Fish Hell – impacts of sea water nuclear cooling systems
12 July 2023 https://www.banng.info/news/regional-life/fish-hell/
Varrie Blowers looks at the devastating impacts of sea water cooling systems on the marine environment in the July 2023 edition of Regional Life
What amounts to a ‘fish hell’ is being proposed at the Hinkley Point C (HPC) new nuclear power station. This provides an indication of what might happen on the Blackwater if a new nuclear station or so-called Small Modular Reactors were ever built here.
In 2019, conservation groups predicted that the gigantic twin cooling water intake tunnels at HPC would kill up to 250,000 fish a day. Eels, small fish and the fry of many species, such as salmon, whiting and cod, and microorganisms will be sucked into the cooling system through the 5mm mesh installed to prevent larger fish being swallowed up into this fish hell, to be discharged in heated water after hideous suffering. If this seems outrageous, things may be about to get worse.
To gain Planning Permission HPC’s developer, Electricité de France (EDF), was required to instal Acoustic Fish Deterrents (AFDs) in the intake pipes to give some warning to fish to keep away. EDF does not now want to instal these, most likely for financial reasons. Without AFDs, Stop Hinkley! argues that up to 500,000 fish a day will be sucked into the cooling water intakes. That suggests 11 billion fish and other marine life will be destroyed in the c.60 years life of the station.
Conditions may be different in the Bradwell B context but any nuclear development that requires cooling water from the estuary would severely affect marine life. Affected, too, would be the many wildfowl and migratory birds that depend on fish and other marine life for food in estuaries like the Severn and Blackwater, which support important and protected habitats.
In other sobering news, an ‘unheard of’ heatwave in our coastal waters has been reported. Before you jump into the sea, consider the impacts of warmer water on our marine life. If the heatwave continues through the summer, experts believe ‘we could see the mass mortality of kelp, seagrass, fish and oysters’ (Guardian, 20 June).
Ukrainian counteroffensive ‘highly unlikely’ to succeed, US officials tell CNN
https://www.rt.com/russia/581006-ukraine-counteroffensive-unlikely-success/ 8 Aug 23
Reports from the battlefield have become increasingly “sobering,” one US Congressman has told the network
Kiev’s Western backers are losing faith in the ability of the Ukrainian military to penetrate Russian defenses and turn the tide of the conflict, US and other Western officials told CNN on Tuesday.
“[The Ukrainians are] still going to see, for the next couple of weeks, if there is a chance of making some progress. But for them to really make progress that would change the balance of this conflict, I think, it’s extremely, highly unlikely,” an unnamed “senior Western diplomat” told the American broadcaster.
Illinois Representative Mike Quigley, a Democrat who recently met with US commanders in Europe, described their briefings as “sobering.”
“We’re reminded of the challenges [the Ukrainians] face,” he said, adding that “This is the most difficult time of the war.”
Ukraine launched its long-awaited counteroffensive against Russian forces in early June, assaulting multiple points along the frontline from Zaporozhye to Donetsk regions. However, the Russian military had spent several months preparing a dense and multi-layered network of minefields, trenches, and fortifications, which the Ukrainian side has thus far failed to overcome.
Advancing through minefields without air support, Ukraine’s Western-trained and NATO-equipped units have suffered horrendous casualties, losing 43,000 troops and 4,900 pieces of heavy weaponry in just over two months, according to the most recent figures from the Russian Defense Ministry.
“[The] Russians have a number of defensive lines and [Ukrainian forces] haven’t really gone through the first line,” another anonymous Western diplomat told CNN. “Even if they would keep on fighting for the next several weeks, if they haven’t been able to make more breakthroughs throughout these last seven, eight weeks, what is the likelihood that they will suddenly, with more depleted forces, make them?”
Despite the best efforts of Ukraine’s armed forces chief, Gen. Valery Zaluzhny, to convince the US that “the initiative is on our side,” officials told CNN that Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky could soon be pushed to sue for peace if progress remains stalled.
A senior US military official predicted that Kiev would rely more and more on piecemeal strikes within Russia – like the recent drone attacks on Moscow – to compensate for its shortcomings on the battlefield. The Kremlin has drawn similar conclusions from these attacks, with spokesman Dmitry Peskov declaring last week that Kiev was launching “terrorist strikes” as “acts of desperation” to distract from its failing counteroffensive.
Poll Shows Majority of Americans Oppose Further Aid in Ukraine
By Talia Mullin / ScheerPost, 9 Aug 23
On Aug. 4, 2023, CNN released a poll, conducted with Social Science Research Solutions (SSRS), which found that most Americans oppose Congress authorizing additional aid to Ukraine in their war with Russia. While previous coverage highlighted a divide between Democrats and Republicans concerning the United States’ role in Ukraine, the recent poll results reveal a split public opinion on whether the U.S. has sufficiently supported Ukraine.
The poll was conducted by SSRS, an independent research company, in July with a random national sample of 1,279 adults who completed the survey by telephone or online after being initially contacted by mail.
According to the poll, 55% of respondents say that Congress should not authorize further funding to support Ukraine, and an additional 51% believe the U.S. has already done enough to help Ukrainian forces. This contrasts a poll conducted in Feb. 2022 which found that 62% of people felt that the U.S. could have been doing more to aid Ukraine. ……………………………………….
more https://scheerpost.com/2023/08/09/poll-shows-majority-of-americans-oppose-further-aid-in-ukraine/
—
Final Hearing on the Chalk River Megadump – Thursday, August 10, Commission hearing, 9am to 12 noon
Gordon Edwards, 9 Aug 23
Thursday, August 10, from 9 am to noon – CNSC will be conducting its final public hearings on the planned “megadump” at Chalk River — a gigantic mound of radioactive and non-radioactive toxic wastes, five to seven stories high, about one kilometre from the Ottawa River. About two-thirds of the radionuclides in the listed radioactive inventory have half-lives in excess of 5000 years. To tune in to the live webcast, visit http://cnsc.isilive.ca
Thursday’s hearings will be for the sole purpose of allowing the Algonquin communities of Kebaowek and Kitigan-Zibi to make their final presentations to the Commissioners. The Chalk River site is situiated on the unceded territory of 11 Algonquin communities. The Commission will not allow the Algonquin representatives to appear in person, they must make their case by zoom. The Indigenous leaders are explicitly forbidden from introducing any new evidence, they are asked to simply summarize the evidence that has already been presented to the CNSC.
Although the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) states that hazardous materials cannot be stored or disposed of on Indigenous land without the free, prior, informed consent of the Indigenous people whose land is affected, and although the Government of Canada acknowledges that it has a duty to consult with Indigenous Peoples, the Algonquins were not brought into the process until after all the major decisions had been made, including the site for the megadump (euphemistically called a Near Surface Disposal Facility NSDF).Keboawek Ashinbeg Nation, and Kitigan-Zibi Nation, do not consent to the project. They particularly object to the siting of these very long-lived highly toxic wastes so close to the Ottawa River.
All the key decisions about this project were made by a consortium of multinational corporations headed by SNC-Lavalin — a Quebec-based company that the Prime Minister has been eager to protect from criminal prosecution in the past. SNC-Lavalin was banned for 10 years from bidding on any international projects funded by the World Bank because of a proven record of fraudulent practices in many countries. In Quebec, SNC-Lavalin corporate executives went to jail for fraudulent practices connected with a “Super-Hospital” and a major Bridge, and for an elaborate corporate scheme to funnel illegal donations to political parties while hiding the true facts in its duplicitous corporate ledgers using an elaborate coding system.
The consortium, operating under the name “Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL)”, was originally hired under the Harper administration but with a premature renewal of their contract by the Trudeau administration. CNL has been receiving close to a billion dollars a year in taxpayers money since the consortium was hired.
All Canadians should be concerned that long-lived human-made post-fission wastes are about to be permanently “disposed of” (i.e.placed in a gigantic glorified landfill) without the consent of the Indigenous people or of the 174 municipalities (including the City of Montreal) that have strongly objected to the project. Apparenlty, the convenience of the nuclear promoters with the complicity of a captured nuclear regulator over-rules the wishes of Canadian citizens or the long-term protection of a major river from unnecessary ultimate contamination.
Target China
The UNZ Review, MIKE WHITNEY • AUGUST 3, 2023
The Biden Administration is implementing a plan to draw Taiwan into a direct military confrontation with the People’s Republic of China. The plan bears many similarities to the strategy that was used in Ukraine where Russia was goaded into invading the country in response to emerging threats to its national security. In this case, Beijing is expected to react to mounting challenges to its territorial integrity by US proxies and their political allies operating in Taiwan. These incitements will inevitably lead to greater material support from the United States which has stealthily worked behind the scenes (and in the media) to create a crisis.
The ultimate objective of these machinations, is to arm, train and provide logistical support for Taiwanese separatists who will spearhead Washington’s proxy war on China. According to a number of independent reports, there is already growing operational collaboration between the Taiwanese Army and US Armed Forces. That collaboration will undoubtedly deepen after hostilities break out and the island is plunged into war.
The plan to confront China militarily was outlined in the 2022 National Security Strategy in which the PRC was identified as “America’s most consequential geopolitical challenge” who expressed its “intent to reshape the international order.” This NSS analysis was followed by an explicit commitment to prevail in the struggle to control the “Indo-Pacific” region which “fuels much of the world’s economic growth and will be the epicenter of 21st century geopolitics.”...(“No region will be of more significance to …everyday Americans than the Indo-Pacific.”) Biden’s NSS emphasizes the critical role the military will play in the impending confrontation with China: “We will…modernize and strengthen our military so it is equipped for the era of strategic competition with major powers”… “America will not hesitate to use force to defend our national interests”.
Drawing China into a Taiwan quagmire is the first phase of a broader containment strategy aimed at preserving America’s top spot in the global order while preventing China from becoming the region’s dominant economy. The plan also includes economic, cyber and informational elements that are designed to work in concert with the military component. In its entirety, the strategy represents Washington’s best effort to roll-back the clock to the heyday of the unipolar world order when America set the global agenda and the United States had no rival.
Trouble in Taiwan
Taiwan is not a country. Taiwan is an island off the coast of China much like Santa Catalina is an island off the coast of California. No one disputes that Santa Catalina is part of the United States, just as no one disputes that Taiwan is a part of China. The issue was settled long ago, and the US agrees with the results of that settlement. For all practical purposes, the issue has been resolved.
The United Nations does not recognize Taiwan’s independence nor do the 181 countries that have established diplomatic relations with China. In fact, the UN adopted a General Assembly Resolution back in 1971 acknowledging the “People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government representing the whole of China.”
The One-China policy explicitly relates to the status of Taiwan. Taiwan is part of China, that’s what the One-China policy means. Nations that want to have relations with China must agree on the status of Taiwan; it is the foundational principle upon which all relations with China are based. The issue is not debatable. One can either accept that ‘Taiwan is an inalienable part of China’s territory’ or take their business elsewhere. There is no third option.
The United States claims that it is committed to the One-China policy. In their recent visits to Beijing, all three senior-level officials from the Biden Administration (Anthony Blinken, Janet Yellen and John Kerry) publicly stated their unwavering support for the One-China policy. This is an excerpt from an article at Forbes:
Secretary of State Antony Blinken reiterated the U.S.’ position on its One China policy as he met with China’s leader Xi Jinping Monday, saying it does not support Taiwanese independence and that containing China’s economy was not an American goal….
Blinken said the U.S. held a “One China” policy and does not support Taiwanese independence, but is concerned about China’s “provocative actions” along the Taiwan Strait. Blinken Tells Xi Jinping U.S. Does Not Support Taiwanese Independence, After Meeting To Quell Tensions, Forbes
President Joe Biden has also stated his support for the One-China principle on many, many occasions, which is what you would expect since it is the official position of the United States government. Here’s a short recap on the issue from China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs:
The US made the following commitments to China regarding the one-China principle in the three China-US joint communiqués.
In the Shanghai Communiqué released in 1972, the US explicitly stated that “The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position”.
In the Joint Communiqué on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations released in 1978, the US clearly stated that, “The Government of the United States of America acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China”.
In the August 17 Communiqué released in 1982, the US unequivocally stated that “In the Joint Communiqué on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations on January 1, 1979, issued by the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the Government of the United States of America, the United States of America recognized the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China, and it acknowledged the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China”, and that “it has no intention of infringing on Chinese sovereignty and territorial integrity, or interfering in China’s internal affairs, or pursuing a policy of ‘two Chinas’ or ‘one China, one Taiwan’”. (China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs)
The western media would like their readers to think there is some “gray area” here and that the issue regarding China’s sovereign territory has not been settled. But—as we have shown—it has been settled. Taiwan is China. We must assume therefore that the media is being intentionally misleading in order to garner support for an “independence” movement that serves only one purpose; to legitimize the arming and training of US assets and insurgents that will be used in a bloody conflagration with China. In truth, the United States is laying the groundwork for a proxy-war on China, and Taiwan has been designated as the frontlines in that war. The independence movement is merely the cover Washington has chosen to conceal its real objectives.
This is why Taiwan has become a flashpoint in US-China relations. This is why numerous US-led delegations have visited Taiwan expressing their tacit support for Taiwan independence. This is why Congress has allocated millions of dollars to provide lethal weaponry for the Taiwanese military. This is why the US Navy has sent warships through the Taiwan Strait and conducted massive military drills on China’s perimeter. This is why Washington continues to provoke Beijing on the one issue that it is most sensitive. All of these incitements were conjured-up with one goal in mind: War with China. This is from Politico:
The Biden administration announced a $345 million weapons package for Taiwan on Friday, the first tranche in a total of $1 billion the U.S. has allotted to be transferred directly from Pentagon stockpiles to the island this year…..………………………………………………..
Repeat: “The move is sure to anger China.”
Indeed, the move was designed to anger China. That was clearly the point. But, why? Why is Washington challenging China on an issue on which there is virtually universal agreement?
- To goad China into overreacting and thus alienating itself from its allies and regional trading partners.
- To turn public opinion against China by portraying the country as a violent aggressor that poses a clear threat to its neighbors.
Here’s more from the World Socialist Web Site:
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Preparing for war with China, US provides $345 million in arms to Taiwan,
Imagine if China sent millions of dollars of lethal weapons to a budding secessionist movement in Texas. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
And, ask yourself this: Haven’t we seen this drill before? Didn’t this same scenario unfold in Ukraine following the CIA-backed coup in 2014 after which the US armed and trained Ukrainian forces to dig-in and provoke hostilities with Russia?……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Let’s summarize:
- The Indo-Pacific is now America’s top foreign policy priority because that is the area that will experience the most growth
- The US will lead with its military and with the allies who share US interests
- “We will…modernize and strengthen our military” to prevail in our “strategic competition with major powers.”
- America’s Number 1 enemy is China; “the PRC presents America’s most consequential geopolitical challenge ….The PRC is the only competitor with both the intent to reshape the international order and, increasingly, the economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to do it…”
- “The post-Cold War era is over” but the United States is prepared to preserve the “rules-based order” whatever the cost in blood and treasure.
This is America’s foreign policy in a nutshell. US leaders and their globalist allies are fully committed to prevailing in today’s great power struggle with Russia and China. They have a clear grasp of the objectives they want to achieve and they are prepared to risk anything, including nuclear war, to achieve them. Any developments in Taiwan must be seen through the lens of Washington’s geopolitical ambitions which are clearly driving events.…. more https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/target-china/
Democracy Needs Healthy Debates About War And Peace
To top it all, the Pentagon has never passed a financial audit! It’s the only major federal agency that hasn’t passed an audit, despite getting more discretionary dollars than any other. That means that we don’t know where our tax money is going.
Who benefits from this lack of transparency? Exactly who you’d think — contractors who profit off war. Around half of the military budget goes to for-profit contractors who make excessive profits at the expense of taxpayers and peace.
by EDITOR, August 7, 2023 https://scheerpost.com/2023/08/07/democracy-needs-healthy-debates-about-war-and-peace/
Congress spent the last “military spending” debate rehashing the culture wars — not the nearly $1 trillion Pentagon budget itself.
By Jyotsna Naidu / OtherWords
If there’s one thing that should be subject to rigorous debate and the will of the people, it’s decisions about war and peace. Unfortunately, that’s not what we got with the huge military policy bill recently passed by the House and Senate.
Somehow, the annual National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA — which can bring war or peace, and which now costs nearly $1 trillion — never sees much serious debate in Congress about those issues.
Before this year, the NDAA passed easily for 61 years straight. The process is intentionally rushed. Hundreds of amendments are filed and voted at once, leaving little room for serious discourse.
This year was a partial exception. Lawmakers did debate the bill, which passed the House only narrowly. But they debated all the wrong things.
Representatives provoked hate with countless culture war amendments. Ignoring issues of war and peace, far-right members of Congress debated cutting funding for service members’ abortions and diversity programs on military bases.
Here’s what they should have discussed.
In 2021, the Congressional Budget Office published a report detailing three ways to cut military spending by $1 trillion over 10 years without compromising national security. Instead, Congress has given the military even more money each year.
This year, Representatives Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Mark Pocan (D-WI) called to shift $100 billion of the defense budget toward urgent domestic needs. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) introduced a similar amendment in the Senate, which would have cut the Pentagon budget by 10 percent.
An American Friends Service Committee poll released earlier this year showed 56 percent of Americans would support cutting military spending to reinvest in those funds in public programs.
And amendments efforts would have exempted troops’ pay and benefits from any cuts, targeting the bloated military contractorsinstead.
In the House, the amendment was never allowed for debate — and never got a vote. In the Senate, the Sanders amendment got just 11 votes.
To top it all, the Pentagon has never passed a financial audit! It’s the only major federal agency that hasn’t passed an audit, despite getting more discretionary dollars than any other. That means that we don’t know where our tax money is going.
Who benefits from this lack of transparency? Exactly who you’d think — contractors who profit off war. Around half of the military budget goes to for-profit contractors who make excessive profits at the expense of taxpayers and peace.
With these robber baron-like profits, contractors have funded think tanks to produce favorable research and “expert” mediacommentary supporting higher military budgets — while lobbying politicians to keep spending on contractors.
In the House, this year’s NDAA lost its usual broad bipartisan support because of Democrats’ opposition to its far-right culture war amendments, not because there was suddenly political will to address war spending. The Senate simply passed the NDAA without the controversial amendments.
Culture wars aside, we can’t let lawmakers go back to idly voting for pro-war and pro-contractor interests.
I do have hope. People are already winning when they fight. In 2016, for example, activists successfully pressured the Massachusetts company Textron to stop producing cluster munitions, which disproportionately hurt civilians.
And as the congressional opposition to those nasty amendments showed more recently, lawmakers can still respond to public pressure. The onus is now on us to demand our lawmakers have a real democratic debate on war, peace, and the military budget.
Democracy is at stake.
Carcinogens found at Montana nuclear missile sites as reports of hundreds of cancers surface
The Air Force has detected unsafe levels of a likely carcinogen in samples taken at a Montana missile base where a striking number of men and women have reported cancer diagnoses
By TARA COPP Associated Press, August 8, 2023 https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/carcinogens-found-nuclear-missile-sites-reports-hundreds-cancers-102087696
WASHINGTON — The Air Force has detected unsafe levels of a likely carcinogen at underground launch control centers at a Montana nuclear missile base where a striking number of men and women have reported cancer diagnoses.
A new cleanup effort has been ordered.
The discovery “is the first from an extensive sampling of active U.S. intercontinental ballistic missile bases to address specific cancer concerns raised by missile community members,” Air Force Global Strike Command said in a release Monday. In those samples, two launch facilities at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana showed PCB levels higher than the thresholds recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency.
PCBs are oily or waxy substances that have been identified as a likely carcinogen by the EPA. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma is a blood cancer that uses the body’s infection-fighting lymph system to spread.
In response, Gen. Thomas Bussiere, commander of Air Force Global Strike Command, has directed “immediate measures to begin the cleanup process for the affected facilities and mitigate exposure by our airmen and Guardians to potentially hazardous conditions.”
After a military briefing was obtained by The Associated Press in January showing that at least nine current or former missileers at Malmstrom were diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a rare blood cancer, the Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine launched a study to look at cancers among the entire missile community checking for the possibility of clusters of the disease.
And there could be hundreds more cancers of all types, based on new data from a grassroots group of former missile launch officers and their surviving family members.
According to the Torchlight Initiative, at least 268 troops who served at nuclear missile sites, or their surviving family members, have self-reported being diagnosed with cancer, blood diseases or other illnesses over the past several decades.
At least 217 of those reported cases are cancers, at least 33 of them non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
What’s notable about those reported numbers is that the missileer community is very small. Only a few hundred airmen serve as missileers at each of the country’s three silo-launched Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile bases any given year. There have been only about 21,000 missileers in total since the Minuteman operations began in the early 1960s, according to the Torchlight Initiative.
For some context, in the U.S. general population there are about 403 new cancer cases reported per 100,000 people each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma affects an estimated 19 of every 100,000 people annually, according to the American Cancer Society.
Minutemen III silo fields are based at Malmstrom, F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming and Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota.
Missileers are male and female military officers who serve in underground launch control centers where they are responsible for monitoring, and if needed, launching fields of silo-based nuclear weapons. Two missileers spend sometimes days at a time on watch in underground bunkers, ready to turn the key and fire Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles if ordered to do so by the president.
The Minuteman III silos and underground control centers were built more than 60 years ago. Much of the electronics and infrastructure is decades old. Missileers have raised health concerns multiple times over the years about ventilation, water quality and potential toxins they cannot avoid as they spend 24 to 48 hours on duty underground.
The Air Force discovery of PCBs occurred as part of site visits by its bioenvironmental team from June 22 to June 29 in the Air Force’s ongoing larger investigation into the number of cancers reported among the missile community. During the site visits a health assessment team collected water, soil, air and surface samples from each of the missile launch facilities.
At Malmstrom, of the 300 surface swipe samples, 21 detected PCBs. Of those, 19 were below levels set by the EPA requiring mitigation and two were above. No PCBs were detected in any of the 30 air samples. The Air Force is still waiting for test results from F.E. Warren and Minot for surface and air samples, and for all bases for the water and soil samples.
As Japan set to dump nuclear-contaminated wastewater in late August, Japanese nuclear expert vows to ‘fight it to the end’
Global Times, By Xu Keyue, Aug 07, 2023
As mainstream Japanese media revealed that Tokyo could start to dump the nuclear-contaminated wastewater as early as the end this month after the trilateral US-Japan-South Korea summit, observers and the wider public in China, Japan and South Korea reiterated their opposition to the irresponsible move with a Japanese nuclear expert stating that they would continue to protest against the plan.
“We plan to fight it to the end. We are planning to hold a big gathering in front of the prime minister’s office on August 18 and we plan to make a petition and submit signatures,” Hideyuki Ban, a Japanese nuclear expert and co-director of the Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center (CNIC), told the Global Times on Monday.
According to Japanese media outlet Asahi Shimbun, the Japanese government has entered into coordination to determine the wastewater release timing after the summit with the US and South Korea scheduled for August 18. After Prime Minister Fumio Kishida returns from the US, he will hold a ministerial meeting and make a decision over the dumping of contaminated wastewater.
Asahi cited several officials as saying that the dumping is estimated to begin as early as the end of August. The report claimed that Kishida is expected to explain “the safety of the treated water, its scientific basis, and measures to be taken after the release” to the two leaders of the US and South Korea to gain their understanding.
But Ban believes if the contaminated wastewater is dumped in late August, it is the Japanese government that would force the plan without caring for the concerns and opposition from fisheries and the relevant personnel………………………………….
As many parties in Japan and other countries including China oppose the wastewater dumping plan, the Japanese government must be thinking that it will at least get the consent of Seoul and Washington and if the three reach a consensus over the issue during the summit, it is expected to help Tokyo press ahead with its arbitrary plan, Ban pointed out.
Anonymous Japanese officials in the prime minister’s office were quoted by Asahi as saying that they believe since some offshore trawling will commence off the coast of Fukushima Prefecture in September, the government hopes to avoid starting the release after the fishing season has begun. For this reason, it is assumed that the dumping will start around the end of August, Asahi reported. https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202308/1295820.shtml
Dounreay inspectors raise further red flag about sodium storage
John O’Groat Journal, By Iain Grant, 5 Aug 23
The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) has issued an enforcement letter to Magnox Ltd after recording a breach of its nuclear site licence.
Sodium was used to cool the prototype fast reactor (PFR) whose closure in 1994 sounded the death knell for the experimental power plant.
Since its removal from the redundant plant, some of the highly volatile liquid metal has been stored in drums.
ONR’s latest concern follows an inspection at the end of April.
The agency has concluded that the storage arrangements do not comply with good practice. Its latest report states: “The dutyholder has failed to safely protect the drums against degradation via air and moisture ingress; large stocks of the inventory are not available for inspection due to the way in which it has been stored; and a number of the storage vessels of the material are not identified on the site maintenance system.
ONR found that Magnox – a wholly owned subsidiary of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority – had breached the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 and its nuclear site licence.
It followed up its enforcement letter with a ‘holding-to-account’ meeting on site in June with Magnox directors.
According to ONS, this was arranged to ‘further secure a commitment to return to compliance.”
In June, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa) had fired off a warning letter about a minute leak of radioactive tritium from a sodium drum stored at the PFR in November last year…………………………………………….. https://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/news/dounreay-inspectors-raise-further-red-flag-about-sodium-stor-322156/
Zelensky fears peace pressure from West – NYT
6 Aug 23 https://www.rt.com/news/580879-zelensky-fears-western-pressure-for-peace-talks/—
The Ukrainian president has reportedly told his diplomats that benefactors may push for a negotiated truce with Russia
Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky is reportedly worried that Western nations may ramp up pressure to negotiate a peace agreement with Russia, ending a bloody conflict that has killed tens of thousands of Kiev’s troops in just the past two months.
“As furious battles raged across the front lines of Europe’s bloodiest war in decades, Mr. Zelensky told his ambassadors on Wednesday that things would grow even more difficult as pressure was likely to build in the coming months to find a negotiated path to peace,” the New York Times reported on Saturday.
The Ukrainian president described Wednesday’s gathering in Kiev with diplomats as an “emergency strategy session” heading into this weekend’s Ukraine peace summit in Saudi Arabia, the newspaper said. “The meeting is the starting point of what is expected to be a major Ukrainian diplomatic push in the coming months to try to undercut Russia.”
Zelensky told his ambassadors that they must use every available tool – “official and unofficial, institutional and media, cultural diplomacy and the power of ordinary human sincerity” – to convince both allies and neutral nations that “the only road to a lasting peace is complete Russian defeat,” according to the report.
However, many of the nations attending the summit in Saudi Arabia have resisted US pressure to take sides in the crisis, seeing the conflict as a “contest between superpowers” in which they want no part. “This is not only a conflict between Russia and Ukraine,” said Celso Amorim, an adviser to Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Speaking remotely on Saturday at the Saudi-hosted summit, he added: “This is also a chapter in the longstanding rivalry between Russia and the West.”
Russian officials have argued that Kiev’s Western backers are only prolonging the bloodshed in Ukraine by continuing to send billions of dollars’ worth of weapons to the former Soviet republic. More than 43,000 Ukrainian troops have been killed since Kiev began a counteroffensive in the Donbass region in early June, the Russian Defense Ministry said on Friday.
Russian and Ukrainian negotiators were reportedly near a peace deal at talks hosted by Türkiyein March 2022, a little more than a month after the conflict began. “After we pulled troops back from Kiev, as we promised,” Ukrainian leaders “threw it all away, into the garbage dump of history,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said at a meeting with African leaders in July.
Rapid Dragon: the US military game-changer that could affect conventional and nuclear strategy and arms control negotiations
Bulletin, By George M. Moore | August 4, 2023
The United States Air Force recently announced the successful test of its Rapid Dragon system in a major Pacific exercise.[1] This followed an earlier successful test during an exercise in Norway in late 2022.[2]
………………..In standard English, Rapid Dragon converts cargo aircraft into weapons carriers that can deploy cruise missiles (and potentially other standoff or self-defense weapons) by releasing them on pallets via the planes’ rear cargo ramps. Such a system makes a cargo aircraft into the equivalent of a bomber. Potentially the cargo aircrafts’ weapons load is limited only by how many pallets will fit in the cargo bay.
………………………………………………………The potential to develop Rapid Dragon so it can deliver nuclear weapons does not seem to have received any attention. The AGM-86 Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) is nuclear capable and currently deliverable by the B-52. It appears that nothing would prevent the Rapid Dragon deployment of the ALCM, turning any cargo aircraft capable of using Rapid Dragon into a nuclear delivery aircraft.
The potential to use Rapid Dragon for nuclear weapons delivery (and eventually this will occur) will create new issues when serious nuclear weapons limitation resume.
……………………………………..The potential for nuclear launch from cargo aircraft creates new tactical problems that could affect survivability and deterrence concepts. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………
Do right by the whales
Beyond Nuclear International 6 Aug 23
No environmental study has ever been conducted of the impact of the North Atlantic right whales’ protected birthing waters being occupied by the massive Kings Bay naval station
Nuclear sub base expansion ignores precious species; missiles could destroy us all
Background: The U.S. Navy has released a Draft Environmental Assessment for the homeporting of the Columbia Class submarines at Naval Submarine Base (NSB) Kings Bay.
The Navy proposes to establish facilities and functions at NSB Kings Bay to support the homeporting of Columbia Class submarines as replacements for the retiring Ohio Class submarines currently homeported at NSB Kings Bay. Under the Proposed Action, the Navy would construct eight facilities, modify five facilities, and demolish three facilities across three locations on NSB Kings Bay.
Facility changes and development activities would be phased over a period of five years and completed coincident to the first Columbia Class submarines in 2028.
Nuclear Watch South has prepared comments opposing this development. The following article is drawn from their statement and comments recently submitted to the U.S. Navy.
Georgia’s 100 miles of Atlantic Ocean coastline is a globally unique, fertile, and fragile marshland environment of barrier islands, freshwater tidal forests, maritime forests, and endangered longleaf pine forest. Georgia’s vast salt marshes support a staggering diversity of plant and animal life nurturing the eggs and hatchlings of countless sea creatures and providing significant nesting and migration habitat for 200 bird species.
Kings Bay, near the Georgia-Florida state line, is home base for six Trident submarines and deploys 25% of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. A Trident submarine is the most expensive and deadly nuclear weapons system on Earth. The only other nation to possess a similarly powerful system is the United Kingdom, a longtime United States ally. The Trident has been controversial since its inception as it upsets the so-called MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) power balance, fueling a dangerous and costly international arms race.
The Navy conducted an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in 1977 when Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base was first proposed. The EIS was performed to fulfill environmental and public accountability requirements of the newly instituted National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) of 1969.
In 1979, construction began on Kings Bay. In 1984, it was first discovered that the base had unwittingly intruded upon the (previously unknown and apparently only) birthing waters for the critically endangered North Atlantic right whales in the Cumberland Sound.
Kings Bay base began operations in 1989. The Soviet Union dissolved in 1991. At the same time, the U.S. nuclear weapons manufacturing complex, occupying vast reservations in more than a dozen states from Washington to South Carolina, was shuttering its reactors and facilities amidst revelations of widespread nuclear contamination and vast inventories of poorly managed radioactive wastes.
The nuclear weapons complex suddenly and belatedly became subject to environmental law and NEPA has since proved to be a difficult filter through which to permit new nuclear weapons manufacture.
For example, the U.S. Department of Energy and National Nuclear Security Agency have failed in five attempts over the past 30 years to establish a plutonium pit production facility at the Savannah River Site (SRS) on the South Carolina/Georgia state line.
Nuclear weapons manufacturing has languished since 1990 in all nuclear-armed nations and limited nuclear treaties have greatly reduced nuclear stockpiles. All nuclear testing ceased in 1992. Trident submarines now carry fewer nuclear weapons, but each Trident submarine currently can deploy the explosive power of 1,825 Hiroshimas.
In 2021, the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons entered into force, presently counting 68 nations as parties. The treaty begins by expressing the parties’ concern for “the catastrophic humanitarian consequences that would result from any use of nuclear weapons, and recognizing the consequent need to completely eliminate such weapons, which remains the only way to guarantee that nuclear weapons are never used again under any circumstances.”
This landmark, game-changing treaty sets forth as international law that it is illegal to “develop, test, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.”
The North Atlantic right whale population rebounded from near extinction when hunting the whales was outlawed in 1935. The whales encountered new hazards, however, with the industrialization of shipping and fishing. Ship strikes and entanglement in fishing gear are held responsible for mortality events which are now decimating the whale population.
The current population of the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale has crashed to fewer than 350 animals. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) estimates 50 births per year are required to avoid extinction of these ancient, magnificent marine mammals. In 2022, only 15 North Atlantic right whales were born.
No environmental study has ever been conducted of the impact of the North Atlantic right whales’ protected birthing waters being occupied by the massive Kings Bay naval station.
Despite the moribund state of nuclear weapons manufacture, in 2022, the U.S. spent $83,000 per minute on nuclear weapons. This budget includes items such as the redundant Columbia class submarine, which this environmental study narrowly contemplates.
Earth’s inhabitants now face extreme dislocation from climate change in addition to living under the Damocles sword of nuclear annihilation for the previous three generations. Clearly, resources now squandered on nuclear weapons can be converted to the task of making the lifestyle changes required to retain our planet’s life-supporting atmosphere.
It is the pleasure and duty of the public to participate in important decisions as framed and codified by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Nuclear Watch South lists here the pertinent portions of the Act upon which these comments rely.
Comments
An Environmental Assessment is inadequate. An Environmental Impact Statement should be performed…………………………………………………………………………….
Before 1984, it was unknown where the critically endangered North Atlantic right whales gave birth to their calves. Nuclear Watch South believes that the construction activities of the naval base forced the whales into open waters during a most vulnerable part of their life cycle, which led to the death of the baby calf discovered in 1982 and puts ongoing pressure upon the dwindling population of this critically endangered, protected species. Kings Bay’s presence must be counted among the human-created hazards driving the North Atlantic right whale to extinction.
The reasonably foreseeable impact of nuclear weapons is wholesale environmental destruction
NEPA requires analysis of all foreseeable impacts from the proposed activity. The environmental impact from use of the nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons system housed at Kings Bay must be contemplated in an EIS. It is the nature of the SSBN (Sub-Surface Ballistic Nuclear) program that it is capable of destroying the whole Earth. The whole Earth is stakeholder…………………………………………………
Kings Bay impacts on unique Georgia coastal environment are absent from EA and must be considered in an EIS
Kings Bay is a complex and unique site with environmental impacts from 30 years of Kings Bay operation in the sensitive Georgia coastal eco-system. Kings Bay’s previous environmental impacts, some of which are highlighted below, must be included in an EIS……………………………………………………………….
The sound where whales have given birth for previous millennia is regularly dredged to accommodate the five-story Trident submarines. In addition, U.S. Navy sonar testing has been shown to harm sea turtles and marine life, including the large marine mammals, whales, and dolphins. The impacts of Kings Bay on the dwindling North Atlantic right whale population’s southern range must be considered in addition to its impacts on other sea-life……………………………………………………………..
We are at a cultural crossroads that requires contemplation of whether to continue planet-killing nuclear arms roulette or to denuclearize and end the Atomic Age to avert annihilation. The NEPA process provides for a public and transparent exploration of the “big picture” with respect to large projects. Indeed, NEPA was borne out of the previously unforeseen environmental misadventures of the military industrial complex and instituted as a method to avert disaster with experience and deep foresight.
An alternative to continued “business as usual” at Kings Bay would be to remove the submarine killing machines and nuclear weapons from this sensitive, fragile, and vital eco-system and instead maintain a presence of national defense in the coastal marsh with a Coast Guard base and marine wildlife sanctuary.
This serves as a more benign project for our national defense that will also defend our wildlife and restore a healthy atmosphere to our planet.
Nuclear Watch South is a grassroots, statewide direct action environmental organization founded in 1977. Nuclear Watch South’s three-fold mission is 1) phase out nuclear power and promote conservation and sustainable energy sources such as wind and solar, 2) halt the proliferation of nuclear materials and abolish the global threat of nuclear weapons, and 3) promote the formation of ethical environmental policies for nuclear waste handling and containment. https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2023/08/06/do-right-by-the-whales/
Demonstrators protest development of nuclear weapons in Oak Ridge
by: Ella Wales, Aug 6, 2023
OAK RIDGE, Tenn. (WATE) — Demonstrators held a march in Oak Ridge Saturday against the development and use of nuclear weapons.
The Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance (OREPA) held the demonstration ahead of the 78th Anniversary of the U.S. bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. The group marched from Alvin K. Bissell Park to the Y-12 National Security Complex.
Tanvi Kardile, coordinator of OREPA, said they are an anti-violence grassroots organization.
“We work against development of nuclear weapons, we fight against Y-12 which is still producing weapons to this day and we want to spread public awareness about what they’re doing out there,” she said.
The group’s demonstration aimed to support nuclear abolition in the United States.
“We came here to talk about the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which is the only viable treaty that’s currently on the path to end nuclear weapons. The U.S. has not signed onto this treaty yet, so we’re here to spread public awareness about that,” Kardile said.
Counting the dead at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
This is a very long, well-researched, and amply illustrated article. Below are a few snatches to give a sense of the work involved in seeking an answer to this question.
Bulletin, By Alex Wellerstein, August 4, 2020
How many people died as a result of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
There is one thing that everyone who has tackled this question has agreed upon: The answer is probably fundamentally unknowable. The indiscriminate damage inflicted upon the cities, coupled with the existing disruptions of the wartime Japanese home front, means that any precise reckoning is never going to be achieved.
Earliest estimates……………………………………………………………………………………….
Occupation estimates………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. One of the most useful sources they consulted was also one of the most grim: schools and schoolchildren, which kept meticulous attendance records. Not only were there good records, but “the headmasters in many instances had made earnest efforts to trace families by letter, messenger, or personal contact.” Even better, the researchers found that many of the children were not in their classrooms at the time of the bombing, but had been detailed into “patriotic work parties” throughout the city, working in factories or working on firebreaks. So this provided data for many different distances from the bombing, and different types of structures. In this tragic fashion, the most vulnerable of those who died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki played a key role in establishing the total death counts…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Japanese-led reconsiderations………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
So what numbers should one use?
Given all of the above, and the disagreements about source terms that can dramatically alter the totals, what numbers should people who want to discuss the victims of the bombings use when doing so?
There is, I think it should be clear, no simple answer to this. In practice, authors and reports seem to cluster around two numbers, which I will call the “low” and the “high” estimates. The “low” estimates are those derived from the estimates of the 1940s: around 70,000 dead at Hiroshima, and around 40,000 dead at Nagasaki, for 110,000 total dead. The “high” estimates are those that derive from the 1977 re-estimation: around 140,000 dead at Hiroshima, and around 70,000 dead at Nagasaki, for a total of 210,000 total dead. Given that the “high” estimates are almost double the “low” estimates, this is a significant difference. There is no intellectually defensible reason to assume that, for example, an average (105,000 dead at Hiroshima, 55,000 dead at Nagasaki) would be more accurate or meaningful.
My qualitative sense is that historians who want to emphasize the suffering of the Japanese (and the injustice of the bombing) tend to prefer the “high” numbers, while those who want to emphasize the military necessity of the attack tend to prefer the “low” numbers. And therein lies the real question: What do these estimates do for us, rhetorically? It is clear that numbers, stripped from their technical contexts, are deployed primarily as a form of moral calculus. And this should not surprise us, given that so much of the argument defending the atomic bombs relies on another casualty estimate: how many people might have died in a full-scale land invasion of Japan (numbers that have been similarly contested for decades, ranging from tens of thousands of casualties, to the more imaginative millions).
Separately, the number of dead at Hiroshima and Nagasaki have also been explicitly compared to the estimated dead from the devastating firebombing attacks against both Germany (notably Dresden) and Japan (notably Tokyo) that preceded them. This argument is again part of the justification of atomic bombings, an attempt to show that they were not “special” in any particular moral sense when put up against “conventional” Allied activity. Whether this is or isn’t a strong argument is out of scope for this article, but it is just worth keeping in mind what work the “low” numbers do, for they pale in comparison with the highest estimates of the Tokyo bombing dead, and with the estimates for a land invasion of Japan.
Given that there is no satisfactory way to decide whether the “low” or “high” estimates are more accurate, it is fairly clear there is no “neutral” choice to be made. It ultimately comes down to which sort of authority one wishes to go with: the official estimates of the United States military in the 1940s, or the later estimates by a group of anti-nuclear weapons scientists, largely spearheaded by Japan. Both made legitimate points in making their estimations; neither show any apparent perfidy or obvious intellectual dishonesty.
Short of choosing one or the other, is there an elegant way to talk about the range? Saying “between 70,000 and 140,000 people died at Hiroshima” captures some of it, but does not really capture the reasons for the variance in these numbers. I might suggest, if there is space to do so, saying something like:
“The United States military estimated that around 70,000 people died at Hiroshima, though later independent estimates argued that the actual number was 140,000 dead. In both cases, the majority of the deaths occurred on the day of the bombing itself, with nearly all of them taking place by the end of 1945.”
This makes the authorship claims more explicit (even as it generalizes quite a bit into “the United States military” and “independent estimates”), and also makes it clear that this range is the cause of two entirely different assessments, not the errors of a single assessment. And it clarifies the question of timing, if the latter clause is allowed in. It is a wordy explanation—journalists will no doubt question whether it is worth the space in an article where they probably just wanted a simple number to quote—but if we are going to invoke such uncounted dead, it is worth the effort to do it in a way that is respectful of the uncertainties involved.
Philippines House panel OKs bill outlining nuclear damage compensation
By: Gabriel Pabico Lalu – Reporter / @GabrielLaluINQ INQUIRER.net August 07, 2023
MANILA, Philippines — A proposed measure that outlines civil liability and compensation in case of nuclear damage was approved by a House of Representatives panel on Monday.
During the hearing of the House Special Committee on nuclear energy, House Bill (HB) No. 8623, or the proposed Philippine Nuclear Liability Act, was approved, subject to discussions on the plenary.
A technical working group was also formed to reconcile differences between the original bill, authored by committee chairman and Pangasinan 2nd District Rep. Mark Cojuango, and the changes that would be made on the floor.
If enacted, the base version of the bill places that operators of nuclear installations would be liable for nuclear damage if there is proof that the incident was caused:
- in such nuclear installation or involving nuclear material coming from or originating in such nuclear installation
- involving nuclear material sent to such nuclear installation
It also specifies what conditions would require a joint liability — or when there is more than one operator handling the installation that caused the damage.
………………………………………………………………………………………………….. In a statement last May, the House of Representatives said IAEA informed lawmakers who hosted a forum on nuclear energy and international legal instruments that the law should contain the following provisions:
- regulatory control
- safe and secure uses
- offenses and penalties
- international cooperation
- peaceful uses
- compensation and liability
The IAEA said this after the House panel invited the Vienna-based organization to help Filipino lawmakers trying to come up with the necessary legal framework and policies for nuclear energy use.
https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1813407/fwd-panel-oks-bill-outlining-compensation-in-case-of-nuclear-damage#ixzz89luKgXEL
1 This Month
23-25 October – on Zoom – World BEYOND War’s annual global conferenc
Shut down the radiation-damaged Heysham nuclear reactors now
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
-
Archives
- October 2026 (209)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
-
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
