nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

USA’s Dept of Energy gives Rick Perry the pro coal pro nuclear report that he wanted

Rick Perry gets his electricity grid study. The coal and mining industries like it. WP, By Steven Mufson August 24 A much-anticipated Energy Department report on the electricity grid made recommendations for regulatory changes that would bolster coal and nuclear power plants.

The changes, if adopted, would alter the way prices are determined in electricity markets, ease environmental reviews for coal plants and speed the permitting process for a variety of energy sources.

The 187-page report rejects the notion that the coal and nuclear plants that have been forced to shut down over the past 16 years had been closed prematurely, noting that cheap, abundant natural gas had been the main factor — not environmental regulations or renewable energy sources as Republican leaders have contended…..

The Energy Department document carries little weight on its own, and most of its recommendations fall in the turf of other departments and agencies.

 But the report has been seen as a test of whether the Trump administration is going to politicize government studies and disregard scientific evidence.

The in-depth look at the state of the grid quickly drew praise from coal and nuclear groups, and sharp rebukes from environmental and solar energy groups.

Among the recommendations is one that suggests that the Environmental Protection Agency ease permitting requirements for new investments at coal-fired plants, a process known as new source review…..

The report also endorsed price changes that would prevent solar and wind energy from providing energy at negative prices, which they can do thanks to federal tax credits.

This hurts other energy suppliers, especially in the nuclear industry, and the recommendation was welcomed.

 “We’re very pleased with the top line recommendation for the implementation of long overdue energy market reforms,” said Joe Dominguez, executive vice president of regulatory affairs at Exelon, the nation’s largest nuclear power utility.

The report suggested that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission speed up its permitting process ……

Environmental and renewable industry groups slammed the report for failing to deal with climate change and the drive toward low carbon electricity, and noted that the final report differed from earlier drafts that had been leaked……..https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/2017/08/23/fa4a506a-883e-11e7-a50f-e0d4e6ec070a_story.html?utm_term=.00a738b7bf7a

August 26, 2017 Posted by | ENERGY, politics, USA | Leave a comment

Inaccurate translations in media increase tensions between Iran and USA

Shoddy translation in the Western media is increasing nuclear tensions–again, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Ariane Tabatabai, 25 Aug 17,  “…….Inaccurate translations, imprecise analyses, and poor reporting have long plagued discussion of Iranian nuclear affairs in Western, English-language media. Now, though, this kind of irresponsibility is particularly alarming, because the nuclear agreement signed in 2015 between Iran and six world powers is in a fragile state. The agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, curbs Iranian nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief, and is critical to advancing the US objective of keeping Tehran away from the Bomb without resorting to military force. US President Donald Trump has gone from pledging to dismantle the deal to trying to kill it by a thousand cuts. Meanwhile, various American interest groups are jumping in to advocate for their own preferred Iran policy options, including leaving the JCPOA and pursuing regime change. All this makes it even more critical than before for journalists and experts to get the facts right.

In foreign policy reporting, especially during periods of heightened tension and escalation, translations are a particularly challenging part of the journalist’s job. Mistranslations and inaccurate reporting can be consequential, as even the slightest mistakes can change meaning and generate crises……
the bottom line of all statements coming out of Tehran about the nuclear deal is that the country is committed to preserving it. This is currently the consensus within the regime; whether everyone likes it or not, the JCPOA is the law of the land. Yet given US threats to renege on the deal, Rouhani also has to hedge. So he is laying out his country’s options and the possible outcomes should America withdraw from the process. It is in this area that many reporters have translated his statements inaccurately.
For example, on August 15, Reuters inaccurately reported that Rouhani said his country “could abandon its nuclear agreement with world powers ‘within hours’ if the United States imposes any more sanctions.” The article went on to misquote Rouhani as saying: “If America wants to go back to the experience (of imposing sanctions), Iran would certainly return in a short time—not a week or a month but within hours—to conditions more advanced than before the start of negotiations.” In fact, what Rouhani said was: “New US officials should know that the failed experience of sanctions and coercion brought their previous governments to the negotiating table. And if they want to return to that experience, surely, in a short amount of time, not in a period of weeks and months, but hours and days, we will return to a much more advanced situation than that of the beginning of the talks.” In other words, Rouhani wasn’t threatening to leave the JCPOA if the United States imposed more sanctions on it—as the article’s title suggested and its content indicated—but to resume elements of its program if Washingtondecided to leave the JCPOA. At the same time, Rouhani reiterated that his country’s preferred course of action was to preserve the deal—but he wanted the United States to know that Iran, too, had options……
These inaccuracies would be problematic under normal circumstances, but they are particularly irresponsible at a time of heightened tensions, during which misperceptions could quickly torpedo the nuclear deal and put the United States and Iran on a collision course. Right now, the Trump administration is reviewing its policy on the JCPOA, Iranian support for the deal is diminishing, and hawks on both sides see this fragile state of affairs as an opportune moment to kill it off completely. If journalists are to hold those in power accountable, they must be held accountable themselves. http://thebulletin.org/shoddy-translation-western-media-increasing-nuclear-tensions-again11046?platform=hootsuite

August 26, 2017 Posted by | Iran, media, USA | Leave a comment

Katharine Hayhoe: I was an Exxon-funded climate scientist

I was an Exxon-funded climate scientist, The Conversation, Katharine Hayhoe, Professor and Director, Climate Science Center, Texas Tech University, August 25, 2017 ExxonMobil’s deliberate attempts to sow doubt on the reality and urgency of climate change and their donations to front groups to disseminate false information about climate change have been public knowledge for a long time, now.

Investigative reports in 2015 revealed that Exxon had its own scientists doing its own climate modeling as far back as the 1970s: science and modeling that was not only accurate, but that was being used to plan for the company’s future.

Now, a peer-reviewed study published August 23 has confirmed that what Exxon was saying internally about climate change was quantitatively very different from their public statements. Specifically, researchers Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes found that at least 80 percent of the internal documents and peer-reviewed publications they studied from between 1977 and 2014 were consistent with the state of the science – acknowledging that climate change is real and caused by humans, and identifying “reasonable uncertainties” that any climate scientist would agree with at the time. Yet over 80 percent of Exxon’s editorial-style paid advertisements over the same period specifically focused on uncertainty and doubt, the study found.

The stark contrast between internally discussing cutting-edge climate research while externally conducting a climate disinformation campaign is enough to blow many minds. What was going on at Exxon?

I have a unique perspective – because I was there.

From 1995 to 1997, Exxon provided partial financial support for my master’s thesis, which focused on methane chemistry and emissions. I spent several weeks in 1996 as an intern at their Annandale research lab in New Jersey and years working on the collaborative research that resulted in three of the published studies referenced in Supran and Oreskes’ new analysis.

Climate research at Exxon

A scientist is a scientist no matter where we work, and my Exxon colleagues were no exception. Thoughtful, cautious and in full agreement with the scientific consensus on climate – these are characteristics any scientist would be proud to own.

Did Exxon have an agenda for our research? Of course – it’s not a charity. Their research and development was targeted, and in my case, it was targeted at something that would raise no red flags in climate policy circles: quantifying the benefits of methane reduction…….

Did I know what else they were up to at the time? I couldn’t even imagine it.

Fresh out of Canada, I was unaware that there were people who didn’t accept climate science – so unaware, in fact, that it was nearly half a year before I realized I’d married one – let alone that Exxon was funding a disinformation campaign at the very same time it was supporting my research on the most expedient ways to reduce the impact of humans on climate.

Yet Exxon’s choices have contributed directly to the situation we are in today, a situation that in many ways seems unreal: one where many elected representatives oppose climate action, while China leads the U.S. in wind energy, solar power, economic investment in clean energy and even the existence of a national cap and trade policy similar to the ill-fated Waxman-Markey bill of 2009.

Personal decisions

This latest study underscores why many are calling on Exxon to be held responsible for knowingly misleading the public on such a critical issue. For scientists and academics, though, it may fuel another, different, yet similarly moral debate.

Are we willing to accept financial support that is offered as a sop to the public conscience?

The concept of tendering literal payment for sin is nothing new. From the indulgences of the Middle Ages to the criticisms some have leveled at carbon offsets today, we humans have always sought to stave off the consequences of our actions and ease our conscience with good deeds, particularly of the financial kind. Today, many industry groups follow this familiar path: supporting science denial with the left hand, while giving to cutting-edge research and science with the right.

The Global Climate and Energy Project at Stanford University conducts fundamental research on efficient and clean energy technologies – with Exxon as a founding sponsor. Philanthropist and political donor David Koch gave an unprecedented US$35 million to the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in 2015, after which three dozen scientists called on the museum to cut ties with him for funding lobbying groups that “misrepresent” climate science. Shell underwrote the London Science Museum’s “Atmosphere” program and then used its leverage to muddy the waters on what scientists know about climate…….

After two decades in the trenches of climate science, I’m no longer the ingenue I was. I’m all too aware, now, of those who dismiss climate science as a “liberal hoax.” Every day, they attack me on Facebook, vilify me on Twitter and even send the occasional hand-typed letter – which begs appreciation of the artistry, if not the contents. So now, if Exxon came calling, what would I do?……

Despite the fact that there’s no easy answer, it’s a question that’s being posed to more and more of us every day, and we cannot straddle the fence any longer. As academics and scientists, we have some tough choices to make; and only by recognizing the broader implications of these choices are we able to make these decisions with our eyes wide open, rather than half shut. https://theconversation.com/i-was-an-exxon-funded-climate-scientist-49855

August 26, 2017 Posted by | climate change, Religion and ethics, USA | Leave a comment

No free speech in Trump’s America when it comes to climate research

The Trump Administration Censors Climate Change Research as Hurricane Harvey Barrels Down on Texas http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a57202/climate-change-censor-scientist/ This is nothing new, but it’s still a disgrace. BY JACK HOLMES, AUG 25, 2017

Free speech for me but not for thee” seems to be a core principle of the Trump administration.

The president defended a group of white supremacists, neo-Nazis, Ku Klux Klan members, and the “very fine people” who march with them earlier this month, partly on the grounds that they had secured a permit and thus had a First Amendment right to assemble. But when it comes to scientists publishing their findings on issues that Republicans and the fossil fuel interests that pay their campaign bills find inconvenient, this administration suddenly takes a very dim view of free expression. The latest example comes via a scientist at Northeastern University, who received an intriguing email from a federal bureaucrat Thursday afternoon:[on original]

As another scientist who shared Bowen’s post on Twitter put it, this is a textbook case of censorship. Political operatives in the administration are attempting to police the work of nonpartisan academics to remove any references to “climate change” or “global warming.” Because if you never say the words, the things they describe will never appear. Like Beetlejuice.

These aren’t exactly uncharted waters for the Trump administration. Earlier this month, it emerged that staffers at the U.S. Department of Agriculture were instructed to censor the terms “climate change,” “reduce greenhouse gasses,” “sequester carbon,” and “climate change adaptation” in their work. In March, Politico reported the Department of Energy’s international climate office had instructed staff not to use “climate change,” “emissions reduction,” or “Paris Agreement” in “memos, briefings, or other written communication.”

And of course, the contemptible Scott Pruitt—the man tasked with destroying the Environmental Protection Agency from the inside—has enacted a policy of secrecy at that agency that wouldn’t be out of place at the CIA. The problem is so bad that scientists from 13 federal agencies preemptively leaked a terrifying report on the realities of man-made climate change, explicitly stating that they were concerned it would be censored by the administration.

This all fits the mold for Republicans in general. After all, Vice President Dick Cheney and his operatives did plenty of meddling in climate research during the Bush administration. And the administration of Governor Rick Scott in Florida—a state in which the biggest city is already flooding at high tide—has long banned the use of certain terms, including “climate change.” Because again, if you don’t say the words, the problem doesn’t exist. It’s like playing hide and seek with a toddler. Just put your palms over your eyes and stand there while the water rises around your ankles.

August 26, 2017 Posted by | civil liberties, climate change, secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA | Leave a comment

The Trump Southeastern States will cop the hardest costs of climate change

New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
In the USA, the southeastern states are most vulnerable to the costly impacts from human-caused climate change, Guardian, John Abraham 24 Aug 17,  “….. The costs are not uniformly distributed. Some regions will suffer more and other regions will suffer less. In fact, some regions will actually benefit in a warming climate. We understand that the world is interconnected and costs will inevitably be shared to some extent. But it is clear we won’t all suffer the same.

It is also clear that the natural biosystems won’t suffer the same. Some areas are more susceptible to climate change, others less so. Coastal areas and tropical areas are great examples. We know that sea level rise and ocean acidification will impact coastal regions much more than where I live (Minnesota, USA). But tropical zones that experience a very small climate variation throughout the year (there is no winter, for instance, in the tropics) have biosystems that have evolved to survive in very tight climate ranges. The plants and animals just are not used to systematic changes to the climate.

In my opinion, the most interesting research deals with answering just these questions.

Fortunately, a really important paper just came out in Science titled Estimating Economic Damage from Climate Change in the United States. Granted, this paper focused on the United States, but the analysis method and lessons can be applied elsewhere.

So what did they find? First, even in a single country like the United States, the losses will be very uneven. In general, the more southern states will suffer most.  In the figure below, counties are colored by economic consequences from climate change under a business as usual scenario. The time period associated with the image is 2080–2099. Yellow, orange and red colors correspond to climate costs. Green colors are areas where climate change benefits will be seen…..

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/aug/24/new-study-finds-that-climate-change-costs-will-hit-trump-country-hardest

August 25, 2017 Posted by | climate change, USA | Leave a comment

Exxon Mobil misrepresented climate change to deliberately mislead the public

Exxon accused by Harvard researchers of misleading public on climate change, ABC News 24 Aug 17 Two Harvard University researchers say they have collected data proving Exxon Mobil Corp made “explicit factual misrepresentations” in newspaper ads it purchased to convey its views on the oil industry and climate science.

In an article in the journal Environmental Research Letters, researchers Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes said they examined 187 documents, including internal memos, peer-reviewed papers by Exxon scientists and “advertorials” that ran in The New York Times — paid advertisements in the style of opinion pieces.

The researchers said they used a social science analysis method to turn statements in the documents into data points that could be counted and compared to each other.

Exxon ‘consistently asserted doubt’ on climate change

Mr Supran and Ms Oreskes said as early as 1979, Exxon scientists acknowledged burning fossil fuels was adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and causing global temperatures to rise, but they said the company’s position in newspaper ads remained significantly different by consistently asserting doubt about climate science.

The study was funded by the Rockefeller family philanthropies, which previously supported a campaign to prove Exxon knew more than it publicly admitted about climate change.

That campaign used the slogan #ExxonKnew…..

Ms Oreskes said the Rockefeller family funding did not affect the study’s outcome.

She said the impetus for the study came from Exxon’s responses to reports in InsideClimate News and The Los Angeles Times in September 2015 and October 2015, respectively, that Exxon’s scientists had long known of the dangers fossil fuels posed to the earth’s climate…..http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-24/exxon-climate-change-misled-public-harvard-researchers-say/8837894

August 25, 2017 Posted by | climate change, secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA | Leave a comment

For the first time, the nuclear lobby states the essential role of ‘peaceful’ nuclear energy in nuclear weapons making

American experts say that US nuclear might depends crucially on the
civilian use of atomic energy, and believe the country will lose its place
as the world’s nuclear superpower if it does not support its nuclear
industry. The link between the civil nuclear industry and the military’s
ability to maintain its nuclear weapons capability is spelt out in a report
by experts close to the Pentagon.

It states openly that tritium, an essential component of nuclear weapons, is manufactured in civilian
reactors for military use. It also says that civilian reactors are needed
to produce highly enriched uranium.

The Washington-based Energy Futures Initiative report, says that Russia and China, which are both building
civil nuclear stations outside their national borders, will overtake
America both in influence and ability to deliver a nuclear threat unless
steps are taken to prop up the civil nuclear programme at home.

This is the first time that the dependence of nuclear weapons states on their civil
nuclear programmes has been so clearly spelt out.

Governments, particularly the United Kingdom’s, have repeatedly claimed there is no connection
between the civil and military nuclear industries, but this report makes
clear that is not the case. “With renewable costs tumbling and the
international nuclear industry in growing crisis, it is becoming ever more
difficult to carry on concealing this key underlying military reason for
attachment to civil nuclear power”  http://climatenewsnetwork.net/us-nuclear-might-rests-on-civil-reactors/

August 25, 2017 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Lockheed, Raytheon winning companies to start USA’s $1.46 trillion missile spend-up

Lockheed, Raytheon Win Contracts for New Nuclear Cruise Missile, Bloomberg, By Anthony Capaccio, August 24, 2017 

  • Boeing left out in contest for successor to its weapon
  • Long-Range Standoff Missile seen valued at $10 billion

Lockheed Martin Corp. and Raytheon Co. were picked by the U.S. Air Force to begin development of a new nuclear cruise missile for long-range bombers, while Boeing Co. was shut out of the effort to replace its aging weapon that’s in use today.

The initial contracts of about $900 million each are for a 54-month phase to refine designs and prove out technologies for the Long-Range Standoff missile, Captain Emily Grabowski, an Air Force spokeswoman, said in a statement Wednesday.

After that, the Air Force will pick one of the contractors for full production of as many as 1,000 missiles — not all of them topped by nuclear warheads — in an acquisition phase the service values at about $10 billion……

With this week’s awards, the outlines of the Pentagon’s long-range nuclear modernization program are emerging. The Defense Department published in May the first official cost report for the 12-vessel Columbia-class nuclear-missile submarines, estimated as a $127 billion acquisition program.

The Congressional Budget Office is working on its first 30-year look at the cost to develop, acquire and sustain a new nuclear arsenal. While lawmakers and analysts have estimated it’s a $1 trillion program, the Arms Control Association last week projected the potential cost through 2047 at as much as $1.46 trillion.

— With assistance by Nafeesa Syeed  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-23/lockheed-raytheon-win-contracts-for-new-nuclear-cruise-missile

August 25, 2017 Posted by | business and costs, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The danger of NASA testing bomb-grade materials for its Mars mission

Why is NASA testing bomb-grade materials for its Mars mission? , Alan J. Kuperman, Edwin Lyman, Baltimore Sun, 24 Aug 17    A new space race is afoot. President Donald Trump and CEOs Elon Musk (Tesla) and Jeff Bezos (Amazon) are all advocating manned missions to Mars, a tantalizing objective. However, in humankind’s drive to explore strange new worlds, we must be careful not to endanger life here on Earth.

Regrettably, to power its Mars mission, NASA’s Goddard Space Center is trying to develop a nuclear reactor fueled by weapons-grade, highly enriched uranium — the stuff of the Hiroshima bomb — threatening to undermine decades of progress in phasing out such dangerous material from reactors worldwide to reduce risks of nuclear terrorism and proliferation.

Instead of violating U.S.-led nonproliferation norms, NASA should embrace an ongoing alternative reactor design that uses fuel made with low-enriched uranium, unsuitable for nuclear weapons.

If terrorists got hold of a sufficient quantity of highly enriched uranium, they could set off an actual nuclear explosion simply by slamming two pieces of the material together. This was the principle behind the Hiroshima bomb that killed tens of thousands in 1945. The resulting devastation from blast effects, fire and high radiation would dwarf that from an improvised “dirty bomb,” which disperses relatively tiny amounts of radioactive material.

In the 1960s, the United States foolishly exported large quantities of weapons-grade uranium for civilian applications, opening huge security risks. Belatedly recognizing this error, Washington launched a global effort in the 1970s to phase out use of such bomb-grade fuel, eventually eliminating hundreds of pounds annually from research reactors and medical isotope production. More recently, Congress has even started funding the U.S. Navy to explore converting its own nuclear reactors in aircraft carriers and submarines to safer low-enriched uranium fuel.

But NASA inexplicably is headed in the opposite direction, proposing to renew use of bomb-grade uranium in U.S. space reactors for the first time since 1965. Each of NASA’s proposed “Kilopower” reactors would use at least 65 pounds of highly enriched uranium, more than sufficient for a nuclear weapon. Indeed, the U.S. government requires maximum security for even a fraction of that amount — a mere 11 pounds.

NASA plans to start testing its bomb-grade uranium space reactor next month at a former nuclear weapons testing site in Nevada. Other countries and private interests could well respond by pursuing their own highly enriched uranium space reactors, increasing both proliferation and terrorism risks.

The U.S. government needs to practice what it preaches. No competitor would forego bomb-grade uranium if NASA charges ahead with use of this dangerous material. Now is the moment to make clear that the global norm against highly enriched uranium in reactors applies to space missions too.

A space reactor could instead use low-enriched uranium fuel, unsuitable for bombs, just like state-of-the-art nuclear research reactors on Earth……

Admittedly, it would take some time to perfect a new space reactor using low-enriched uranium. Fortunately, there is no great rush. Just last month, NASA’s chief of human spaceflight, William Gerstenmaier, acknowledged that the space agency’s budget lacks funding for a manned mission to Mars, estimated to cost $100 billion to $1 trillion over a quarter-century. Even the wealthiest private companies are unlikely to pony up such resources in the near future…..http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-op-0821-nasa-uranium-20170815-story.html

August 25, 2017 Posted by | safety, technology, USA | 2 Comments

Donald Trump spouted nonsense about “clean coal” , at rally in Phoenix

Trump thinks clean coal is when workers mine coal and actually ‘clean it’ http://reneweconomy.com.au/trump-thinks-clean-coal-workers-mine-coal-actually-clean-36755/ By Joe Romm on 24 August 2017 ThinkProgress

How off the rails was President Donald Trump’s rally speech in Phoenix Tuesday night? He spouted utter nonsense on clean coal, and it didn’t even make CNN’s story, “Donald Trump’s 57 most outrageous quotes from his Arizona speech.”

Trump appears to believe that clean coal — which, it must always be pointed out, doesn’t actually exist — is when workers mine coal and then physically “clean it.” That does not happen, but facts have never stopped Trump.

“We’ve ended the war on beautiful, clean coal, and it’s just been announced that a second, brand-new coal mine,” said Trump, “where they’re going to take out clean coal — meaning, they’re taking out coal. They’re going to clean it — is opening in the state of Pennsylvania, the second one.” nia, the second one.”

 There are many misstatements or outright lies in those brief lines. First and foremost, “clean coal” is a fantasy. You can’t “clean it.” In terms of carbon pollution, coal is the dirtiest of fossil fuels, so you couldn’t clean coal unless you could remove or capture all the carbon and bury it.

The phrase “clean coal” refers to expensive and mostly non-commercial technologies that reduce pollution and capture carbon dioxide when coal is burned.

Even Robert Murray, CEO of the country’s largest privately held coal-mining company, doesn’t believe in that. “Carbon capture and sequestration does not work,” he said last month. “It is neither practical nor economic.”

Second, there never was a “war on coal.” Indeed, as we reported last month, a leaked draft of the Department of Energy’s electric grid study concluded that factors like environmental regulations and renewable energy subsidies “played minor roles” in the shutdown of big coal plants.

Instead, coal has simply become uneconomic. “[Coal] plants that have retired are old and inefficient units that were not recovering their operations and fuel costs, much less capital cost recovery,” the draft report says.

Finally, Trump’s “second, brand-new coal mine” in Pennsylvania is actually a renovation and reopening project for a metallurgical coal mine.

The increase in the metallurgical coal market is largely being driven by China’s steel industry, not by any policies from Trump, as the Washington Post fact checker explained in June. The mine project will create, at most, dozens of jobs.

The Post gave Trump three Pinocchio’s for lying about the first coal plant back in June. These new statements deserves a lot more.

August 25, 2017 Posted by | climate change, politics, USA | Leave a comment

America’s National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences has deleted references to climate change from its site.

Another Government Agency Has Purged References to Climate Change From Its Site http://gizmodo.com/another-government-agency-has-purged-references-to-clim-1798397016?IR=T Sidney Fussell 24 Aug 17, Data-tracking watchdog group, Environmental Data & Governance Initiative (EDGI), has reported dozens of instances where the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences has deleted references to climate change from its site.

 As the name suggests, the NIEHS’ site links to research summariesdetailing how the environment affects personal health. Since it began tracking changes to the site in April, the EDGI report found that the NIEHS has deleted dozens of references to climate change or edited them to simply say “climate.”

Obviously, “climate” is not the same as human-driven climate change. But eliding that difference casts climate change as something abstract or distant. It’s not. It’s real, it’s tangible and its effects have an enormous impact on people’s health. Unfortunately, the NIEHS is failing in its mission to inform people of this. Among the removals is a fact sheet, “Climate Change and Human Health” that lists the immediate health impacts of climate change. Though still hosted on the site, the links have been removed and its no longer listed on the NIEHS’ Brochures and Fact Sheet page.

The fact sheet regionalizes weather effects like extreme heat, flooding and poor air quality and connects them to climate change, summarizing how climate change has an outsized impact on specific vulnerable populations—the elderly, pregnant women, low income and indigenous groups. These groups are both the most vulnerable to the effects of climate and are the clear targets of campaigns meant to mislead on the dangers of climate change.

  The latests revisions in the NIEHS only compound with similar deletions on the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency websites. They’re falling in line with the Trump administration’s stance on climate change: deflection (senior officials admitting they “haven’t asked” if the President believes in climate change,) and casting the consensus as a “both sides” debate. Further, it works against the newer, soft rebranding of climate denial employed by EPA head Scott Pruitt—this pernicious idea that the science of climate change is unsettled and no cause for alarm.

But if climate change doesn’t pose a threat, then why are they so afraid of it?

August 25, 2017 Posted by | civil liberties, climate change, USA | Leave a comment

The State, South Carolina, names the people who brought on the nuclear power fiasco

These are the people who brought us the SCE&G/Santee Cooper nuclear debacle http://www.thestate.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/cindi-ross-scoppe/article168891607.html, CINDI ROSS SCOPPE, Associate Editor, AUGUST 24, 2017 COLUMBIA, SC 

You want names? We’ve got names.

Names of the SC Public Service Commissioners, who have been acting on SCE&G’s rate requests and will decide how much more the utility can charge us for its unfinished nuclear reactors at the VC Summer nuclear facility.

Names of the commissioners who gave SCANA the initial go-ahead to start the project, back in 2008.

Names of SCANA’s management and board members.

Names of Santee Cooper’s management and board members.

 And a link to the names of legislators who approved the law that made it oh, so much easier for us to be charged already — and left holding the bag — for the failed project.

Public Service Commission

The links take you to contact and biographical information about them on the PSC website.

John E. “Butch” Howard, District 1*

Elliott F. Elam, Jr., District 2

Comer H. “Randy” Randall, Vice Chairman, District 3

Elizabeth B. “Lib” Fleming, District 4*

Swain E. Whitfield, Chairman District 5

Nikiya “Nikki” Hall, District 6

G. O’Neal Hamilton, District 7*

* Was serving on the commission in 2008, when the project was given its crucial, initial approval

PSC members in 2008, when the project was given initial approval

John E. “Butch” Howard, District 1, Charleston

David A. Wright, District 2, Columbia

Randy Mitchell, District 3, Saluda

Elizabeth B. “Lib” Fleming, District 4, Spartanburg

G. O’Neal Hamilton, chairman, District 5, Bennettsville

Mignon L. Clyburn, District 6, Charleston

C. Robert Moseley, vice chairman, at large, Irmo

SCANA Corp (parent of SCE&G)

Kevin Marsh, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Names and information about other corporate officers

Board of Directors

Gregory E. Aliff, Certified Public Accountant, Retired from Deloitte & Touche LLP, Reston, VA

James A. Bennett, South Carolina Central Area Executive, First Citizens Bank & Trust Company, Columbia, SC

John F.A.V. Cecil, President, Biltmore Farms, Asheville, NC

Sharon A. Decker, Chief Operating Officer, Tryon International Equestrian Center, Mill Spring, NC

D. Maybank Hagood, Chairman & CEO, Southern Diversified Distributors, Charleston, SC

Kevin B. Marsh, President & CEO, SCANA Corporation, Cayce, SC

Lynne M. Miller, Environmental Consultant, Great Falls, VA

James W. Roquemore, CEO and Chairman, Patten Seed Company, Orangeburg, SC

Alfredo Trujillo, President & COO, Georgia Tech Foundation, Atlanta, GA

Maceo K. Sloan, Chairman, President & CEO, Sloan Financial Group, Chairman & CEO, NCM Capital Management Group, Durham, NC

Santee Cooper

Lonnie N. Carter, President and Chief Executive Officer

Santee Cooper contact information

Names of other corporate officers

Board of Directors

W. Leighton Lord III, Chairman, Nexsen Pruet law firm, Columbia

William A. Finn, 1st Vice Chairman, chairman of AstenJohnson, a specialty textile company for the printing and papermaking industries based in Charleston

Barry Wynn, 2nd Vice Chairman, president of Colonial Trust Company, a private trust company specializing in investment management and estate services, Spartanburg

Kristofer Clark, broker with Easlan Capital and owner of Pristine Properties LLC., Easley

Merrell W. Floyd, retired staff coordinator at Horry Electric Cooperative, Conway

J. Calhoun Land IV, Land, Parker & Welch law firm, Manning

Stephen H. Mudge, co-founder, president and CEO of Serrus Capital Partners, a Greenville-based real estate investment firm

Peggy H. Pinnell, owner of the Peggy H. Pinnell Insurance Agency in Moncks Corner, a State Farm agency

Dan J. Ray, president of DR Capital Group, a Pawleys Island-based financial advisory and investment company

David F. Singleton, president of Singleton Properties, a real estate investment and sales firm, Myrtle Beach

Jack F. Wolfe Jr., past president and CEO of the Mid-Carolina Electric Cooperative in Lexington

Office of Regulatory Staff

Dukes Scott, executive director

You might also want to read these other pieces I’ve written

Here’s who voted to give SCE&G a blank check

How ‘waste not, want not’ became ‘spend more, profit more’

SCE&G nuclear fiasco: It’s complicated. Here are some explanations.

SCE&G law could cost you more than you imagine

This is what has to change after the SC nuclear meltdown

Ms. Scoppe writes editorials and columns for The State. Reach her at cscoppe@thestate.com or (803) 771-8571 or follow her on Twitter or like her on Facebook @CindiScoppe.

August 25, 2017 Posted by | business and costs, politics, USA | Leave a comment

U.S. Senator wants report on costs and safety of Los Alamos National Laboratory

Senator seeks answers on LANL’s nuclear safety, By Rebecca Moss | The New Mexican, Aug 23, 2017,

A U.S. senator has asked the National Nuclear Security Administration to report to Congress by Thursday on the costs and safety of Los Alamos National Laboratory’s weapons production program and, in particular, the potential for critical accidents.

In early August, U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., a ranking member of the Senate’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, sent a letter to Frank Klotz, administrator of the NNSA, saying she had serious concerns about poor federal oversight and management of the laboratory and requesting a report.

The inquiry was triggered by a series of investigative reports by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Public Integrity, which were published in The New Mexican and other newspapers earlier this summer. The series highlighted a number of serious incidents at Los Alamos’ plutonium facility, events that could have led to significant radiological releases and worker deaths. Poor management has resulted in unsafe working conditions, injured workers and federal violations at the plutonium facility and other sites, and senior officials rarely were penalized for the problems, the stories said……

Los Alamos was the only nuclear site that failed its annual review for nuclear criticality safety in fiscal year 2016, a program designed to prevent severe nuclear accidents. The lab was graded as “adequate but needs improvement” the previous year, according to a federal report.

In her Aug. 3 letter to Klotz, McCaskill said, “Private firms contracted to operate and maintain these facilities have not been held accountable in a meaningful way for the safety lapses that occurred under their watch.”….

I have previously noted my concerns regarding DOE’s poor oversight and management of its contracts and its inability to properly exercise effective oversight of its budget,” McCaskill said in the letter.

She asked the National Nuclear Security Administration to report on the current state of operations and safety testing at Los Alamos’ plutonium facility, known as PF-4, and whether safety standards have been met. She also asked the agency to provide costs associated with closing the facility, how much of the agency’s budget for fiscal year 2018 will go to improving safety standards, and if any penalties will be imposed on the lab or its management contractors.

“Does NNSA feel it is meeting its duty to prevent dangerous nuclear accident?” she asked.

U.S. Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., said in an email that McCaskill’s letter “raises some very serious and important questions, and I hope the NNSA answers these questions in a timely manner.”…….

Greg Mello, director of the Los Alamos Study Group, a nuclear disarmament-focused nonoprofit, said in a statement that McCaskill’s letter is “only the tip of the iceberg” of problems at Los Alamos.

“Bad management is a feature,” he said. “It is partly why people work at these facilities (LANL in particular) in the first place — low professional standards, high salaries, and lack of accountability.”

Contact Rebecca Moss at 505-986-3011or rmoss@sfnewmexican.com. http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/senator-seeks-answers-on-lanl-s-nuclear-safety/article_2e3901ef-fff5-5086-b270-eeb603c15e07.html

August 25, 2017 Posted by | politics, safety, USA | Leave a comment

The USA- South Korea war games begin on the Korean Peninsula

US-South Korea begin wargames  https://uk.news.yahoo.com/us-south-korea-begin-wargames-051130924.html,  23 Aug 17  The United States and South Korea have kicked off their annual military exercise, known as Ulchi Freedom Guardian.

The wargames use computer simulations to prepare for conflict with nuclear-capable North Korea.

Troops from seven allied nations, including Britain, Canada and Australia, are also taking part.

South Korean President Moon Jae-in denied Pyongyang’s accusation that the drills are a rehearsal for an invasion.

“This year’s Ulchi exercise is to check the defensive postures of our civilians, government and military to secure the lives and safety of our people”, Moon said at a cabinet meeting. “It is an annual exercise of a defensive nature, and there is no intention of heightening military tensions on the Korean Peninsula”.

Peace activists in Seoul protested the decision to go ahead with the drill, concerned it could trigger retaliation by North Korea. Pyongyang last week appeared to back down from a threat to launch a missile strike on the US territory of Guam.

China has also urged Washington to scrap the ten-day-long exercise.

August 23, 2017 Posted by | South Korea, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Head of the U.S. military’s Pacific Command says diplomacy — not military action, is the answer to North Korea crisis

U.S. Pacific Command chief says diplomacy — not military action — key to North Korea crisis, Japan Times 22 Aug 17 , REUTERS, AP OSAN, SOUTH KOREA – The head of the U.S. military’s Pacific Command said on Tuesday it was more important to use diplomacy to counter North Korea’s missile threat rather than consider what actions by the reclusive North might trigger a pre-emptive strike.

Adm. Harry Harris was in South Korea to observe annual joint military drills with the South Korean military, which the North called a step toward nuclear conflict masterminded by the U.S. and South Korean “war maniacs.”

 “So we hope and we work for diplomatic solutions to the challenge presented by Kim Jong Un,” Harris told reporters at a U.S. air base in South Korea about an hour from the capital, Seoul, referring to the North Korean leader.

He said diplomacy was “the most important starting point” in response to the North’s threat, when asked what actions by North Korea might trigger a pre-emptive U.S. strike against Pyongyang……

The United States and South Korean began long-planned joint military exercises on Monday called the Ulchi Freedom Guardian (UFG), which the allies have said were purely defensive and did not aim to increase tension on the Korean Peninsula.

The drills end on Aug. 31 and involve tens of thousands of troops as well as computer simulations designed to prepare for war with a nuclear-capable North Korea.

A North Korean military spokesman repeated the threat of “merciless retaliation” against the United States for readying a preemptive strike and a war of aggression, using the drills as an excuse to mount such an attack.

“The U.S. will be wholly held accountable for the catastrophic consequences to be entailed by such reckless aggressive war maneuvers, as it chose a military confrontation,” the unnamed spokesman said in comments carried by the North’s official KCNA news agency.

The North claims the drills are an invasion rehearsal, senior U.S. military commanders on Tuesday dismissed calls to pause or downsize exercises they called crucial to countering a clear threat from Pyongyang…….https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/08/22/asia-pacific/u-s-pacific-command-chief-says-diplomacy-not-military-action-key-north-korea-crisis/#.WZykbPgjHGg

August 23, 2017 Posted by | North Korea, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »