nuclear-news

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

Arundhati Roy: India Must Stop Arming Israel or ‘Forever Be Linked to Genocide’

“It is our responsibility to show that as people of India, we refuse to be complicit in that, even if our government wishes to continue with what it does.”

Brett Wilkins, Aug 02, 2024,  https://www.commondreams.org/news/arundhati-roy-israel

Acclaimed Indian author and activist Arundhati Roy this week joined prominent jurists, diplomats, artists, and others in urging their government to stop selling weapons to Israel, which they called “abominable” and “a serious violation of India’s obligations under international law and our Constitution.”

Speaking Thursday at an event organized by the Press Club of India, Roy—winner of the 1997 Booker Prize for her debut novel The God of Small Things—said that Indians must “at least show that we do not support that murder in Gaza, we do not support our government’s support of that.”

Acclaimed Indian author and activist Arundhati Roy this week joined prominent jurists, diplomats, artists, and others in urging their government to stop selling weapons to Israel, which they called “abominable” and “a serious violation of India’s obligations under international law and our Constitution.”

Speaking Thursday at an event organized by the Press Club of India, Roy—winner of the 1997 Booker Prize for her debut novel The God of Small Things—said that Indians must “at least show that we do not support that murder in Gaza, we do not support our government’s support of that.”

“What is happening in Gaza, it is not just the murder… of tens of thousands of women and children,” she continued. “It is the bombing of hospitals, the destruction of universities… the attempt to erase the very memory people have of that place. It is a genocide like no other because it’s taking place on live TV.”

“India used to be a country that supported the people of Palestine in their struggle for freedom,” Roy noted. “Everywhere, even in the United States… people are standing up against their government’s support for [Israel]. But we are not standing up… and that is such a shame.”

“We must stand up. We must refuse,” she asserted. “We will not support the export of weapons of any kind.”

Roy is one of more than two dozen former Indian Supreme Court justices and other judges, foreign service officers, academics, artists, activists, and others who on Wednesday sent a letter to Indian Defense Minister Rajnath Singh urging him to halt the licensing of arms sales to Israel, whose military forces have killed or wounded more than 140,000 Palestinians while obliterating and starving Gaza.

“The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has clearly ruled that Israel is in violation of obligations under the Genocide Convention and further that Israel is in illegal occupation of the occupied Palestinian territory,” the letter states. “In light of these rulings, any supply of military material to Israel would amount to a violation of India’s obligations under international humanitarian law and the mandate of Article 21 read with Article 51(c) of the Constitution of India.”

Among the weapons India has sent to Israel are Hermes 900 unmanned aerial drones, which are co-manufactured with Israeli arms company Elbit Systems. The letter notes that the drones “have been extensively used in the Israeli Defense Forces’ military campaign in Gaza.”

“Several [United Nations] experts have warned that the transfer of weapons and ammunition to Israel may constitute serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian laws, and risk state complicity in international crimes, possibly including genocide, reiterating their demand to stop transfers immediately,” the letter’s signer wrote.

“In short, the grant of licenses and approvals for export of military material to Israel, coupled with reports of such exports by Indian companies, constitutes a serious violation of India’s obligations under international law and our own Constitution,” the letter stresses.

“International law aside, we consider such exports to be morally objectionable, indeed abominable,” the signatories added. “We demand, therefore, that India should immediately suspend its collaboration in the delivery of military material to Israel. Further, India must immediately make every effort to ensure that weapons already delivered to Israel are not used to contribute to acts of genocide or violations of international humanitarian law.”

The letter came ahead of planned nationwide protests by Indian leftists on Saturday calling for an end to arms sales and “all forms of complicity with Israel’s illegal occupation and genocide.”

India—which in 1971 invaded Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) in large part to end a U.S.-backed Pakistani genocide mostly targeting Bengalis—voted in favor of the December U.N. Security Council resolution calling for an immediate Gaza cease-fire.

However, the administration of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and many lawmakers from his right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party have expressed steadfast support for Israel and its Gaza onslaught. Critics have noted that both Israel and India are occupying Muslims, the former in Palestine and the latter in Jammu and Kashmir.

In an interview with Middle East Eye published Friday, Roy—who faces prosecution in India over comments she allegedly made nearly 15 years ago regarding Kashmir—said that India could “forever be linked to genocide” if it does not change course.

“India needs to stop the export of weapons to Israel and ensure the return of Indian workers who have been sent to Israel to replace Palestinian workers,” she said.

“If it does not do so at once, it is in violation of the orders of the ICJ,” she added. “It will forever be complicit in aiding and abetting a genocide that is being telecast live for the world to watch.”

August 5, 2024 Posted by | India, Israel, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Is the dream of nuclear fusion dead? Why the international experimental reactor is in ‘big trouble’

The 35-nation Iter project has a groundbreaking aim to create clean and limitless energy but it is turning into the ‘most delayed and cost-inflated science project in history’

Guardian, Robin McKie Science Editor, 4 Aug 24

It was a project that promised the sun. Researchers would use the world’s most advanced technology to design a machine that could generate atomic fusion, the process that drives the stars – and so create a source of cheap, non-polluting power.

That was initially the aim of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (Iter) which 35 countries – including European states, China, Russia and the US – agreed to build at Saint-Paul-lez-Durance in southern France at a starting cost of $6bn. Work began in 2010, with a commitment that there would be energy-producing reactions by 2020.

Then reality set in. Cost overruns, Covid, corrosion of key parts, last-minute redesigns and confrontations with nuclear safety officials triggered delays that mean Iter is not going to be ready for another decade, it has just been announced. Worse, energy-producing fusion reactions will not be generated until 2039, while Iter’s budget – which has already soared to $20bn – will increase by a further $5bn.

Other estimates suggest the final price tag could rise well above this figure and make Iter “the most delayed and most cost-inflated ­science project in history”, the journal Scientific American has warned. For its part, the journal Science has stated simply that Iter is now in “big trouble”, while Nature has noted that the project has been “plagued by a string of hold-ups, cost overruns and management issues”.

Dozens of private companies now threaten to create fusion reactors on a shorter timescale, warn scientists. These include Tokamak Energy in Oxford and Commonwealth Fusion Systems in the US.

“The trouble is that Iter has been going on for such a long time, and suffered so many delays, that the rest of the world has moved on,” said fusion expert Robbie Scott of the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council. “A host of new technologies have emerged since Iter was planned. That has left the project with real problems.”

A question mark now hangs over one of the world’s most ambitious technological projects in its global bid to harness the process that drives the stars. It involves the nuclei of two light atoms being forced to combine to form a single heavier nucleus, while releasing massive amounts of energy. This is nuclear fusion, and it only occurs at colossally high temperatures.

To create such heat, a doughnut-shaped reactor, called a tokamak, will use magnetic fields to contain a plasma of hydrogen nuclei that will then be bombarded by particle beams and microwaves. When temperatures reach millions of degrees Celsius, the mix of two hydrogen isotopes – deuterium and tritium – will fuse to form helium, neutrons and a great deal of excess energy.

Containing plasma at such high temperatures is exceptionally difficult. “It was originally planned to line the tokamak reactor with protective beryllium but that turned out to be very tricky. It is toxic and eventually it was decided to replace it with tungsten,” said David Armstrong, professor of materials science and engineering at Oxford University. “That was a major design change taken very late in the day.”

Then huge sections of tokamak made in Korea were found not to fit together properly, while threats that there could be leaks of radioactive materials led the French nuclear regulators to call a halt on the plant’s construction. More delays in construction were announced as problems piled up………………………………………………………….

For its part, Iter denies that it is “in big trouble” and rejects the idea that it is a record-breaking science project for cost overruns and delays. Just look at the International Space Station or for that matter the UK’s HS2 rail link, said a spokesman.

Others point out that fusion power’s limited carbon emissions would boost the battle against climate change. “However, fusion will arrive too late to help us cut carbon emissions in the short term,” said Aneeqa Khan, a research fellow in nuclear fusion at the University of Manchester. “Only if fusion power plants produce significant amounts of electricity later in the century will they help keep our carbon emissions down – and that will become crucial in the fight against climate change.”  https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/aug/03/is-the-dream-of-nuclear-fusion-dead-why-the-international-experimental-reactor-is-in-big-trouble

August 5, 2024 Posted by | EUROPE, technology | Leave a comment

Where Is the Biden Plan to End the War in Ukraine?

On the face of it, the Biden administration would appear to be asking the American people to spend indefinitely tens of billions of dollars a year on an endless war for an unachievable goal.

Biden team blows off deadline for Ukraine war strategy

Perhaps the administration can’t admit it doesn’t have one.

Anatol Lieven, Aug 02, 2024,  https://responsiblestatecraft.org/biden-ukraine-strategy/

Almost 100 days have now passed since the Congress passed $61 billion in emergency funding for Ukraine, a measure that included a condition that required the Biden Administration to present to the legislative body a detailed strategy for continued U.S. support.

When the funding bill was passed with much fanfare on April 23, Section 504, page 32 included the following mandate:

“Not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the heads of other relevant Federal agencies, as appropriate, shall submit to 18 the Committees on Appropriations, Armed Services, and Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committees on 20 Appropriations, Armed Services, and Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives a strategy regarding United States support for Ukraine against aggression by the Russian Federation: Provided, That such strategy shall be multi-year, establish specific and achievable objectives, define and prioritize United States national security interests…”

It is now August and There is still no sign on the part of the Biden Administration of any intention to submit such a strategy to Congress. This inevitably leads to the suspicion that no such strategy in fact exists. It also suggests that without a massive change of mindset within the administration, it is not even possible to hold — let alone make public —serious and honest internal discussions on the subject, as these would reveal the flawed and empty assumptions on which much of present policy is based.

This relates first of all to the requirement “to define and prioritize United States national security interests.” No U.S. official has ever seriously addressed the issue of why a Russian military presence in eastern Ukraine that was of no importance whatsoever to the U.S. 40 years ago (when Soviet tank armies stood in the center of Germany, 1,200 miles to the West) should now be such a threat that combating it necessitates $61 billion of U.S. military aid per year, a significant risk of conflict with a nuclear-armed Russia, and a colossal distraction from vital U.S. interests elsewhere.

Instead, the administration, and its European allies, have relied on two arguments. The first is that if Russia is not defeated in Ukraine, it will go on to attack NATO and that this will mean American soldiers going to fight and die in Europe. 

In fact, there is no evidence whatsoever of any such Russian intention. Russian threats of escalation and (possibly) minor acts of sabotage have been outgrowths of the war in Ukraine, and intended to deter NATO from intervening directly in that conflict — not actions intended to lay the basis for an invasion of NATO.

Moreover, given the acute difficulties that the Russian military has faced in Ukraine, and the Russian weaknesses revealed by that conflict, the idea of them planning to attack NATO seems utterly counter-intuitive. For Russia has been “stopped” in Ukraine. The heroic resistance of the Ukrainian army, backed with Western weapons and money, stopped the Russian army far short of President Putin’s goals when he launched the war. They have severely damaged Russian military prestige, inflicted enormous losses on the Russian military, and as of today, hold more than 80% of their country’s territory.

The Biden administration has issued partly contradictory statements about the purpose of U.S. aid to Ukraine: that it is intended to help Ukraine “win”, and that it is intended to help “strengthen Ukraine at the negotiating table.” They have not however fulfilled their legal obligation to define to Congress what “winning” means, nor why if the war will end in negotiations, these negotiations should not begin now — especially since there is very strong evidence that the Ukrainian military position, and therefore Ukraine’s position at the negotiating table, are getting worse, not better.

As Samuel Charap and Jeremy Shapiro have written in response to the latest US despatch of weapons to Ukraine:

“[A]daptation and adjustment do not constitute strategy, and reactive escalation absent a strategy is not sound policy. Escalating U.S. involvement in this conflict—or any conflict—should be guided by an idea about how to bring the war to an end.”

As with U.S. campaigns in Vietnam and elsewhere, the administration and its allies have tried to play the “credibility” card: the argument that it is necessary to defeat Russia in Ukraine because otherwise, China, Iran and other countries will be emboldened to attack the United States or its allies. But like the line about Russian ambitions beyond Ukraine, this is simply an assumption. There is no actual evidence for it at all.

It can, with equal or greater validity, be assumed that the governments of these countries will make up their minds according to calculations of their own interests and the military balance in their own regions.

The final administration line of argument is a moral one: that “Russian aggression must not be rewarded” and that “Ukrainian territorial integrity must be restored.” Since, however, any realistic negotiations towards a peace settlement will have to involve de facto recognition of Russian territorial gains (not de jure recognition, which the Russians do not expect and even the Chinese will not grant), this statement would seem to rule out even the idea of talks. On the face of it therefore, the Biden administration would appear to be asking the American people to spend indefinitely tens of billions of dollars a year on an endless war for an unachievable goal.

If this is a mistaken picture of the administration’s position, then once again, it has a formal obligation under the bill passed by Congress in April to tell the American people and their elected representatives what their goals in Ukraine in fact are. Then everyone will be able to reach an informed judgment on whether they are attainable, and worth $61 billion a year in American money.

Unfortunately, it seems that the administration’s actual position is to kick this issue down the road until after the presidential election. Thereafter, either a Harris administration will have to draw up new plans, or a Trump administration will do so. But given the length of time it takes a new administration to settle in and develop new policies, this means that we could not expect a strategy on Ukraine to emerge for eight months at best.

If the Ukrainians can hold roughly their present lines, then this approach could be justifiable in U.S. domestic political terms (though not to the families of the Ukrainian soldiers who will die in the meantime). There is however a significant risk that given the military balance on the ground, and even with continued aid, Ukraine during this time will suffer a major defeat. Washington would then have to choose between a truly humiliating failure or direct intervention, which would expose the American people to truly hideous risks.

There is an alternative. Since President Biden will in any case step down next January, he could take a risk and try to bequeath to his successor not war, but peace. In terms of domestic politics, to open negotiations with Russia now would deprive Donald Trump and JD Vance of a campaigning position, and would spare a future Democrat administration (if elected) from a very difficult and internally divisive decision.

The first step in this direction is for the Biden administration clearly to formulate its goals in Ukraine, and — as required by law — to submit these goals to the American people.

August 5, 2024 Posted by | Ukraine, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Rolls-Royce to sell stake in mini-nukes arm.

Engineering giant seeks fresh funds as backers’ £280m and government’s £210m due to run out.

Rolls-Royce is poised to sell a stake in its mini-nuclear power stations
venture as it races to become the first company to deploy the technology in
Britain. Tufan Erginbilgic, the chief executive of the FTSE 100 engineering
giant, said it was talking to potential investors about its small modular
reactor (SMR) business as it looks to raise fresh funding.

Around £280m has
been put into the venture by the current backers including Rolls, BNF
Resources, Constellation and the Qatar Investment Authority. On top of
this, the company has received £210m in grant funding from the Government.


But funds are due to run out by early next year, meaning Rolls and its
fellow backers must either put in more money, sell equity to outside
investors or potentially do a combination of both. One source familiar with
the discussions said Rolls-Royce SMR would look to raise hundreds of
millions of pounds, probably based on a valuation of at least $2bn (£1.6bn)
– the current market value of US rival NuScale.

Interest in the business
has grown since Rolls emerged as the unofficial frontrunner in the
Government’s SMR design competition, which is being run by Great British
Nuclear (GBN) and is expected to conclude in late autumn. The GBN
competition is expected to select two viable designs before awarding them
contracts next year to build the first demonstrator SMRs at as-yet-unnamed
sites. They would be expected to come online in the early 2030s. Along with
Rolls, the other contenders are GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, Westinghouse,
Holtec Britain and NuScale. However, Rolls has also advanced further
towards regulatory approval than any other SMR developer so far.

Telegraph 3rd Aug 2024

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/08/03/rolls-royce-sell-stake-mini-nukes-arm/

August 5, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Mass Media Goons Are Still Reporting That Biden Is Getting Tough On Netanyahu

Caitlin Johnstone, Aug 03, 2024,  https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/mass-media-goons-are-still-reporting?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=147305961&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Another day, another Axios article falsely asserting that President Biden is really getting tough on Benjamin Netanyahu. 

In a write-up titled “Biden warns Netanyahu against escalation as risk of regional war grows,” Barak Ravid reports that while Biden has pledged to support Israel against any strikes from Iran in retaliation for its insanely escalatory assassination of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, he also told Netanyahu that he “expects no more escalation from the Israeli side” from here on out.

“President Biden privately demanded in a ‘tough’ call Thursday that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stop escalating tensions in the region and move immediately toward a Gaza hostage and ceasefire deal,” writes Ravid, citing two US officials who as usual remain unnamed.

“At the end of the meeting with Netanyahu in the Oval office last Thursday, Biden became emotional, raised his voice and told Netanyahu he needs to reach a Gaza deal as soon as possible, three Israeli officials with knowledge of the meeting told Axios,” Ravid reports.

Ravid writes:

“One U.S. official said Biden complained to Netanyahu that the two had just spoken last week in the Oval Office about securing the hostage deal, but instead Netanyahu went ahead with the assassination in Tehran.

“Biden then told Netanyahu the U.S. will help Israel defeat an Iranian attack, but after that he expects no more escalation from the Israeli side and immediate movement toward a hostage deal, the U.S. official said.”

Sure, sure. This time Biden really means it when he draws a firm line with Israel, unlike all those other times when this administration has continued to back Israel’s psychopathic actions unconditionally since October 7.

Commentators on US foreign policy are less than impressed with this report.

“It’s the umpteenth installment of ‘Biden is secretly mad at Bibi’: he became emotional! He raised his voice!” tweeted The Economist’s Gregg Carlstrom. “Can’t imagine anyone takes these self-serving leaks seriously. Least of all Netanyahu, who has ignored Biden with impunity for ten months”

“Biden reportedly told Netanyahu he’ll help defeat an Iranian attack, but expects no more escalation from Israel, warning Netanyahu that he shouldn’t count on the US to bail him out again,” tweeted Quincy Institute’s Trita Parsi, adding, “Fine, but given Biden’s record, why should Netanyahu believe him?”

Barak Ravid has made an entire career out of writing up these anonymously sourced White House press releases about how badass and un-genocidal the president is and packaging them as real news stories. Here are some of the headlines from Ravid’s reporting since October:


Biden “running out” of patience with Bibi as Gaza war hits 100 days

Scoop: Biden in “frustrating” call told Bibi to solve Palestinian tax revenue issue

Biden’s ultimatum to Bibi: Change Gaza policy or we will

White House temperature is “very high” ahead of Biden-Bibi call

“We won’t support you”: Inside Biden’s ultimatum to Bibi

Israel and U.S. deeply divided in meeting on key Rafah operation issues

Biden and Bibi “red lines” for Rafah put them on a collision course

Biden-Bibi clash escalates as U.S. accused of undermining Israeli government

Biden and Netanyahu hold first call in a month amid public split

Biden breaks with Netanyahu but sticks with Israel

Biden on hot mic: Told Bibi we needed “come to Jesus” meeting on Gaza

Biden, in rare criticism, warns Netanyahu that Israel risks losing global support

Biden, in rare criticism of Bibi, says pause in Gaza fighting should have come sooner

Scoop: Blinken warns Israeli officials global pressure will grow longer war goes on

Israeli minister lambasted at White House about Gaza and war strategy

Scoop: Biden tells Bibi he’s not in it for a year of war in Gaza

Blinken unloads on Bibi: “You need a coherent plan” or face disaster in Gaza

Scoop: White House cancels meeting, scolds Netanyahu in protest over video

Netanyahu irked by “critical” Harris comments

This is just one guy, from just one outlet. These “Biden is very upset with Netanyahu and wants him to be different” reports have been coming out throughout the US media since the early weeks of this ongoing mass atrocity, all of which are flatly contradicted by the White House taking zero meaningful action this entire time to rein in Israel’s demented genocidal aggressions.

And to be clear, none of this is actually news. “Anonymous sources say X, Y and Z about how the president’s feelings are feeling” is not a news story. These reports serve no purpose other than to create distance in the eyes of the American public between the genocidal monster Benjamin Netanyahu and the president who is unconditionally supporting his genocidal atrocities in every way possible. They are PR spin and nothing more, which would be surprising to anyone who still believes the mainstream western press exist to report the news instead of promulgate propaganda for the advancement of the information interests of the western empire.

All they’re doing here is trying to wash this administration’s hands of the horrors that are being inflicted in the middle east with the direct facilitation of this administration. Don’t let them. All the monstrous actions being perpetrated by Israel today are just as much the fault of the US government as they are of Israel itself. This is who they are. Make them own it.

August 5, 2024 Posted by | Israel, media, USA | Leave a comment

UK Electricity System Operator (ESO)s Future Energy Scenarios for a green UK – nuclear power is uncertain.

In its new Future Energy Scenarios report, National Grid’s Electricity
System Operator (ESO) maps three potential pathways to meet the UK’s 2050
net-zero target. Electric Engagement is weighted towards the
electrification of sectors such as heating, transport & heavy industry.

Hydrogen Evolution prioritises the use of hydrogen instead. Holistic
Transition is a mix. Renewables dominate across the board, with wind and
solar at 150-250 GW by 2050, depending on the scenario. Total energy supply
and demand is highest in the Hydrogen Evolution pathway. Electrifying
sectors is seen as inherently more efficient than producing hydrogen, since
doing so can be energy-intensive, using scarce green energy to make
expensive fuel, or carbon-intensive fossil gas.

Indeed, as Edie notes,
though natural gas supply in the Hydrogen Evolution pathway is two-thirds
lower in 2050 than at present, it is still over double the level in the
Electric Engagement/Holistic Transitions. But in Holistic Transition,
hydrogen is nevertheless used for hard-to-decarbonise sectors like heavy
industrial manufacturing, though light road transport and building heating
are mainly electric.

ESO says that it will be possible to get to zero net
power before 2035, if Biomass with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) is
also used. They say all their new zero pathways ‘achieve a decarbonised
power sector by 2035 at the latest. Holistic Transition & Electric
Engagement achieve this in 2033 and 2034 respectively. This is driven by
high levels of wind & solar uptake, reduced use of unabated gas & initial
deployments of bioenergy with carbon capture & storage (BECCS).’ And ESO
insist that ‘negative emissions with power BECCS from 2030 onwards are
essential to achieving net zero power.’

However, the ESO doesn’t see nuclear expanding very much until around 2040 and even on the Electric Engagement scenario it only reaches 151 TWh from 22GW by 2050 (less than
the government’s target of 24GW), compared with 380 TWh for offshore wind.
But not everyone sees it that way. The growth-orientated Sci-Tech lobby
group UKDayOne is pushing for nuclear, and says ‘the Government should
aim to have built or begun constructing 8-10 additional gigawatt-scale
nuclear plants by 2040.’ It points to modelling by Carbon Free Europe (CFE)
which it says suggests that ‘the most cost-effective path to net zero for
the UK involves building 61GW of nuclear by 2050, due to reduced
requirements for grid balancing’.

That would certainly cut back on offshore
wind. Or as CFE puts it ‘failure to reach this level of [nuclear]
deployment will require building significantly more offshore wind &
increase transition costs,’ adding that ‘a breakthrough in nuclear costs
could unlock additional opportunities for nuclear applications’.

But will that happen? No sign yet with the £20bn Sizewell C plan still stalled and
novel SMRs at best some way off. The new government may not be willing to
also push ahead just now with a decision on Sizewell C. It is certainly
interesting that the claim made by the last government that nuclear was a
‘sustainable and environmentally friendly energy generation solution’ has
not yet been backed up by DESNZ research. It’s evidently still ‘work in
progress’. Given also its high cost, and the governments money shortage,
maybe it’s time for a U turn?

Renew Extra 3rd Aug 2024

https://renewextraweekly.blogspot.com/2024/08/in-its-new-future-energy-scenarios.html

August 5, 2024 Posted by | ENERGY, UK | Leave a comment

Eastern Europe’s purchase of US nuclear reactors is primarily about military ties, not climate change

Military linkages. For countries like Romania and Poland, the rationale offered for supporting nuclear energy, namely climate mitigation, is just one face of the coin. A parallel set of military developments are also at play.

Poland also tied itself militarily to the United States by becoming part of US missile defense infrastructure.

It should be clear who would profit most at the expense of the Polish public.

By Maha Siddiqui, M.V. Ramana | August 2, 2024,  https://thebulletin.org/2024/08/eastern-europes-purchase-of-us-nuclear-reactors-is-primarily-about-military-ties-not-climate-change/

The nuclear industry hasn’t been so excited in a while. From the pledge to triple nuclear energy by 2050 made by around 20 countries during the 28th UN climate summit in Dubai, United Arab Emirates to the recent report to the G20 by the International Atomic Energy Agency on speeding up investment into nuclear power to meet net zero goals, there is much talk about a new round of nuclear reactor construction.

Countries in Eastern Europe, such as Poland, are active participants in this effort to rebrand nuclear energy as clean and climate friendly. Poland’s inclusion in this list should be surprising: Its electricity primarily comes from fossil fuels, and the country has not committed to any net-zero target, making it “the lowest-placed EU nation” in its ability to reach net zero emissions by 2050. Nevertheless, in 2023, Poland’s government announced plans to import nuclear reactors.

Even though it promotes nuclear power as a way to meet climate goals, Poland and other countries in Eastern Europe seem to be using nuclear purchases for geopolitical leverage with the United States. That desire is evident in their parallel actions in the military front. Given the ongoing war in Ukraine and tensions in multiple parts of the world, the combination of geopolitics and nuclear technology may prove dangerous, even as it is ineffective at mitigating climate change.

Nuclear talk. In recent years, Poland has entered into a number of agreements to build nuclear reactors, including the in-vogue small modular reactors (SMRs) from the United States and large reactors from South Korea. Poland has attempted to build nuclear reactors in the past—in 2009, then-Prime Minister Donald Tusk announced plans to build two nuclear plants, with the first to begin operating in 2020. Those plans went nowhere.

Seen in that light, the rash of recent announcements have a desperate ring to them. Not surprisingly, Tusk has continued to advocate for building nuclear reactors, stating in November 2023 that Poland had to pursue nuclear energy “as quickly as possible.” But he has pushed back plans to start construction: The “first pour of concrete”—which is the traditional marker of project initiation—is now scheduled for 2028, two years after the earlier projected date of 2026.

Romania has taken a somewhat similar path. In 2021, on the sidelines of the 26th UN climate conference in Glasgow, Romanian officials signed a cooperation agreement on small modular reactors with NuScale Power. At that time, Romanian Energy Minister Virgil Popescu talked about developing SMRs “to meet [Romania’s] critical energy demand and green targets and to secure a quality future for the generations to come.” (Since then, NuScale’s first proposed SMR project in the United States has collapsed because of massive cost increases, and it is uncertain if the Romanian project will move forward.)

Military linkages. For countries like Romania and Poland, the rationale offered for supporting nuclear energy, namely climate mitigation, is just one face of the coin. A parallel set of military developments are also at play.

In April, Poland President Andrzej Duda publicly expressed a readiness to host NATO nuclear weapons. In an interview published in a Polish news outlet, he revealed that nuclear sharing had been discussed with the United States “for some time.” Although not widely noted at that time, the previous Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki had also indicated an “interest in hosting nuclear weapons under NATO’s nuclear-sharing policy.”

The interest in hosting nuclear weapons aligns with Poland’s efforts to position itself as close to the West ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Among countries that were formerly part of the Warsaw Pact with the Soviet Union, Poland was among the first three countries to join NATO, together with Hungary and the Czech Republic.

Poland also tied itself militarily to the United States by becoming part of US missile defense infrastructure. The process started during the George W. Bush administration and continued through the successive US presidencies. Most recently, as part of the Biden administration’s 2024 budget for defense, the Missile Defense Agency requested funding to complete construction of a site in Poland to deploy the Aegis Ashore missile defense system and purchase missiles for this site.

Poland has emerged as one of Europe’s largest importers of military equipment, second only to Ukraine, buying military equipment worth billions of dollars from the United States. In the 2023 fiscal year alone, Poland purchased Apache Helicopters ($12 billion), High Mobility Artillery Rocket System ($10 billion), Integrated Air And Missile Defense Battle Command System ($4 billion), and M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tanks ($3.75 billion).

Such significant imports are a good indicator that the country is seeking to ally with the United States. While Poland still lags far behind traditional US allies and arms importers like Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and Australia, Poland is rapidly expanding such imports. The country’s military spending in 2023 was 75 percent higher than in 2022 and 181 percent higher than in 2014. Poland was also among the world’s 20 largest importers of weapons in the 2019-2023 period, with its share of imports jumping four-fold compared to the previous 2014-2018 period. Of these imports, nearly half came from the United States.

US officials see the purchase of military equipment as one of the many ways the United States can bring Poland closer in geopolitical terms. Another is to have them buy US nuclear reactors.

In its “Integrated Country Strategy” for Poland from June 2022, the US State Department’s top two mission goals were stated to involve military engagement and adoption of new energy technology, including nuclear power. The document praises the “potential partnership with the United States to develop large-scale nuclear power plants with US technology” because it “could result in over $18 billion dollars in US exports and strategically tie our two countries even more tightly together over the coming century.” It should be clear who would profit most at the expense of the Polish public.

The United States has historically tried to use nuclear development to expand its empire and influence. During the Cold War, US nuclear power companies “had a specific agenda to promote the advancement of nuclear technology in non-communist countries,” which was one reason they exported nuclear reactors to South Korea.

By all evidence, the focus on nuclear energy in Eastern Europe appears not to be driven mainly by climate change but by old-fashioned geopolitics in significant proportion. Were the urgency of climate change really driving investment in nuclear energy, Poland should have considered purchasing reactors also from Russia or China. In fact, over the past decade, Russia has dominated the export market for nuclear power plants and China has built more nuclear plants than any other country.

Why it matters. The geopolitical framing of imports of nuclear energy is a problem, especially in Eastern Europe where there is an active war in neighboring Ukraine. Building up military forces using US technology and expanding US military presence in the region, even possibly basing nuclear weapons in Poland, may increase the likelihood of a catastrophic war between Russia and NATO. Such a war would be compounded by the potential for radioactive contamination from deliberate or inadvertent attacks on nuclear reactors, as illustrated by the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant in Ukraine, which Russia has occupied since March 2022 and used as a source of leverage.

Such geopolitical games also make dealing with climate change much more difficult. A geopolitical view, by its very nature, conceives of problems essentially as a zero-sum competition: Countries will avoid cooperating with each other. But as happened with the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the lack of cooperation will undermine the chances of quickly reducing global emissions.

The analyst and disarmament activist Andrew Lichterman recently explained that anyone interested in a more fair, peaceful, and ecologically sustainable global society should avoid using “the conceptual frame of geopolitics” which “is limited to the imperatives of holding and deploying power in what is portrayed as an endless, inevitable struggle for dominance among the world’s most powerful states.”

Investments in nuclear power in Eastern Europe hide geopolitical and military motivations behind a smoke screen of fighting climate change. When these motivations result in the massive acquisition of military equipment, manufacturing and operating them will increase carbon dioxide emissions. Worse, military buildups will also increase the risk of conflict, potentially leading to a catastrophic war that could involve nuclear weapons.

August 4, 2024 Posted by | EUROPE, politics international | Leave a comment

Link between unexploded munitions in oceans and cancer-causing toxins determined

by Anisa S. Jimenez, Phys Org, February 18, 2009

During a research trip to Puerto Rico, ecologist James Porter took samples from underwater nuclear bomb target USS Killen, expecting to find evidence of radioactive matter – instead he found a link to cancer. Data revealed that the closer corals and marine life were to unexploded bombs from the World War II vessel and the surrounding target range, the higher the rates of carcinogenic materials.

“Unexploded bombs are in the ocean for a variety of reasons – some were duds that did not explode, others were dumped in the ocean as a means of disposal,” said Porter. “And we now know that these munitions are leaking cancer-causing materials and endangering sea life.”

Data has been gathered since 1999 on the eastern end of the Isla de Vieques, Puerto Rico – a land and sea area that was used as a naval gunnery and bombing range from 1943-2003. Research revealed that marine life including reef-building corals, feather duster worms and sea urchins closest to the bomb and bomb fragments had the highest levels of toxicity. In fact, carcinogenic materials were found in concentrations up to 100,000 times over established safe limits. This danger zone covered a span of up to two meters from the bomb and its fragments.

According to research conducted in Vieques, residents here have a 23% higher cancer rate than do Puerto Rican mainlanders. Porter said a future step will be “to determine the link from unexploded munitions to marine life to the dinner plate.”…..  https://phys.org/news/2009-02-link-unexploded-munitions-oceans-cancer-causing.html

August 4, 2024 Posted by | health, oceans, Reference, SOUTH AMERICA | Leave a comment

Burying radioactive nuclear waste poses enormous risks

by David Suzuki, July 31, 2024,  https://rabble.ca/environment/burying-radioactive-nuclear-waste-poses-enormous-risks/
The spent fuel will remain radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years, and contamination and leaks are possible during storage, containment, transportation and burial.

As the consequences of burning dirty, climate-altering fossil fuels hit harder by the day, many are seizing on nuclear power as a “clean” energy alternative. But how clean is it?

Although it may not produce the emissions that burning fossil fuels does, nuclear power presents many other problems. Mining, processing and transporting uranium to fuel reactors creates toxic pollution and destroys ecosystems, and reactors increase risks of nuclear weapons proliferation and radioactive contamination. Disposing of the highly radioactive waste is also challenging.

In this case, the NWMO has already paid Indigenous and municipal governments large sums to accept its plans — ignoring communities that will also be affected along transportation routes or downstream of burial sites.

According to Canadian Dimension, industry expects to ship the wastes “in two to three trucks per day for fifty years, in one of three potential containers.” None of the three containment methods has been subjected to rigorous testing.

Even without an accident, trucking the wastes will emit low levels of radiation, which industry claims will produce “acceptable” exposure. Transferring it from the facility to truck and then to repository also poses major risks.

Although industry claims storing high-level radioactive waste in deep geological repositories is safe, no such facility has been approved anywhere in the world, despite many years of industry effort.

Canadian Dimension says, “a growing number of First Nations have passed resolutions or issued statements opposing the transportation and/or disposal of nuclear waste in northwestern Ontario, including Lac Seul First Nation, Ojibway Nation of Saugeen, Grassy Narrows First Nation, Fort William First Nation, and Wabaseemoong Independent Nations.”

Five First Nations — including Grassy Narrows, which is still suffering from industrial mercury contamination after more than 60 years — have formed the First Nations Land Alliance, which wrote to the NWMO, stating, “Our Nations have not been consulted, we have not given our consent, and we stand together in saying ‘no’ to the proposed nuclear waste storage site near Ignace.”

Groups such as We the Nuclear Free North are also campaigning against the plan.

All have good reason to be worried. As Canadian Dimension reports, “All of Canada’s commercial reactors are the CANDU design, where 18 months in the reactor core turns simple uranium into an extremely complex and highly radioactive mix of over 200 different radioactive ingredients. Twenty seconds exposure to a single fuel bundle would be lethal.”

The spent fuel will remain radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years, and contamination and leaks are possible during storage, containment, transportation and burial. Industry, with its usual “out of sight, out of mind” approach, has no valid way to monitor the radioactive materials once they’re buried.

With 3.3 million bundles of spent fuels already waiting in wet or dry storage at power plants in Ontario, New Brunswick, Quebec and Manitoba, and many more to come, industry is desperate to find a place to put it all.

Even with the many risks and no site yet chosen for burial, industry and governments are looking to expand nuclear power, not just with conventional power plants but also with “small modular reactors,” meaning they could be spread more widely throughout the country.

Nuclear power is enormously expensive and projects always exceed budgets. It also takes a long time to build and put a reactor into operation. Disposing of the radioactive wastes creates numerous risks. Energy from wind, solar and geothermal with energy storage costs far less, with prices dropping every day, and comes with far fewer risks.

Industry must find ways to deal with the waste it’s already created, but it’s time to move away from nuclear and fossil fuels. As David Suzuki Foundation research confirms, renewable energy from sources such as wind and solar is a far more practical, affordable and cleaner choice.

David Suzuki is a scientist, broadcaster, author and co-founder of the David Suzuki Foundation. Written with David Suzuki Foundation Senior Writer and Editor Ian Hanington.

August 4, 2024 Posted by | Canada, wastes | 1 Comment

US nuclear plant unfit for quick resurrection, former lead engineer says

By Timothy Gardner, WASHINGTON, Aug 2 2024, (Reuters)

– The first U.S. nuclear plant to ever try reopening after undergoing preparations for permanent closure is not fit to restart anytime soon because it sidestepped important safety work for years before retirement, a former official at the reactor said.

Power company Entergy (ETR.N), opens new tab closed the Palisades reactor in Michigan in 2022, after the plant generated electricity for more than 50 years. Privately-held Holtec International bought Palisades shortly after and has since secured a $1.52 billion conditional U.S. loan guarantee to restart. Holtec seeks to open the plant in about a year.

The fate of Palisades is closely watched by the nuclear industry as at least two other shuttered plants, including a unit at Constellation Energy’s (CEG.O)
, opens new tab Three Mile Island, consider reopening…………

“I’m pro-nuclear, but they selected the wrong horse to ride to town on,” said Alan Blind, who was engineering director at the Palisades plant from 2006 to 2013 under Entergy.

Blind said the plant got exemptions from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the nuclear safety regulator, allowing it to fall short of safety design standards that more modern plants must adhere to because it was nearing retirement.

Those safety standards include prevention of cooling systems being clogged by the breakdown of insulation on pipes, defense against earthquakes, and reduction of risks to fires, Blind said, adding he had been monitoring the plants’ exemption requests since his retirement.

“I’m worried that the NRC will not insist that the generic safety issues be the fixed before they allow Palisades to restart,” Blind told Reuters………………………………………………………..

The Biden administration’s Loan Programs Office at the Department of Energy issued Holtec a conditional $1.52 billion loan guarantee in March to restart Palisades. … https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-nuclear-plant-unfit-quick-resurrection-former-lead-engineer-says-2024-08-02/

August 4, 2024 Posted by | safety, USA | 2 Comments

Kamala: We need a ceasefire and arms embargo NOW!

 https://www.codepink.org/kamalastopisrael 2 Aug 24

Over the past weeks, we’ve seen Vice President Kamala Harris’s image being portrayed as more sympathetic to Palestinians in comparison to Joe Biden. But in reality she repeats so many of the same anti-Palestinian talking points and hasn’t done anything to move us towards a ceasefire. It’s time to put pressure on the VP! Sign the petition below!

Vice President Kamala Harris, 

As Vice President of the United States, your job is to serve the people, and the majority of Americans want a permanent ceasefire and an end to U.S. arms sales to Israel. We are disgusted with how our hard-earned money is being used to annihilate innocent people in Palestine! 

You have strategically presented yourself as distinct from President Biden, especially with regard to Israel’s genocide campaign in Gaza, though you are part of the same administration. We have not been fooled, and we know you are not powerless. We know you can take significant action to stop Israel’s genocide, and you haven’t.

We will not blindly praise you — as others have — for calling for a ceasefire “for at least six weeks” in March of 2024. At that point, 30,000 Palestinians had already been murdered by Israel and we were five months into the genocide. 

In the past, you have had no problem meeting with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), taking in hundreds of thousands of Zionist campaign contributions, and speaking at their events. We understand the true purpose of this lobby group is to ensure continued U.S. funding of Israel’s occupation of Palestine and imperialism in the Middle East. We reject the influence of foreign governments in American politics and see your relationship with AIPAC as a stark contradiction to your supposed support of a ceasefire in Gaza. 

Most recently, you condemned protests in D.C. opposing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Congress — the man spearheading the worst genocide we’ve seen in recent history. Policing Americans who are rightfully angry about war crimes and the mass murder of innocent children was a true display of your immorality, and proved your alignment with Biden’s policies on Israel. What’s worse is that you characterized these protests as anti semitic, showing us your complete lack of understanding for what’s really happening. 

Sharing stories of how you as a young girl helped plant trees for Israel is a deliberately tone-deaf attempt at greenwashing Israel’s occupation, given the ecological devastation the IOF have waged on the Palestinian people, land, water and vegetation for 76 years, culminating in the utter devastation of Gaza in recent months. How can you be so selfishly blind to the reality on the ground?

Considering your stances, we have no reason to believe you are not following Biden’s policies on Israel. In order to salvage what political credibility you may have left, it is imperative that you use your capacity as Vice President to push for a ceasefire and an end to U.S. arms sales to Israel. We demand you release a statement explicitly distancing yourself from Biden’s support for genocide, and call for an arms embargo on Israel. 

August 4, 2024 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Generic Design Assessment Step 1 of the Holtec SMR: statement of findings

 Holtec International’s SMR-300 small modular reactor design has
completed Step 1 of the UK’s generic design assessment (GDA) process and
will now progress to Step 2, which is expected to last for 14 months. The
Environment Agency, the Office for Nuclear Regulation, and Natural
Resources Wales announced on 1 August that they are progressing to the next
phase of their assessment of the design.

Holtec has now launched a comments
process, enabling anyone to submit comments and questions about the reactor
design to the company for its response.

 Nucnet 1st Aug 2024

https://www.nucnet.org/news/holtec-s-smr-300-nuclear-plant-completes-first-step-of-generic-design-assessment-8-4-2024

August 4, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Is Manitoba willing to accept nuclear waste risks? 

ANNE LINDSEY. 2 Aug 24.

ANYONE driving Highway 17 from Winnipeg to Thunder Bay will pass through Ignace a couple of hours east of Dryden.

A modest Canadian Shield town with about 1,300 inhabitants, Ignace was built on the forest industry, but like so many northern Ontario towns, today actively seeks other economic opportunities.

The alert traveller will also notice many roadside signs between Kenora and Thunder Bay, proclaiming “No Nuclear Waste in Northwest Ontario.” The issue has reached a critical juncture recently in this area.

Hosting Canada’s high-level nuclear waste repository is one of the economic development opportunities being explored by Ignace.

On July 10, Ignace Town Council voted in favour of being a “willing host” for this massive storage hole in the ground and the accompanying transfer facility for the highly radioactive and toxic “spent” fuel from existing and future reactors.

The taxpayer-funded Nuclear Waste Management Organization or NWMO (consisting of the owners of Canada’s nuclear waste and charged by the federal government to find a repository site) provided Ignace a half-million dollar signing bonus, in addition to NWMO’s many donations and monetary contributions to local initiatives leading up to the vote.

Problems abound with this “willingness” declaration, not the least of which is that the site in question is not even in Ignace or in the same watershed. The Revell batholith site, 45 kilometres west of Ignace, lies on the watersheds of both theRainy River which flows into Lake of the Woods, and thence to the Winnipeg River and Lake Winnipeg, and the English River which flows north through Lac Seul and into Lake Winnipeg.

The waste will remain dangerous for literally millennia. Burying irretrievable nuclear waste in an excavated rock cavern that is deep underground where groundwater flows through the rock and eventually links to surface bodies has never been tested in real life. The industry relies on computer models to persuade us that future generations will not be at risk.

The waste will have to be transported to Revell, mostly from southern Ontario and New Brunswick — several massive shipments daily for 40 years for the existing waste — along the often-treacherous route skirting Lake Superior. It must then be “repackaged” in a surface facility into burial canisters.

Little is publicly known about what this entails, but any accidents and even routine cleaning will result in radioactive pollution to the surrounding waters posing a more immediate risk.

First Nations along the downstream routes have expressed their opposition to this project. Chief Rudy Turtle of Asubpeeschoseewagong (Grassy Narrows) was clear in his letter to the CEO of NWMO: “The water from that site flows past our reserve and into the waters where we fish, drink, and swim. The material that you want to store there will be dangerous for longer than Canada has existed, longer than Europeans have been on Turtle Island, and longer than anything that human beings have ever built has lasted. How can you reliably claim that this extremely dangerous waste will safely be contained for hundreds of thousands of years?”

His views are echoed by neighbouring chiefs, and other Treaty 3 First Nations have rejected nuclear waste transportation and abandonment through and in their territories. Wabigoon First Nation, the closest to the Revell site, will hold its own community referendum on willingness to host the site this fall. It’s not known how much money or other inducements NWMO has offered for a signing bonus.

In 1986, a citizens group in the Eastern Townships of Quebec successfully lobbied politicians on both sides of the border to reject a U.S. proposal for a massive nuclear waste repository in Vermont, on a watershed flowing into Canada.

Around the same time, Manitoba citizens convinced our government to oppose another proposed U.S. nuclear waste site — with potential for drainage to the Red River. And eventually, the NDP government of Howard Pawley passed Manitoba’s High-Level Radioactive Waste Act, banning nuclear waste disposal in this province.

Where does Manitoba stand today? We don’t know, even though the Revell site is not far from Manitoba and the water is flowing this way.

No single town should be making decisions with such profound risks to all of our health and futures. People who depend on Manitoba rivers and lakes (including Winnipeggers, via our water supply from Shoal Lake) should be part of this decision. Now is the time for our elected officials on Broadway and Main Street to become active stakeholders and demand a voice in the nuclear waste “willingness” question.

Anne Lindsey is a longtime observer of the nuclear industry and a Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives Manitoba Research Associate. This article was written in collaboration with the Manitoba Energy Justice Coalition.

August 4, 2024 Posted by | Canada, wastes | Leave a comment

First NATO F-16’s delivered to Ukraine (nuclear capable)

 Bruce K. Gagnon, 2 Aug 24, https://space4peace.blogspot.com/2024/08/first-nato-f-16s-delivered-to-ukraine.html

Reports indicate that six F-16’s have been sent to Ukraine (UAF) from the Netherlands to be used against Russia. 

Doesn’t this mean that US-NATO are fully at war with Russia? Of course the US-NATO deny that fact but we are surely used to their endless lies by now!

It appears the war planes will be based in western Ukraine – far from the front lines in eastern Ukraine which is closest to the Russia border.

Previously, a number of NATO states, including the US, France, Bulgaria, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, and Sweden, formed a so-called ‘F-16 coalition’, pledging to provide Kiev with 79 of the American-made fighter jets as well as to train Ukrainian pilots to operate the aircraft.

While Ukraine is pinning high hopes on the fighter jets, the truth is that NATO is only supplying them to make up for the heavy losses of the UAF and prolong the conflict.

In addition the US-NATO war mongering ‘coalition’ must supply the weapons for the planes as well as the maintenance crews since Ukraine does not have the technical capacity to keep the planes in the air by themselves. The west will also likely need to supply the repair parts and the jet fuel for the planes.

Because it takes years to properly train pilots some have speculated that US-NATO pilots (wearing Ukraine military uniforms) might end up being the ones flying in combat against Russia. Especially after the first six planes get shot down and the Ukrainian F-16’s crews might be quickly erased.


There are reports that Moldova could be used as the main base for F-16 fighters. This will allow NATO countries to avoid becoming targets for Russian missiles, but at the same time provoke the Kremlin to a harsh reaction. (Any F-16 that enters Ukraine from a NATO country and continues to fly on to its combat area will be seen as an attack by NATO enabling Russia to legally attack the country of origin. Theoretically, this could start WW III – with a nuclear power no less. Note, however, that Moldova is not a NATO member. At any rate, the West is courting disaster.) This will increase the escalation and take the conflict in Ukraine to a new level, using Moldova for this purpose.

These planes will have the capability to carry US supplied nuclear weapons and fire them from a distance at ‘Russian targets’ that often means nothing more than population centers as Ukraine has been doing since the war began in 2014 after the US orchestrated coup d’état in Kiev. Moscow has said that it must conclude that any F-16’s in the air heading toward Russia could be carrying nukes and will respond accordingly.

The US long ago positioned nuclear weapons throughout Europe as you can see in the graphic just below. [on original]

Out of their complete desperation, as the US-NATO lose the war in Ukraine, they very well could decide to use these nukes now deployed in Europe. If that decision is made (and it would be made in Washington) then we are without a doubt off to the nuclear war races.

Now is the time for people not suffering from terminal imperial insanity to speak loudly – publicly and with determination – if we hope to survive the decline of the US-NATO killing project

August 4, 2024 Posted by | Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Japan, U.S. urged to work for nuclear abolition at symposium

By NAOKI NAKAYAMA/ Staff Writer, July 28, 2024

NAGASAKI–Japan and the United States have a “special responsibility” to lead efforts to abolish nuclear weapons, the head of a U.S. nongovernmental organization told a 30th international peace symposium.

Ivana Hughes, president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, was speaking at the “International Symposium for Peace: The Road to Nuclear Weapons Abolition” held at the Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Museum on July 27.

She said damage from radiation is still an issue in the Marshall Islands in the Pacific Ocean 70 years after the largest U.S. hydrogen bomb test at Bikini Atoll.

“After all, although for different reasons, the United States and Japan both have a special responsibility to not only join the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, but to lead efforts toward its full and complete implementation and total elimination of nuclear weapons,” Hughes said as she wound up her keynote speech.

Many speakers felt that the global situation surrounding nuclear weapons has deteriorated over the past 30 years, with nuclear disarmament stalled, and expressed concerns about growing international tensions, citing Russia’s war in Ukraine and the Israel-Hamas conflict.

“We should think about nuclear abolition from the perspective of the security of ‘mankind,’ not of nations,” said Mitsuru Kurosawa, an expert on nuclear disarmament and professor emeritus at Osaka University.

Batyrkhan Kurmanseit, minister-counselor at the Kazakhstan Embassy in Japan, said Kazakhstan is the only former Soviet republic that ratified the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. He said an international framework for nuclear abolition has never been more needed than right now.

The Asahi Shimbun has been a co-sponsor of the annual symposium, which has alternately been held in Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the municipal governments and local peace organizations every summer since 1995.

Terumi Tanaka, a hibakusha atomic bomb survivor and co-chair of the Japan Federation of A- and H-Bomb Sufferers Organization (Nihon Hidankyo), and Seiko Mimaki, an associate professor at Doshisha University’s graduate school specializing in U.S. politics and diplomacy, also participated in the symposium’s panel discussion.

In a speech, Kan Sang-jung, president of Chinzei Gakuin University in Nagasaki Prefecture, emphasized the importance of listening to hibakusha, saying that many lives have been lost as countries clash over what they believe is just amid the post-Cold War rise of nationalism.

Hibakusha Shizuko Mitamura read a hand-made picture card show that tells the story of what happened to her on Aug. 9, 1945, when the city of Nagasaki was leveled by atomic bombing, and the loss of her daughter to cancer in 2010, when she was 39.

August 4, 2024 Posted by | Japan, opposition to nuclear, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »