-
Attacks could pave way to disrupt U.S. electric grid
-
Kansas site is among those trying to eject intruders
-
Hackers working for a foreign government recently breached at least a dozen U.S. power plants, including the Wolf Creek nuclear facility in Kansas, according to current and former U.S. officials, sparking concerns the attackers were searching for vulnerabilities in the electrical grid.
The rivals could be positioning themselves to eventually disrupt the nation’s power supply, warned the officials, who noted that a general alert was distributed to utilities a week ago. Adding to those concerns, hackers recently infiltrated an unidentified company that makes control systems for equipment used in the power industry, an attack that officials believe may be related.
The chief suspect is Russia, according to three people familiar with the continuing effort to eject the hackers from the computer networks. One of those networks belongs to an aging nuclear generating facility known as Wolf Creek — owned by Westar Energy Inc., Great Plains Energy Inc. and Kansas Electric Power Cooperative Inc. — on a lake shore near Burlington, Kansas.
- The possibility of a Russia connection is particularly worrisome, former and current officials say, because Russian hackers have previously taken down parts of the electrical grid in Ukraine and appear to be testing increasingly advanced tools to disrupt power supplies…….
- Several private security firms are studying data on the attacks, but none has linked the work to a particular hacking team or country…….
- Many of the power plants are conventional, but the targeting of a nuclear facility adds to the pressure. While the core of a nuclear generator is heavily protected, a sudden shutdown of the turbine can trigger safety systems. These safety devices are designed to disperse excess heat while the nuclear reaction is halted, but the safety systems themselves may be vulnerable to attack.
Homeland Security and the FBI sent out a general warning about the cyberattack to utilities and related parties on June 28, though it contained few details or the number of plants affected. The government said it was most concerned about the “persistence” of the attacks on choke points of the U.S. power supply. That language suggests hackers are trying to establish backdoors on the plants’ systems for later use, according to a former senior DHS official who asked not to be identified.
Those backdoors can be used to insert software specifically designed to penetrate a facility’s operational controls and disrupt critical systems, according to Galina Antova, co-founder of Claroty, a New York firm that specializes in securing industrial control systems.
“We’re moving to a point where a major attack like this is very, very possible,” Antova said. “Once you’re into the control systems — and you can get into the control systems by hacking into the plant’s regular computer network — then the basic security mechanisms you’d expect are simply not there.”
- The situation is a little different at nuclear facilities. Backup power supplies and other safeguards at nuclear sites are meant to ensure that “you can’t really cause a nuclear plant to melt down just by taking out the secondary systems that are connected to the grid,” Edwin Lyman, a nuclear expert with the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a phone interview.
The operating systems at nuclear plants also tend to be legacy controls built decades ago and don’t have digital control systems that can be exploited by hackers. Wolf Creek, for example, began operations in 1985. “They’re relatively impervious to that kind of attack,” Lyman said….. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-07/russians-are-said-to-be-suspects-in-hacks-involving-nuclear-site
USA States, cities, counties, universities, corporations, businesses, manufacturers, and social and religious organizations have climate action plans to lower emissions
Why America is still on the right path for climate change, By Kalpana Sutaria – American Statesman, 9 Jul 17 “…… States, cities, counties, universities, corporations, businesses, manufacturers, and social and religious organizations have climate action plans to lower emissions. I worked on the city of Austin’s Climate Action Plan and experienced positive environmental impacts. Many leaders around the country have affirmed their conviction to continue with the goals of Paris accord, which included national pledges to reduce emissions.
It may seem difficult to see how we get there when the leaders at the top do not accept that human activities are major contributor to climate change. In the absence of the federal government’s support, cities, states, corporations and manufacturing companies are determined to work towards meeting those temperature targets. Seven states have bills filed on carbon pricing.
Texas has been a leader in producing renewable energy and has its institutions and workforce moving forward with innovative, low-carbon technologies. Texans want that. Some other recent developments in the U.S. are encouraging:
• The Climate Solutions Caucus in the U.S. House is a bipartisan group that will address the impacts, causes and challenges of our changing climate. “The caucus will serve as an organization to educate members on economically viable options to reduce climate risk and protect our nation’s economy, security, infrastructure, agriculture, water supply and public safety,” according to an announcement from the Committee on House Administration. It has 42 members: 21 Republicans and 21 Democrats. They must join in pairs.
•. Climate Leadership Council was formed this year by conservative Republican leaders and others who make a case for carbon dividends and how a new climate strategy can strengthen our economy, reduce regulation, help working-class Americans, shrink government and promote national security.
• More than six in 10 Trump voters support taxing or regulating the pollution that causes global warming, according to national survey of Trump voters done shortly after the election by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. They support variety of clean energy policies.
The Citizens’ Climate Lobby has a proposal of a carbon fee and dividend that is studied and supported by prominent economists. It is a market-based solution that will reflect true cost of carbon to the society, steer the economy away from fossil fuels to clean energy sources, and create millions of jobs while protecting the environment. Market will be a key element in spurring innovations. With the dividend, most low-income and middle-income families would come out ahead.
Every year, thousands of Citizens’ Climate Lobby members gather in Washington, D.C., to meet with representatives in the House and Senate to ask for their support of a carbon fee and dividend. Anyone concerned about global warming should ask their lawmakers to join the Climate Solutions Caucus.
Sutaria is an architect and project manager for the city of Austin.
USA’s Trump administration will be bypassed, as California leads in global talks on climate change
Last month, Brown discussed climate change with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing, an unusual level of engagement between the Chinese head of state and a governor. (Energy Secretary Rick Perry, by contrast, did not meet with Xi in a recent trip to China).
“He wants to make clear that if you can’t look to Washington, you can look to California on progressive environmental policy,” said Ann Carlson, professor of environmental law at UCLA
Gov. Brown unveils plan for global climate summit, further undercutting Trump’s agenda, Melanie Mason, Evan Halper and Patrick McGreevyContact Reporters, 6 Jul 17, In a rebuke to President Trump’s disengagement from worldwide climate change efforts, Gov. Jerry Brown told an international audience Thursday the president “doesn’t speak for the rest of us” and unveiled plans for a global environmental summit in San Francisco next year.
The announcement, at a convening of climate activists in Hamburg, Germany, coinciding with Trump’s arrival there for the G-20 summit of world leaders, signals once more how Brown and other American leaders aim to galvanize continued efforts against climate change, even as the federal government moves in the opposite direction.
“It’s hard to grasp the mortal danger that climate change represents,” Brown said in an interview with The Times. “I believe that California, New York, France and Germany and the other countries — we have to get our act together, strengthen our commitment and bring as many nations along as we can.”
Whether Brown and his American cohorts, including Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcettiand former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, will ultimately be able to take sufficient action to curb global warming is uncertain, but they are already succeeding in undercutting the authority of the White House to set the U.S. agenda on climate. Since Trump quit the Paris accord on climate change, California and a dozen other states have vowed to not only stick with the agreement, but also step up their emission reduction efforts to push the rest of the country along. A coalition of cities committed to the climate action outlined in Paris — led by Garcetti — has swollen from a few dozen members to 331 in the last few weeks.
Brown and other American climate crusaders see the G-20 meeting as a crucial moment. Several world leaders who will attend the summit have already signaled that they will confront Trump on climate issues during its proceedings, and a move is afoot to conclude the meeting with a written reaffirmation of commitment to the Paris guidelines that would ostensibly be signed by every G-20 every nation except the U.S. — underscoring how far out of alignment with the rest of the world Trump is on the issue.
But even before the summit began, unity among the other countries was already starting to fray. While Western European leaders vowed to push the issue, countries such as Russia, Indonesia and Turkey were expressing less bombast. Saudi Arabia — which is still bullish on climate action but is also eager to remain in good diplomatic standing with the U.S. amid its dispute with fellow American ally Qatar — is also hedging.
With his video announcement Thursday to attendees of the Global Citizen Festival in Hamburg, Brown aimed to shore up opposition to Trump’s climate moves and send a signal that the U.S. can maintain a leadership role despite the president.
“It’s up to you and it’s up to me and tens of millions of other people to get it together to roll back the forces of carbonization and join together to combat the existential threat of climate change,” Brown said in his video, appearing in a leafy setting with a blazer and no tie. “Yes, I know President Trump is trying to get out of the Paris agreement, but he doesn’t speak for the rest of America…. We in California and in states all across America believe it’s time to act, it’s time to join together and that’s why at this climate action summit we’re going to get it done.”
Host of next United Nations climate conference turns to California in the global warming battle »
Brown’s message was projected into the arena, and the audience burst out in applause when the governor said Trump doesn’t speak for the rest of the U.S.
Trump was not invited to speak at the festival because his policies don’t align with its goal of supporting global health, climate and gender equality, said a source involved in organizing the festival. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Argentinian President Mauricio Macri and other leaders took the stage to speak about climate change and education to the crowd of 12,000.
The planned 2018 California summit, Brown told The Times, would signify “the biggest state in the union is the venue for a worldwide convocation of states, regions and entrepreneurs and others who want to do something serious about climate change.”……
Last month, Brown discussed climate change with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing, an unusual level of engagement between the Chinese head of state and a governor. (Energy Secretary Rick Perry, by contrast, did not meet with Xi in a recent trip to China).
“He wants to make clear that if you can’t look to Washington, you can look to California on progressive environmental policy,” said Ann Carlson, professor of environmental law at UCLA………http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-jerry-brown-climate-summit-20170706-story.html
New survey on American attitudes to climate change: majority agree on human caused changes
New Survey Shows Majority Of Americans Believe Climate Change Is Real And Caused By Human Activity https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/07/06/new-survey-shows-majority-americans-believe-climate-change-real-and-caused-human-activity?utm_source=dsb%20newsletter By Farron Cousins • Thursday, July 6, 2017 The current leadership in the United States — the U.S. House of Representatives, the Senate, and the White House — have a hostile relationship with climate change science. Not only has current President Donald Trump suggested that the entire concept is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese, but the Legislative Branch of government is populated with a majority of representatives who do not accept the scientific consensus regarding climate change. Not only are these views dangerous for the future of the planet, but a new poll shows that these views are entirely out of sync with a majority of the U.S. population.
According to a new report by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, a majority of people in the United States believe that climate change is real and that it is mostly the result of human activities. The survey shows that 58% of the public now accepts that climate change is mostly caused by human activity, which is the highest level ever recorded of public acceptance of the human role in climate change since Yale began conducting these studies in 2008.
Here are a few key findings from the new report:
Over half of Americans (58%) understand that global warming is mostly human caused, the highest level since our surveys began in November 2008. By contrast, three in ten (30%) say it is due mostly to natural changes in the environment – the lowest level recorded since 2008.
Only about one in eight Americans (13%) understand that nearly all climate scientists (more than 90%) are convinced that human-caused global warming is happening.
Over half of Americans (57%) say they are at least “somewhat worried” about global warming. About one in six (17%) are “very worried” about it.
About one in three Americans (35%) think people in the U.S. are being harmed by global warming “right now.”
By a large margin, Americans say that schools should teach children about the causes, consequences, and potential solutions to global warming (78% agree vs. 21% who disagree).
One particularly intriguing finding from the Yale report is that the majority believe that the threats of climate change are things that will either happen in the distant future, or that they will not happen to the individuals polled or their families:
Most Americans think global warming is a relatively distant threat – they are most likely to think that it will harm future generations of people (71%), plant and animal species (71%), the Earth (70%), people in developing countries (62%), or the world’s poor (62%). They are less likely to think it will harm people in the U.S. (58%), their own grandchildren (56%) or children (50%), people in their community (48%), their family (47%), themselves (43%), or members of their extended family living outside the U.S. (41%).
The fact that most Americans either believe the threat is something that will happen in the distant future or that it won’t happen to them is one possible reason so many people are willing to vote for politicians who either outright deny the existence of climate change or who refuse to act on the issue. Currently, a majority of members of both the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate fall into one of those categories, with 53 out of 100 U.S. Senators counted as climate change deniers and 232 out of 435 House members listed as deniers.
But the truth is that climate change is not a far-off threat for Americans. Rising sea levels are already threatening drinking water in South Florida, as salt water is seeping into aquifers. Elsewhere, rising temperatures, rising sea levels, changes in precipitation patterns, and extreme weather events that have been linked to climate change are wreaking havoc. So one of the main focuses of climate science advocates needs to be educating people about the timeline so they stop viewing climate change as a problem that can be put on the back burner. It is happening right now.
Nevertheless, the fact that a majority of U.S. citizens understand the realities of climate change while our elected leaders refuse to accept the science indicates that they have become too far removed from the values, desires, and concerns of their constituents. That’s likely due in part to the massive amounts of money that fossil fuel companies spend on lobbying and direct campaign contributions which totaled $120+ million and $103 million in 2016, respectively.
Trump-Moon summit – the focus was on trade differences, not North Korea
A Summit Without Fireworks Over North Korea, 38 North, BY: LEON V. SIGAL 6 JULY 17 Observers who expected fireworks at the first Trump-Moon summit meeting had to wait for the Fourth of July when North Korea test-launched what it said was an ICBM. Smiles rather than tweets marked the mood of the summit with both leaders determined to put on a public show of alliance solidarity and personal rapport. That display will now be put to the test in the aftermath of the North’s missile test.
The sharp differences at the summit came over trade, not North Korea, as US President Donald Trump made clear his intent to revise the Korea-US Free Trade Agreement, focusing on automobiles and steel.[1] That demand could face resistance in South Korea…….
As the summit communique stated: “Noting that sanctions are a tool of diplomacy, the two leaders emphasized that the door to dialogue with North Korea remains open under the right circumstances.” The communique endorsed Seoul’s re-engagement with Pyongyang, as well, explaining: “President Trump supported President Moon’s aspiration to restart inter-Korean dialogue on issues including humanitarian affairs.”[3]
As the summit communique stated: “Noting that sanctions are a tool of diplomacy, the two leaders emphasized that the door to dialogue with North Korea remains open under the right circumstances.” The communique endorsed Seoul’s re-engagement with Pyongyang, as well, explaining: “President Trump supported President Moon’s aspiration to restart inter-Korean dialogue on issues including humanitarian affairs.”[3]
En route to Washington, President Moon spoke with reporters about a two-phased nuclear negotiating process, starting with a freeze on its nuclear programs. ……..
Furthermore, Moon did not back away from the need for a peace process in Korea. “With the nuclear dismantlement, a peace system will be established on the peninsula,” he stated.[7]And he made clear that economic engagement with the North would resume at the Kaesong Industrial Complex and Mount Kumgang with the onset of a nuclear freeze.
Sustaining Washington’s secret talks with Pyongyang will be critical to relations with both Koreas. ……..
the latest test-launch underscores how tougher sanctions by Washington and Seoul provoke Pyongyang to step up arming unless nuclear diplomacy is resumed and the North’s security concerns are addressed.
It’s time to stop acting as if the United States and South Korea have to talk to each other and not North Korea. http://www.38north.org/2017/07/lsigal070617/
Nuclear facilities targeted by hackers – say USA Homeland Security Dept. and F.B.I.
Hackers Are Targeting Nuclear Facilities, Homeland Security Dept. and F.B.I. Say, NYT, JULY 6, 2017, Since May, hackers have been penetrating the computer networks of companies that operate nuclear power stations and other energy facilities, as well as manufacturing plants in the United States and other countries.
USA President just as irresponsible with nuclear weapons as North Korean dictator is
Don’t assume Trump is more responsible with nuclear weapons than North Korea, Guardian, Anna Weichselbraun, 6 Jul 17 It’s never been safe to rely on assurances of nuclear deterrence from ‘responsible’ nuclear powers. The US elections are a reminder of that
Anna Weichselbraun is a nuclear security postdoctoral fellow at Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperation
Who can be trusted with nuclear weapons? Received wisdom has it that only the leaders of the world’s established nuclear weapons states are responsible guardians of their nations’ nuclear arsenals. At the same time, only the belligerent leaders from developing countries with nuclear aspirations present a security threat.
But as the current historical context shows, the belief that the president of the United States is somehow more responsible than the North Korean dictator is ill founded.
Advocates for a treaty to ban nuclear weapons currently being negotiated at the United Nations argue that nuclear weapons are not safe in anybody’s hands. The aim of the prohibition treaty is to delegitimize nuclear weapons by creating a new international norm that recognizes these weapons as a planetary threat.
The eight states who are known to possess nuclear weapons – China, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia, the US and the UK – are boycotting these negotiations because they don’t want their status quo disturbed.
As my own research shows, the US and its allies have long sought to make nuclear weapons normal, even boring, placing international oversight of nuclear technology in the hands of anonymous bureaucrats at the International Atomic Energy Agency and constraining the spread of nuclear weapons via the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
This treaty legitimizes the status of five states – which also happen to be the permanent members of the UN Security Council – as nuclear armed, and commits other signatories to permanently forgo the development of nuclear weapons.
This treaty’s structure has come to imply that five nuclear weapons states can be “trusted” to refrain from launching nuclear attacks. The normalization of five nuclear weapons states as legitimate is based on the tacit premise that all other states are untrustworthy, and that nuclear weapons should especially be prevented from falling into the hands of “rogue” states: those considered to be unstable, undemocratic, and hostile to the prevailing geopolitical order.
Generations of US leaders have claimed that our nuclear weapons need not be feared because our system of government and our military command and control system ensure rationality in their employment.
Mere weeks after the first atomic bombs were detonated over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Truman called US guardianship over this terrible new weapon a “sacred trust”. This premise was already questionable even before the latest crisis on the Korean peninsula. ……
now that the recent US election has brought to power a president that exhibits irrational and authoritarian tendencies, the time is ripe for those committed to reducing the nuclear danger to get serious about disarmament….. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/06/trump-nuclear-weapons-north-korea
USA and Russia are not keeping to privisions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
The original treaty [Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) ]is quite clear. Article VI reads as follows (emphasis mine):
“Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”
The “nuclear club” countries, however, have lately reneged on their end of the “let’s move toward disarmament” plan. The most recent news in the U.S., of course, is that both of our major political partieshave supported a massive, trillion-dollar “modernization” program that would significantly enhance rather than reduce existing stockpiles……..
North Korea Isn’t the Only Rogue Nuclear State Nuclear weapons are about to be made illegal worldwide, but good luck hearing about it at home, Rolling Stone, By Matt Taibbi, 6 July 17, As if the last few years weren’t bad enough, we now have a real nuclear crisis.
North Korea’s loony regime of Kim Jong-un conducted a successful missile launch test – landing about 60 miles south of the Russian city of Vladivostok, according to some reports – marking a frightening nuclear escalation that has heightened tensions across the planet.
That this first serious confrontation in ages is happening now is ironic, given that a little-reported showdown about the use of nuclear power will soon take place in the U.N.
A draft of a U.N. treaty to ban all nuclear weapons is about to be voted on. It has the support of 132 nations and is very likely to pass, at which point the United States will soon once again be in technical violation of a major international agreement, as it long has been with regard to the International Treaty banning land mines.
While practically the ban may not accomplish much, it matters a little when we violate treaties, at least intellectually speaking. North Korea’s violation of similar international agreements is at the crux of the international consensus against allowing the country to have a nuclear program in the first place.
This is what Steve Snyder, the senior fellow on U.S.-North Korea relations for the Council of Foreign Relations, wrote last year about why North Korea must never be allowed to have nukes:
“The United States cannot accept North Korea as a nuclear weapons state for normative reasons; North Korea had signed onto the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a non-nuclear state and then abandoned the treaty in order to pursue nuclear capabilities. Tolerating North Korea’s nuclear status would be equivalent to setting a precedent for other NPT signatories to violate the treaty.”
The problem with this argument is that from the point of view of many non-nuclear countries, the United States itself, along with other nuclear club countries (particularly Russia), has been in continuing violation of the original nuclear non-proliferation treaty, as drafted in 1968.
The treaty has been mostly very successful. Since 1970, when it went into effect, only four more countries – Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea – are known to have developed nuclear weapons, and only one, North Korea, was at any time a signatory.
Israel, India and Pakistan were three of just four U.N. member states to originally refuse to sign the treaty. North Korea, meanwhile, pulled out of the treaty in 2003, almost exactly a year after it was put in the crosshairs by George W. Bush in the infamous “Axis of Evil” speech. It had long been suspected of pursuing a secret development program.
One of the reasons the NPT was long seen as successful is that over the decades, it did inspire the main actors – particularly the United States and Russia – to move toward disarmament. Through a variety of programs, nuclear stockpiles have been drastically diminished, down to about 14,900 warheads worldwide, or two-thirds less than their high point in the mid-Eighties.
Russia and the United States didn’t just reduce their stockpiles out of goodwill. They did so in part because moving toward global disarmament was a major component of the original bargain of the non-proliferation treaty.
The original treaty is quite clear. Article VI reads as follows (emphasis mine):
“Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”
The “nuclear club” countries, however, have lately reneged on their end of the “let’s move toward disarmament” plan. The most recent news in the U.S., of course, is that both of our major political partieshave supported a massive, trillion-dollar “modernization” program that would significantly enhance rather than reduce existing stockpiles……..
A lack of dialogue on the nuclear front between Russia and America is an extremely negative development, given that our two countries have nearly blown up the planet by accident multiple times, in underreported incidents.
The most serious of these was probably 1983, when a Soviet satellite mistakenly detected the launch of five American minuteman missiles headed toward Russia. Only the high-stress judgment of a 44-year-old Soviet lieutenant colonel named Stanislav Petrov prevented a massive counter-launch and the probable deaths of millions.
“I had a funny feeling in my gut,” Petrov said years later, explaining his determination that the signal was faulty. “When people go to war, they don’t do it with five missiles.”…….
Nut-jobs like Kim Jong-un, and Trump for that matter, are the exact reason why 132 countries are right, and the only truly safe number of nuclear weapons is zero. Surely only dumber leaders await us in the future, and we should do our best to leave them with as small an arsenal as possible. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-north-korea-isnt-the-only-rogue-nuclear-state-w491060
Radioactive pollution “flowing freely” into the Columbia River, from the decommissioned Hanford nuclear facility
Groundwater contaminated with radioactive waste from the decommissioned Hanford nuclear facility in Washington 
state is still “flowing freely” into the Columbia River, a program manager with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said at a meeting of the Hanford Advisory Board.
Radioactive Waste Still Flooding Columbia River, EPA Says, By Karina Brown, Global Research, July 04, 2017 Courthouse News Service 8 June 2017 KENNEWICK, Wash. (CN) –
The announcement came as part of a five-year review of cleanup measures taken at the Superfund site. Officials with the EPA and the Department of Energy said at a meeting Wednesday that the review showed most of the cleanup actions at Hanford were properly “protective,” meaning the public was shielded from the worst of the site’s estimated 500 million gallons of potentially radioactive waste.
Radioactive sludge in shuttered reactors, contaminated soil in landfill sites and equipment that was once used to refine the uranium that fueled the nuclear bomb dropped on Nagasaki were all properly contained, according to the report.
But there was a glaring exception: groundwater contaminated with hexavalent chromium and strontium-90 was still flowing into the nearby Columbia River, according to a presentation from Mike Cline, director of the Department of Energy’s Soil & Groundwater Division.
“Contaminated in-area groundwater is still flowing freely into the Columbia,” EPA Project Manager Dennis Faulk told members of the board. ……..http://www.globalresearch.ca/radioactive-waste-still-flooding-columbia-river-epa-says/5597591
Suspicion falls on Russia, in the hacking of USA nuclear sites
Russians Are Said to Be Suspects in Nuclear Site Hackings, Bloomberg, By Michael Riley, Jennifer A Dlouhy, and Bryan Gruley 6 July 2017Nevada ready for the legal battle against Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump plan
Nevada poised to fight Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump https://lasvegassun.com/news/2017/jul/05/nevada-poised-to-fight-yucca-mountain-nuclear-wast/, By Cy Ryan (contact), July 5, 2017 | CARSON CITY — Nevada is poised to thwart a federally proposed high-level nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, but there could be battles ahead in Congress, a lawyer leading the fight said.
“We are in good shape,” said Marta Adams, a private attorney hired to fight the legal battle, told the state Board of Examiners today. Experts were ready to testify at any hearings by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission, she said.
Adams fought against the Yucca Mountain project for 20 years with the Nevada Attorney General’s Office before she retired. She received a $300,000 contract as a private attorney to continue the battle, and that amount was raised to $450,000 a year by the Board of Examiners. This is federal money.
President Donald Trump’s administration has included $120 million in its budget for the Federal Regulatory Commission to restart hearings on licensing Yucca Mountain.
Gov. Brian Sandoval, chairman of the Board of Examiners, said the federal government was trying to do “an end run” around the authority of the state. He said the site sits atop an aquifer, and the stored radioactive material could get into the water.
Adams said the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is not as ready as it thinks it is to begin the licensing process, with hearings that could last five years. She said the Nevada Legislature stands behind the state’s opposition.
Hanford nuclear station has a widlfire, now 85 percent contained
Wildfire partly on Hanford nuclear site is 85 percent contained http://komonews.com/news/local/wildfire-partly-on-hanford-nuclear-site-is-85-percent-contained by Associated Press, 6 July 17RICHLAND, Wash. (AP) – A wildfire burning in part on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation is 85 percent contained and does not threaten any of the site’s nuclear facilities.
The grass and brush fire covers about 35.9 square miles in Yakima and Benton counties.
There are no evacuations or closures related to the fire, which started last Sunday.
Fire officials say a drone aircraft flew over the fire area on Tuesday, temporarily grounding aircraft assigned to fighting the fire.
Donald Trump has few real options in dealing with North Korea
For Trump, Threats but Few Options in Confronting North Korea, NYT, JULY 4, 2017 When then-President-elect Trump said on Twitter in early January that a North Korean test of an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the United States “won’t happen!” there were two things that he still did not fully appreciate: how close Kim Jong-un, the North’s leader, was to reaching that goal, and how limited any president’s options were to stop him.
If you live in USA, you could well be uncomfortably close to a nuclear bomb
How Close Do You Live to a Nuclear Bomb?
How Close Do You Live To A Nuclear Weapons Facility? http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-close-do-you-live-to-a-nuclear-weapons-facility-1796554219 Terrell Jermaine Star You’re probably thinking about BBQ and hanging out at the beach instead of the nuclear apocalypse, and why would you? It’s Fourth of July, for God’s sake. But, for fun, let’s take a quick nuclear weapons quiz. Do you live near any nuclear weapons?
USA and Russia have no intention of scaling back nuclear weapons
The two countries with nearly all the world’s nuclear weapons have no intention of scaling back https://qz.com/1020437/the-two-countries-with-nearly-all-the-worlds-nuclear-weapons-have-no-intention-of-scaling-back/, 4 July 17 The US and Russia, which possess nearly 93% of all nuclear weapons in the world, don’t plan to continue reducing their nuclear arsenal, but instead are spending money to modernize and modestly expand their weapons systems.
The world’s nuclear arsenal has gradually declined since its peak of nearly 70,000 nuclear warheads in the mid-1980s, but reductions have slowed in recent years. According to a new report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPR), an independent think tank, in 2017, there were approximately 14,935 nuclear weapons, a slight reduction compared with 15,395 in early 2016. The report notes that both the US and Russia have failed to commit to further reductions. Just nine states possessed these weapons: the US, Russia, the UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea.
States with nuclear weapons are spending billions on updating their systems and developing weapons. The US will spend approximately $400 billion over a 10-year period to maintain and modernize its arsenal; the US plans to buy replacement systems and build new nuclear weapon facilities. To maintain strategic parity with the US, Russia is limiting any further reduction in its nuclear arsenal and working to modernize its aging, Soviet-era missiles. The British government is investing £31 billion ($45.2 billion) to maintain its nuclear arsenal, while Pakistan and India are both gradually expanding the size of their nuclear weapon stockpile.
North Korea carried out high-profile tests of its nuclear weapons in the last year. The country has prioritized building a long-range ballistic missile that can deliver a nuclear warhead to the US (experts suggest there’s no independently verified evidence that the country currently has the capability to do so). US president Donald Trump has pressed president Xi Jinping of China to address what Trump called the “growing threat” (paywall) posed by North Korea’s nuclear weapons.
The United Nations drafted the first-ever treaty to ban nuclear weaponslast month. More than 130 countries currently support the initiative that would outlaw nuclear weapons. Unsurprisingly, not one of the nine countries currently possessing nuclear weapons support the proposed measure.
Pentagon now withholding results of nuclear weapons inspection
Pentagon withholding nuclear weapons inspection results: report http://thehill.com/policy/defense/340599-pentagon-withholding-nuclear-weapons-inspection-results-report BY MAX GREENWOOD – 07/04/17 The Pentagon has started withholding the results of inspections of its nuclear weapons operations, The Associated Press reported Tuesday.
Overall inspection results, such as “pass-fail” grades, at the country’s nuclear weapons facilities were previously made public. But the Pentagon told the AP that by ending such disclosures, it’s hoping to withhold key information about the U.S. nuclear arsenal from the country’s adversaries.
U.S. nuclear weapons operations have faced a bevy of embarrassing failings and shortcomings in past year stemming from security blunders, substandard performance, insufficient funding and poor leadership.
By withholding inspection results, the Pentagon is following a recommendation generated by an internal review of shortcomings in the country’s nuclear arsenal, including where and how the weapons are kept and the workers responsible for them.
Chuck Hagel, the former defense secretary under former President Barack Obama, ordered the internal review, as well as a separate study by an independent group, in 2014.
The recommendation to withhold inspection results was put forward in the internal review, which remains secret.
The Air Force personnel office posted on its website last month that the overall results of the inspections could no longer appear in personnel documents, such as performance reports. But that change began taking effect in the Navy in March, according to the AP. The Navy oversees the country’s submarine-launched ballistic missiles, while the Air Force operates aerial bombers and land-based missiles — in all, the three components that make up the nuclear triad.
1 This Month
22 June – Virtual Event –Climate Change: New Data, New Debate
Monday, June 22, 2026 2:30 p.m. – 3:15 p.m. CT
YouTube. Register here
Protect Sazan Island from the Trump family! https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/protect_sazan_island_from_the_trump_family_loc/?bqFCVab&v=174511&cl=22707147157&_checksum=5e9dde668860e8231c33699735e16a1fbf22ab2cb01da50c999fe8732b9775ef&utm_source=email&utm_medium=blast_email&utm_campaign=174511
25 June- THE PUKE ON NUKES
Thursday, June 25, 2026
7pm Central Time (8pm ET, 6pm MT, 5pm PT) UTC – 5
From NRC & DOE Deregulation to Techno-Fascist Billionaires Going Nuclear, Plus a Few Songs from Atomic Cabaret REGISTER
26 June – Radiation Trainwreck at the NRC / Join the Protect Better Campaign – https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/4ZlZ5_qLSHGiLSCg8FF6Bg#/registration
Cuba Is Not a Failed State – It Is a Besieged State
PETITION: “Global Appeal to Endorse Palestinian Right of Return of Refugees”
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- June 2026 (202)
- May 2026 (306)
- 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)
-
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 