prohibited at the NPP until further notice. MiningKazatomprom, Kazakhstan’s state-owned uranium production company, with a total uranium production volume (100% basis) of 22,808t of elemental uranium (tU) in 2019 has made announcement of drawing on its current uranium inventory if its mining activities are affected. The company’s uranium mining sites are located in remote areas of the country and so far the coronavirus outbreak has not yet affected its operations. However, considering the remoteness of these mining sites, the company needs to take precautionary measures if in case any outbreak occurs. The Canadian uranium company, Cameco, has also temporarily idled production of its Cigar Lake uranium mine located in northern Saskatchewan, Canada, as a response to the Covid-19 pandemic. This will reduce the staff members working on-site from around 300 to 35, hence leading to physical distancing and heightened safety precautionary measures. In addition, Cameco’s joint venture (JV) partner, Orano Canada, has also shut down operations at its McClean Lake uranium mill, which processes ore from the Cigar lake mine…… https://www.power-technology.com/comment/nuclear-industry-covid-19/ |
|
|
Trump repeatedly reverses his decisions – but if he pressed the nuclear button, there’s no reversing
The Coronavirus Teaches Us Not to Let Trump Press the Nuclear Button BY TOM Z. COLLINA, DEFENSE ONE, POLICY DIRECTOR, PLOUGHSHARES FUND 1 Apr 20, Some of the president’s poor decisions on COVID-19, like proposing to reopen the nation by Easter, have been reversed. But a presidential decision to start nuclear war cannot be.
President Trump has swung from calling the coronavirus pandemic “totally under control” to a “national emergency” and back. Trump’s latest idea that the nation could be “opened up and just raring to go by Easter” did not stand up to scrutiny. Amazingly, we are months into this crisis and the president is still struggling to get it right.
But what if the president needs to get a decision right the very first time, no do-overs? And what if the wrong decision could lead to a disaster even worse than COVID-19?
Chillingly, that is where we find ourselves on another underappreciated but even more catastrophic threat: —nuclear war. Instead of a relatively slow-moving pandemic, this crisis could have involved strategic warning of a massive Russian nuclear attack. The president would have not weeks but just minutes to decide if the attack was real and, if so, whether to launch U.S. nuclear weapons before the attack arrives. If he decides to launch, there is no going back. No mulligans.
What would the president do? Judging by the coronavirus experience, Trump would likely be uninformed about the specifics of the threat and so would fall back on his gut instincts, assume he knows best, and proceed with dangerous over-confidence. But unlike the current crisis, he would only have time to consult with a few advisors, under intense time pressure, and only if he chooses to. The president has the sole authority to order the launch of U.S. nuclear weapons with no oversight from Congress, the Secretary of Defense, or anyone else …….
It is a deeply troubling reality that if early warning systems show a massive nuclear attack on the way, the president might decide to launch an immediate retaliation and has the absolute authority to do so. This would be a catastrophically bad decision for a number of important reasons, none of which may be obvious to an uninformed president.
First and foremost, the president might not know that the attack is probably a false alarm. There have been multiple false alarms like this in the United States and Russia, and the rise of sophisticated cyberattacks make this danger even worse…..
We need to limit the president’s unchecked and unnecessary authority to launch. Trump’s reckless mistakes on COVID-19 are a call to action: we cannot allow the president to make a unilateral decision to start nuclear war.https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2020/04/coronavirus-teaches-us-not-let-trump-press-nuclear-button/164280/
Trump doesn’t ‘get it’ -climate change as the next great engine for the next pandemic
With the Coronavirus, It’s Again Trump vs. Mother Nature, The president’s failure to understand his limits is very costly. NYT, By Thomas L. Friedman, March 31, 2020
- Today’s news quiz: What do these data points have in common?Jan. 22: President Trump is asked by CNBC: “Are there worries about a pandemic at this point?” Trump answers: “No. Not at all. And we’re, we have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China. … It’s — going to be just fine.”
Jan. 31: Moving to counter the spreading coronavirus outbreak, Trump bars entry by most foreign nationals who had recently visited China…….
Nov. 26, 2018: CNN reports that Trump “dismissed a study produced by his own administration … and more than 300 leading climate scientists, warning of the potentially catastrophic impact of climate change.” Asked why, Trump told reporters, “I don’t believe it.” Asked if he read it, Trump said, “some.”
March 30, 2020: This newspaper reports that Trump completed plans to scrap Obama-era automobile fuel efficiency standards that limited climate-warming tailpipe pollution — a move that will “allow cars on
American roads to emit nearly a billion tons more carbon dioxide over the lifetime of the vehicles.”
What’s the common theme? We have a president who is enamored with markets but ignorant of Mother Nature, and we have paid a steep, steep price for that — and will pay an even bigger price when it comes to climate change, if Trump remains in charge……..
there is one huge difference between the coronavirus and climate change: Climate change doesn’t “peak” — and then flatten out and then maybe dissipate or be permanently prevented by vaccine — so normal life resumes.
No, when the Greenland and Antarctic ice melts, it’s gone, and we humans will have to contend with the implications of sea level rise, mass movements of populations and various kinds of extreme weather — wetter wets, hotter hots and drier dries — forever.
There is no herd immunity to climate change. There are only endless impacts on the herd.
Thinking about climate change, even in the middle of this pandemic, is actually useful in a number of ways. For starters, they follow similar natural laws and have common mitigation strategies………
Finally, epidemiologists will tell you that climate change may well be the next great engine for the next pandemic — only this virus could easily be carried by mosquitoes, which, because of warmer temperatures in the global north, are able to migrate up from places they’ve never migrated from before.
For all these reasons, as we invest in infrastructure to stimulate our economy out of this corona crisis, we should be doing it to make our society more resilient against both pandemics and climate change. ……
Now that we have tasted Mother Nature’s wrath in the form of both Covid-19 and climate change, let’s get her on our side. She’s as happy to help as to destroy. Let’s use chemistry, biology and physics, not to mention sun and wind, to create the vaccines and power systems that immunize us from viruses and weather extremes — and not double down on bad habits that will only make us sick again. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/31/opinion/covid-trump-climate-change.html
The Russian point of view on nuclear arms control
|
Russia’s View on Nuclear Arms Control: An Interview With Ambassador Anatoly Antonov, Arms Control Association April 2020Arms Control Today conducted a written interview in early March with Anatoly Antonov, Russian ambassador to the United States on issues including the current status of U.S.-Russian strategic security talks, the future of New START, talks on intermediate-range missile systems, engaging China in arms control, and President Vladimir Putin’s proposal for a summit of the leaders of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council……..
Amb. Anatoly Antonov: Russia and the United States are the largest nuclear weapons powers and permanent members of the UN Security Council. They bear a special responsibility for preserving world peace and security. That is why it is crucial to maintain the bilateral strategic stability dialogue at any given circumstance, regardless of political situation. It goes without saying that such engagement should be conducted on a regular basis. ……. As for the consultations in January, our reaction can be described as “cautious optimism.” On the bright side is the fact that the meeting did take place, even though it exposed serious disagreements between our countries on a number of topics. ….. There is no doubt that the Russian-U.S. bilateral arms control agenda remains relevant. We are open to discussing within the strategic dialogue the issue of the newest and prospective weapons that do not fall under New START. ……. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2020-04/interviews/russias-view-nuclear-arms-control-interview-ambassador-anatoly-antonov |
|
Different federal laws complicate legal case about radiation exposure and teenager’s brain cancer
The appellate panel must decide how two different federal laws should intersect. Law.com By Raychel Lean | April 01, 2020 A federal wrongful death lawsuit alleging exposure to radiation from nuclear materials caused a South Florida teenager’s brain cancer had its moment before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on Wednesday as attorneys debated whether Florida’s four-year statute of limitations should apply.
The appellate panel must decide how two different federal laws should intersect. While 42 U.S.C. § 9658 preempts state time limits for lawsuits involving nuclear incidents, the Price-Anderson Act adopts state law as “the rules for decision.”
The question arose after Palm Beach County resident Cynthia Santiago sued in the Southern District of Florida in 2014, five years after she was diagnosed with a brain tumor at 13. When she died about two years later, her parents Joselyn and Steve Santiago became personal representatives.
The complaint blamed Connecticut-based aircraft maker United Technologies Corp., alleging its Palm Beach County engineering facility released radioactive materials, heavy metals and semi-volatiles in The Acreage, where several children were also reportedly diagnosed with brain tumors. …… https://www.law.com/dailybusinessreview/2020/04/01/clock-ticking-for-florida-family-alleging-radiation-exposure-caused-teens-cancer/?slreturn=20200301190656
The court has yet to rule.
1 This Month
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
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (49)
- 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 