nuclear-news

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

Terrible truths about nuclear energy exposed

“We are all seeing a global political agreement centred in the UN organisations, tie IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], the World Health Organisation… All the international agencies are whitewashing what is happening in Fukushima.

By Karl Grossman | 11 July 2023  https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/terrible-truths-about-nuclear-energy-exposed,17704

A NEW documentary titled The Fukushima Disaster: The Hidden Side of the Story is a powerful, moving, informative film that is superbly made. Directed and edited by Philippe Carillo, it is among the strongest ever made on the deadly dangers of nuclear technology. 

Australians featured in the film are Dr Helen Caldicott, former president of Physicians for Social Responsibility, and John Keane, professor of politics at the University of Sydney. Carillo is a resident of the nation of Vanuatu, 1,750 kilometres northeast of Australia.

The documentary begins with the words of U.S. President John F Kennedy from 1961:

“Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by an accident, or miscalculation or by madness.”

It then goes to the March 2011 disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan after it was struck by a tsunami. Its backup diesel generators kicked in but “did not run for long,” notes the documentary. That led to three of the six plant reactors exploding – and there’s video of this – “releasing an unpreceded amount of nuclear radiation into the air”.

“Fukushima is the world’s largest ever industrial catastrophe,” then says Professor John Keane. He says there was no emergency plan and, as to the owner of Fukushima, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), with the accident its CEO “for five nights and days… locked himself inside his office”.

Meanwhile, from TEPCO, there was “only good news” with two Japanese government agencies also “involved in the cover-up” — the Nuclear Industry Safety Agency and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry.

“Japanese media was ordered to censor information. The Japanese Government failed to protect its people,” the documentary relates.

Yumi Kikuchi of Fukushima, since a leader of the Fukushima Kids Project, recalls:

“On TV, they said that ‘it’s under control’ and they kept saying that for two months. The nuclear power plant had already melted and even exploded but they never admitted the meltdown until May. So, people in Fukushima during that time were severely exposed to radiation.”

Arnie Gundersen, a nuclear engineer and now a principal of Fairewinds Energy Education in Burlington, Vermont in the United States, speaks of being told by Naoto Kan, the Prime Minister of Japan at the time of the accident, that “our existence as a sovereign nation was at stake because of the disaster at Fukushima Daichi”.

Kan then appears in the documentary and speaks of “manmade” links to the disaster. 

The documentary tells how Kan, following the accident, became “an advocate against nuclear power… ordered all nuclear power plants in Japan to shut down for safety” and for the nation “to move into renewable energy”.

Subsequently, “a nuclear advocate”, Shinzo Abe, became Japan’s Prime Minister.

Yoichi Shimatsu, a former Japan Times journalist, appears in the film and speaks of “the cruelty, the cynicism of this government”. He speaks of how in the accident’s aftermath, “nearly every member of Parliament and leaders of the major political parties”, along with corporate executives, “moved their relatives out of Japan”.

He says:

“Shanghai is the largest Japanese community outside Japan now… while these same people [had been] telling the people of Fukushima ‘go home’, ten kilometres from Fukushima, ‘go home, it’s safe’, while their families are overseas in Los Angeles, in Paris, in London and in Shanghai.”

“If it’s safe, why they left?” asks Kikuchi.

Gundersen says:

At Fukushima Daichi, the world is already seeing deaths from cancer related to the disaster…There’ll be many more over time. [There has been a] huge increase in thyroid cancer in the surrounding population.

Unfortunately, the Japanese Government is not telling us all the evidence. There’s a lot of pressure on the scientists and the medical community to distort the evidence so there’s no blowback against nuclear power.

There is a section in the documentary on the impacts of radioactivity which includes Dr Caldicott discussing the impacts of radiation on the body and how it causes cancer.

She states:

There is no safe level of radiation. I repeat, there is no safe level of radiation. Each dose of radiation is cumulative and adds to your risk of getting cancer and that’s absolutely documented in the medical literature.

The nuclear industry says, well, there are ‘safe doses’ of radiation and even says a little bit of radiation is good for you and that is called the theory of hormesis. They lie and they lie and they lie.

Maggie Gundersen, who was a reporter and then a public relations representative for the nuclear industry and, like her husband Arnie, became an opponent of nuclear power, speaks of how nuclear power derives from the World War II Manhattan Project program to develop atomic weapons and post-war so-called “Atoms for Peace” push.

Gundersen says in becoming a nuclear industry spokesperson, “the things I was taught weren’t true”. The notion, for example, that what is called a containment at a nuclear plant is untrue because radioactivity “escapes every day as a nuclear power plant operates” and in a “calamity” is released massively.

As to economics, she cited the claim decades ago that nuclear power would be “too cheap to meter”.

The president of Fairewinds Energy Education says:

Regarding the radioactive waste produced by nuclear power, she says “there is literally no technology” to safeguard it for the many years it remains lethal. “It does not exist.”

As to international oversight, the documentary presents the final version of the Report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation issued in 2014 which finds that the radiation doses from Fukushima ‘to the general public during the first year and estimated for their lifetimes are generally low or very low… The most important effect is on mental and social well-being’.

Shimatsu says it is not only in Japan but on an international level that the consequences of radioactive exposure have been completely minimised or denied:

“We are all seeing a global political agreement centred in the UN organisations, tie IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], the World Health Organisation… All the international agencies are whitewashing what is happening in Fukushima. We take dosimeters and Geiger counters in there, we see a much different story.”

In Germany, says Maggie Gunderson, “the politicians chose” to do a study to substantiate that no health impacts “happened around nuclear power plants… But what they found was the radiation releases cause significant numbers of childhood leukemia”.

A summary of that 2008 study comes on the screen. The U.S. followed up on that research, she says, but recently “the [U.S.] Nuclear Regulatory Commission said it was not going to do that study,” that “it doesn’t have enough funding; it had to shut it down”. She said the real reason was that it was producing “data they don’t want to make public”.

Beyond the airborne releases of radiation after the Fukushima accident, now, says the documentary, there is the growing threat of radioactivity through water that has and still is leaking from the plant as well as more than a million tons of radioactive water stored in a thousand tanks built at the plant site.

After the accident, TEPCO released 300,000 tons of radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean. Now there is no land for more tanks, so the Japanese Government, the documentary relates, has decided, starting this year, to dump massive amounts of radioactive water over a 30-year period into the Pacific.

Arnie Gundersen speaks of the cliché that “the solution to pollution is dilution,” but with the radiation from Fukushima being sent into the Pacific, there will be “bio-accumulation” — with vegetation absorbing radiation, little fish eating that vegetation and intensifying it and bigger fish eating the smaller fish, further bio-accumulating the radioactivity. Already, tuna off California have been found with radiation traced to Fukushima. With this planned further and yet greater dispersal, thousands of people “in the Pacific basin will die from radiation,” he says.

Andrew Napuat, a member of the Parliament of Vanuatu, an 83-island archipelago in the Pacific, says in the documentary:

“We have the right to say no to the Japan solution. We can’t let them jeopardise our sustenance and livelihood.”

Vanuatu, along with 13 other countries, has signed and ratified the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty.

As the documentary nears its end, Arnie Gundersen says that considering the meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania in 1979, the meltdown at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in Ukraine in 1986, and now the three Fukushima meltdowns in 2011, there has been “a meltdown every seven years roughly”.

He says:

“Essentially, once every decade the world needs to know that there might be an atomic meltdown somewhere.”

And, he adds:

“The nuclear industry is saying they want would like to build as many as 5,000 new nuclear power plants.”

(There are 440 in the world today.)

Meanwhile, he says:

“Renewable power is no longer alternative power. It’s on our doorstep. It’s here now and it works and it’s cheaper than nuclear.”

The cost of producing energy from wind, he says, is three cents a kilowatt hour, for solar, five cents and for new nuclear power plants, 15 cents. Nuclear “makes no nuclear economic sense”.

Maggie Gundersen says, with tears in her eyes:

“I’m a woman and I feel it’s inherent for us as women to protect our children, our grandchildren, and it’s our job now to raise our voices and have this madness stop.”

Philippe Carillo, who worked for 14 years in Hollywood and who since 2017 has lived in Vanuatu, has worked on several major TV documentary projects for the BBC, 20th Century Fox and French National TV as well as doing independent productions. He says he made The Fukushima Disaster: The Hidden Side of the Story to “expose the nuclear industry and its lies”.

His previous award-winning documentary, Inside the Garbage of the World, has made changes regarding the use of plastic.

The Fukushima Disaster, The Hidden Side of the Story can be viewed at Amazon (UK and U.S.), Apple TV, iTunes, Google Play and Vimeo on demand.

July 12, 2023 Posted by | Fukushima continuing, Resources -audiovicual | Leave a comment

N Korea slams US move to deploy nuclear submarines to peninsula

Pyongyang also accused US spy planes of violating its airspace and warns such aircraft may be shot down.

North Korea has condemned a United States plan to deploy a nuclear missile submarine to waters near the Korean peninsula, warning the move could incite a devastating atomic conflict.

In a statement carried by the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) on Monday, a spokesperson for the North Korean defence ministry said Washington’s plan – agreed to by the leaders of the US and South Korea during an April summit – would introduce US strategic nuclear weapons to the Korean peninsula for the first time since 1981………………………………………………… more https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/7/10/n-korea-slams-us-move-to-deploy-nuclear-submarines-to-peninsula

July 12, 2023 Posted by | North Korea, politics international | Leave a comment

Global Impact: Japan, nuclear watchdog under intense scrutiny over discharge of Fukushima nuclear-contaminated water

SCMP, 10 July 23, This week, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said that Japan’s plan to release radioactive water from the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011 into the ocean meets international safety standards.

But instead of allaying concerns of neighbouring countries and activists, the stamp of approval from the global nuclear watchdog has drawn howls of disapproval, particularly from China, and even within Japan.

………………. The China Atomic Energy Authority said that more than 70 per cent of nuclear-contaminated water at the Fukushima nuclear power plant fails to meet discharge limits after going through a filtration system and requires further treatment.

Its secretary general, Deng Ge, said that even if international standards are met, the IAEA cannot prove that the discharge is the only or the best option for the disposal of nuclear-contaminated water………………………………………………………..

Not letting their own government off the hook, Japanese activists said they are very disappointed by the IAEA decision, arguing that Tokyo has gone back on its promise that the water would not be released until the plan received the public’s widespread acceptance.

Even though South Korea said that it respects the nuclear watchdog’s endorsement of Japan’s plan to release treated water into the ocean, Seoul also made it clear that it would issue its own assessment of the IAEA’s findings.

The IAEA report and an earlier offer by South Korean Prime Minister Han Duck-soo to drink treated Fukushima water had clearly done little to convince the country’s activists, fisheries and seafood industries, even its consumers, many of whom had stockpiled sea salt and other seafood items…………………..

Earlier this year, Pacific island nations also called on Japan to delay the release of water from the destroyed Fukushima nuclear power plant over fears that fisheries will be contaminated…………………………
more https://www.scmp.com/economy/global-economy/article/3227113/global-impact-japan-nuclear-watchdog-under-intense-scrutiny-over-discharge-fukushima-nuclear

July 12, 2023 Posted by | Fukushima continuing | Leave a comment

Safe or septic – Japan’s nuclear wastewater dumping

RNZ, From The Detail, Tom Kitchin, co-host of The Detail @inkitchnz tom.kitchin@rnz.co.nz 11 July 23

There are diplomatic headaches and heated scientific debates after Japan revealed plans to dump the wastewater it’s been using to cool the Fukushima nuclear power plant – in the Pacific. 

…………………………… Sea and ground water has been used to cool the damaged reactors, and now there’s about 1.3 million tonnes of that sitting in tanks while the Japanese government and plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) figure out what to do with it.

They want to release the wastewater into the ocean – diluting all the cancer-causing nuclear fission products out of it – such as caesium, which can build up in muscles, strontium-90 which can build up in bones and iodine-129 which can build up in the thyroid.

…………………………………………. journalist Nic Maclellan, a Melbourne-based correspondent with Islands Business Magazine, tells The Detail.

“The Pacific Islands Forum has been especially critical, and appointed an independent scientific panel to investigate safety issues around the proposed dumping,” he says.

“The panel has raised a series of issues around the quality of the sampling, the cost of the sampling, the cost of the programme over decades, the maintenance of safety sampling and the fact that they really don’t know whether Japan can maintain the quality that will stop other radioactive isotopes being released into the ocean.”

There are also questions over whether the wastewater dump is a breach of the Treaty of Rarotonga, signed in 1985, which created a South Pacific nuclear-free zone.

It was largely about nuclear weapons, but article seven talks about preventing nuclear waste dumping. 

“Japan has been acting as if these safety concerns are not serious and it’s taken a lot of pressure for Japan to be dragged kicking and screaming into addressing questions, many of which are still unresolved,” Maclellan says.


AUKUS is also a factor now
 – a security pact between Australia, the United Kingdom and United States. The main news out of that is the US and UK will help Australia get nuclear-powered submarines.

“The nuclear submarines are a breach of the spirit of the Rarotonga treaty. There’s going to be interesting debates about a technical definition of whether this is… a breach of the letter as well as the spirit,” Maclellan says.  https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/the-detail/story/2018897817/safe-or-septic-japan-s-nuclear-wastewater-dumping

July 12, 2023 Posted by | environment, New Zealand | Leave a comment

Archbishop to denounce nuclear arms on Trinity test’s 78th anniversary

The Santa Fe New Mexican

Jul. 10—The first atomic blast that lit up the early morning sky at the Trinity Site in south-central New Mexico on July 16, 1945 — an event that opened the door for two nuclear bombs to be dropped on Japan — had an immense impact on the state that is still felt to this day.

Santa Fe Archbishop John Wester will mark the 78th anniversary of the Trinity test by denouncing the nuclear weapons program that has escalated since the long-ago detonation in a remote desert, and for which New Mexico finds itself in a primary role.

Wester and anti-nuclear groups are organizing an event Sunday at the Santa Maria de la Paz Community Hall, featuring speakers, music, exhibitions and moments of reflection and prayer on the atomic blast that reshaped civilization. The public can attend or livestream it;

We can no longer deny or ignore the extremely dangerous predicament of our human family,” Wester said in a statement. “We are in a new nuclear arms race far more dangerous than the first, and I believe we need to rejuvenate a sustained, serious conversation about universal, verifiable nuclear disarmament.”

Because of Trinity, New Mexico will be forever linked to the two bombs dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The bombs, credited by many with hastening the war’s end and saving tens of thousands of American lives, killed more than 200,000 Japanese people and inflicted radiation poisoning on much of the populace.

The atomic test released radioactive fallout in downwind communities in New Mexico, causing fatal illnesses such as cancer in what many believe are a large number of residents, though the actual quantity remains unknown because the federal government didn’t track such aftereffects as part of the secrecy surrounding the project………………………………………………… more https://news.yahoo.com/archbishop-denounce-nuclear-arms-trinity-033300743.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9uZXdzLmdvb2dsZS5jb20v&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAADJqdcGm_qX6CdNLQ8_g7p81OistELVP4KvAUR1PfQl-0Q2SBtdSRa8GwdKyTIcwvX8aofXxou_a1DmL9axGTUu9S4o5f35bRYrwMTXGG5ZaoooE2PgjQaFWi5uLyJbf3gg8EShjtVi5A26UqvyJcSYMPWp9GQCX2T9NlsjflzJW

July 12, 2023 Posted by | Religion and ethics, USA | Leave a comment

CANATOMIC: Canada’s Neglected Uranium History.

July 12, 2023 Posted by | Canada, history, Resources -audiovicual, Uranium | Leave a comment

Cluster Bombs for Ukraine? A Warning From Kosovo

SCHEERPOST, by EDITORJuly 10, 2023

With Washington poised to ship cluster bombs to Kyiv, Declassified visits Kosovo to review the grim legacy of NATO firing this banned weapon in the Balkans.

By Phil Miller / Declassified UK

GRACANICA, KOSOVO – “In the village where we lived, there were nine bombs dropped by NATO in the space of two minutes,” Dzafer Buzoli recalls, as we discuss his traumatic childhood in Yugoslavia. A leading member of Kosovo’s Roma, his community went from pillar to post. 

Many were dragooned into Slobodan Milosevic’s Serb-dominated Yugoslav army or targeted by Albanian rebels as suspected collaborators, before Bill Clinton and Tony Blair launched their ‘humanitarian intervention’ in 1999.

“When the first bomb fell, we were just confused and wondered what was happening,” he reflects. “But after the second bomb I felt the hot air and fell down from the pressure of the blast.

“Ever since then I’ve had a heightened sense of hearing. When there’s a loud noise or people yelling I have to really back up, because it’s too much for me.”

Buzoli was lucky to survive the airstrike. Two soldiers and a five year old boy were killed in the attack on his village of Laplje Selo, which was hit with controversial cluster munitions.

These scatter a blizzard of ball-shaped bomblets over target areas, like a minefield falling from the sky. Human Rights Watch said NATO killed between 90 and 150 civilians with this weapon across Serbia and Kosovo.

Thousands of bomblets failed to detonate on impact, posing a hazard to children who mistook their little yellow parachutes for toys. In the decade after the war, these remnants claimed another 178 casualties in Kosovo.

While this war might seem like a distant memory for those beyond the Balkans, it offers a cautionary tale to Western states now assisting Ukraine’s fight against Russia.

US officials are said to be seriously considering supplying Kyiv with cluster bombs, possibly as soon as next month.

That’s despite the weapon being banned by more than 120 countries including the UK, following a UN treaty in 2008. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Clearing the remnants of these weapons from Kosovo is not expected to finish until 2024 – a quarter century after the war ended. 

That marathon process, coupled with dubious performance on the battlefield, might give Joe Biden pause for thought about sending cluster bombs to Ukraine. https://scheerpost.com/2023/07/10/cluster-bombs-for-ukraine-a-warning-from-kosovo/

July 12, 2023 Posted by | Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Will the Ukraine war be the undoing for the European Union?

The European Union’s missed opportunities and self-destructive path

6 JULY 2023, MICHAEL VON DER SCHULENBURG

With the ending of the division of Europe, we will strive for a new quality in our security relations while fully respecting each other’s freedom of choice in that respect. Security is indivisible, and the security of every participating state is inseparably linked to that of all the others. We therefore pledge to cooperate in strengthening confidence and security among us and in promoting arms control and disarmament.

(Charter of Paris for a New Europe November 21, 1990)

The madness of war reigns again in Europe. The delusion that only weapons provide security is once again in high season among politicians, think tanks, and the media across Europe. It has become acceptable once again in Europe that human sacrifices are being offered at the altar of alleged decisive battles. As if we had learned nothing from the past, the Ukrainian counter-offensive is now supposed to become such a decisive battle that it should bring a military solution to what we could not or did not want to achieve politically. In doing so, we Europeans are leaving the future of Ukraine and Europe, and perhaps even that of the world, to the unpredictability, fury, and brutality of the battlefield. And all of this, although it remains completely unclear what “solution” could be expected through the present intensification of the war, will certainly not bring peace to Europe.

This war has increasingly become a war between Russia and NATO, with nuclear weapons playing a decisive role in military calculations. No one can say where the red lines would be in such a “decisive battle,” beyond which there could be a nuclear escalation. By ignoring this and continuing all-out war efforts, we are exposing not only ourselves but all of humanity to incalculable danger in a conflict that could have been resolved diplomatically.

Despite all those enormous dangers, finding a peaceful solution to the underlying conflict that triggered the war—NATO’s planned expansion into Ukraine and Georgia—appears no longer to be possible among NATO, Ukrainian, and Russian politicians. This is appalling political irresponsibility, for which we cannot blame only Ukraine, Russia, or the United States. The European Union and its member states also bear considerable responsibility for the catastrophe that has now befallen Europe. As this is a war on European soil and between European countries, the EU, as the largest community of states on the European continent, cannot just pretend it had no part in all of this. Indeed, the EU and its members carry heavy blame for failing to prevent this war, for escalating the war, and for refusing a negotiated solution to this war!

The 27 EU members hold the majority among NATO members and could, or better yet, should have used their influence to prevent this war and, once it had broken out, to end it as quickly as possible. In the conflict over NATO’s eastward enlargement, which had been brewing since 1994, the EU, in its own interests, should have tried to mediate between the geopolitical ambition of the USA in expanding its global dominance and Russia’s fears of being militarily encircled by NATO and cut off from its access to the Black Sea. After the war broke out, the EU should have supported the Russian-Ukrainian peace negotiations in March or April 2022 and attended the Istanbul peace summit. It could have ended the war one month after it started. However, the EU didn’t do either.

Instead, the EU aggressively supported NATO’s eastward expansion as well as its own eastward enlargement. It must have been clear to EU politicians that with their support, Europe has been put on a path of confrontation, a confrontation that has now led to war with Russia…………………………..

Yet peace, not war, should be the EU’s main concern. However, the EU has neither developed its own peace proposal nor undertaken any diplomatic peace initiative, and it remains firmly opposed to any immediate ceasefire. The EU continues to insist on the maximum demands in the Zelensky peace plan: that Russia must first be defeated militarily and that the entire Ukrainian territory must be recaptured before negotiations can take place. With this uncompromising stance, the EU stands alone in the world. None of the world’s major regional organizations, whether the G20, the BRICS countries, the states of Central Asia, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, ASEAN, the African Union, the OIC, or CELAC, support such a demand. Even the US is increasingly skeptical, and the voices of influential US politicians are growing stronger in favor of a negotiated peace with Russia to end the war.

This path of confrontation and escalation taken by the EU was in no way preordained or even inevitable.

In 1990, only one year after the end of the Cold War, all European states, as well as the USA and Canada, solemnly pledged, in the “Charter of Paris for a New Europe”, to build a common peaceful Europe spanning from the Pacific to the Atlantic coast, including Russia, a Europe that would be free of wars and military blocs. According to the Charter, the security of each state in Europe should now be regarded as inseparable from that of all other states, and any conflict that arises should be settled peacefully in accordance with the UN Charter. In other words, a lasting peace in Europe could only be created by working together and not against each other. There was no role envisaged for NATO; NATO was not mentioned once in the Charter of Paris.

And yet, early on, the EU abandoned the Charter of Paris for a New Europe and opted for a Europe dominated by NATO, a Cold War military alliance.  Such a drastic reorientation was not in Europe’s interest……………………………………………………………………………  It was NATO’s advance to Russia’s borders that triggered Russia’s military backlash, not the other way around.

The EU member states should have known better and avoided a war in Ukraine. Already in the First and Second World Wars, control of the territory that today constitutes Ukraine was of great strategic importance for Russia (the Soviet Union), and the German Kaiser-Nazi Reich, leading to some of the fiercest military battles in these wars. The recently discovered remains of German Wehrmacht soldiers found in the now dried-up riverbed of the Dnieper bear witness to these terribly bloody “decisive battles.” Is history repeating itself?

Then, as now, each side took advantage of the internal divisions among the Ukrainian population. Even after Ukraine’s independence in 1991, presidential and parliamentary elections regularly showcased the country’s deep division into two roughly equal parts with pro-Ukrainian and pro-Russian loyalties, a division that also geographically divides the country between western and central Ukraine on the one hand and eastern and southern Ukraine on the other. 

In the last free all-Ukrainian elections in 2010 and 2012, in which people living in Crimea and the Donbass still participated, there was even a narrow majority for a pro-Russian president and pro-Russian parliament.

If the EU had really been concerned with preserving and strengthening Ukraine, it should have supported the cohesion and striving for harmony between the two populations and vigorously promoted the continuation of the project of a bi-national and federal Ukraine, as proclaimed in 1991. However, it did the opposite and sided with a policy of mono-ethnic Ukrainian nationalism.

In the last free all-Ukrainian elections in 2010 and 2012, in which people living in Crimea and the Donbass still participated, there was even a narrow majority for a pro-Russian president and pro-Russian parliament.

If the EU had really been concerned with preserving and strengthening Ukraine, it should have supported the cohesion and striving for harmony between the two populations and vigorously promoted the continuation of the project of a bi-national and federal Ukraine, as proclaimed in 1991. However, it did the opposite and sided with a policy of mono-ethnic Ukrainian nationalism…………………………………………………………………………….

While constantly proclaiming a desire to help Ukraine, the EU is de facto contributing to its destruction and immense human suffering. The weapons supplied by the EU not only prolong the war but also contribute to death and destruction on Ukrainian territory, just like Russian weapons do.

Today, Ukraine may not only be the most destroyed country in Europe but also the politically and ethnically most deeply divided country. After a year and a half of war, Ukraine, which was already the poorest country in Europe before the war, has been driven deeper into poverty and foreign debt while becoming the most militarized country in Europe. The Ukrainian economy is in ruins and plagued by one of the highest levels of corruption in Europe. Ukraine is also the country with the fastest-shrinking population in Europe. Moreover, Ukraine could lose up to 20% of its territory as well as its access to the Azov and Black Seas. How can Ukraine survive as a functioning state under such conditions?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………… The next president of the USA does not necessarily have to be called Trump, but we can assume that the USA will turn its back on the expensive Ukraine adventure after next year’s presidential election,

………………………………………………To prevent hurting itself and save Ukraine, the European Union must, out of its own self-interest, distance itself from its self-righteous war narrative, abandon the militarization of its foreign policy, and stop believing that NATO enlargement will bring security. The European Union must return to a language of peace and develop a peace plan for Europe that is built on the “Charter of Paris for a New Europe” and includes Russia and Ukraine. In doing so, the EU would prevent further bloodshed in Europe, forestall the danger of internal frictions breaking out within its members, and prevent its own economic decline. This would help improve the EU’s standing in the world as the peace project it was once conceived as after the Second World War. For this, it will need courage—peace requires a lot of courage!  https://www.meer.com/en/74782-will-the-ukraine-war-be-the-undoing-for-the-european-union

July 11, 2023 Posted by | EUROPE, politics international | Leave a comment

US cluster bombs deal is clear signal that war is not going well for Ukraine

America risks losing the moral high ground by supplying Ukraine with a weapon banned by much of the world, so why are they supplying it?


Mark Stone
, US correspondent @Stone_SkyNews

The White House is fully aware of the huge controversy surrounding this cluster munitions decision.

Some 123 countries are part of the 2008 International Convention on Cluster Munitions which bans the use or transfer of this particular weapon.

Almost all of America’s allies are signatories to the convention.

Even within US government circles, there has been deep unease about supplying its own stockpile of cluster munitions to Ukraine.

Ukraine war latest: US to send Kyiv controversial weapon banned by more than 100 countries

As recently as last week, within the state department, there was division about the decision to supply the weapon.

The long and grim record of the cluster bomb explains the unease and the controversy.

Globally, civilians represent 97% of cluster munition casualties, according to a report last year by the Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor – an organisation that seeks to ban them altogether.

Children are overwhelming the victims.

By supplying the weapon, there is a clear risk to civilians, not now necessarily, but in the future. The legacy of unexploded cluster bomblets is evident on former battlefields globally.

America also risks losing the moral high ground against Russia by supplying a weapon banned by much of the world.

So why supply it?

Well, the facts on the ground are not in Ukraine’s favour. The transfer is a clear signal that the war is not going well for Ukraine.

The so-called spring offensive did not materialise in the spring and looks set to falter through the summer too.

Ukraine is fast running out of more conventional artillery with supply stocks in America and elsewhere running low.

A ‘bridge of supply’ is necessary.

………………. The munitions would be used by Ukraine on occupied Ukrainian soil. The risk to civilians would be owned by Ukraine. The onus would be on Ukraine, with a pledge of American help, to clear the unexploded munitions when the war comes to an end.

The announcement is part of a multi-million dollar tranche of new weaponry which is an attempt by the Biden administration to future-proof the conflict; to give Ukraine the weapons it needs now in case domestic political circumstances change in the next 18 months.

American politics is in flux.

There is no guarantee of open-ended support for Ukraine.  https://news.sky.com/story/us-cluster-bombs-deal-is-clear-signal-that-war-is-not-going-well-for-ukraine-12917101

July 11, 2023 Posted by | Ukraine, USA, weapons and war | 1 Comment

The Fukushima Disaster: The hidden side of the story

Arnie Gundersen speaks of the cliché that “the solution to pollution is dilution,” but with the radiation from Fukushima being sent into the Pacific, there will be “bio-accumulation”—with vegetation absorbing radiation, little fish eating that vegetation and intensifying it and bigger fish eating the smaller fish and further bio-accumulating the radioactivity. Already, tuna off California have been found with radiation traced to Fukushima. With this planned further, and yet greater dispersal, thousands of people “in the Pacific basin will die from radiation,” he says.

Exposing the nuclear industry and its lies.  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/07/08/labour-explore-ai-ban-decisions-nuclear-weapons-david-lammy/

“The Fukushima Disaster, The Hidden Side of the Story,” is a just-released film documentary, a powerful, moving, information-full film that is superbly made. Directed and edited by Philippe Carillo, it is among the strongest ever made on the deadly dangers of nuclear technology. 

It begins with the words in 1961 of U.S. President John F. Kennedy: “Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by an accident, or miscalculation or by madness.”

It then goes to the March 2011 disaster at the Fukushima Daichi nuclear power plants in Japan after they were struck by a tsunami. Their back-up diesel generators were kicked in but  “did not run for long,” notes the documentary. That led to three of the six plants exploding—and there’s video of this—“releasing an unpreceded amount of nuclear radiation into the air.”

“Fukushima is the world’s largest ever industrial catastrophe,” says Professor John Keane of the University of Sydney in Australia. He says there was no emergency plan and, as to the owner of Fukushima, Tokyo Electric Power Company, with the accident its CEO “for five nights and days…locked himself inside his office.”

Meanwhile, from TEPCO, there was “only good news” with two Japanese government agencies also “involved in the cover-up”—the Nuclear Industry Safety Agency and Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry.

“Japanese media was ordered to censor information. The Japanese government failed to protect its people,” the documentary relates. 

Yumi Kikuchi of Fukushima, since a leader of the Fukushima Kids Project, recalls: “On TV, they said that ‘it’s under control’ and they kept saying that for two months. The nuclear power plant had already melted and even exploded but they never admitted the meltdown until May. So, people in Fukushima during that time were severely exposed to radiation.”

Arnie Gundersen, a nuclear engineer and now a principal of Fairewinds Energy Education in Burlington, Vermont, speaks of being told by Naoto Kan, the prime minister of Japan at the time of the accident, that “our existence as a sovereign nation was at stake because of the disaster at Fukushima Daichi.” 

Kan then appears in documentary and speaks of “manmade” links to the disaster.  

The documentary tells how Kan, following the accident, became “an advocate against nuclear power….ordered all nuclear power plants in Japan to shut down for safety” and for the nation “to move into renewable energy.”

But, subsequently, “a nuclear advocate,” Shinzo Abe, became Japan’s prime minister.

Yoichi Shimatsu, a former Japan Times journalist, appears in the film and speaks of “the cruelty, the cynicism of this government.” He speaks of how in the accident’s aftermath, “nearly every member of Parliament and leaders of the major political parties” along with corporate executives, “moved their relatives out of Japan”

He says “Shanghai is the largest Japanese community outside Japan now…while these same people” had been “telling the people of Fukushima go home, 10 kilometers from Fukushima, go home it’s safe, while their families are overseas in Los Angeles, in Paris, in London and in Shanghai.”

“If it’s safe, why they left?” asks Kikuchi. “They tell us it’s safe to live in Fukushima, and to eat Fukushima food to support Fukushima people. There’s a campaign by Japanese government…and people believe it.”

Gundersen says: “At Fukushima Daichi, the world is already seeing deaths from cancer related to the disaster…There’ll be many more over time.” He adds that there’s been a “huge increase in thyroid cancer in the surrounding population.”

“Unfortunately,” he goes on, “the Japanese government is not telling us al the evidence. There’s a lot of pressure on the scientists and the medical community to distort the evidence so there’s no blowback against nuclear power.”

There is a section in the documentary on the impacts of radioactivity which includes Dr. Helen Caldicott, former president of Physician for Social Responsibility, discussing the impacts of radiation on the body and how it causes cancer. She states: “There is no safe level of radiation. I repeat, there is no safe level of radiation. Each dose of radiation is cumulative and adds to your risk of getting cancer and that’s absolutely documented in the medical literature.”

“The nuclear industry says, well, there are ‘safe doses’ of radiation and even says a little bit of radiation is good for you and that is called the theory of hormesis,” notes Dr. Caldicott. “They lie and they lie and they lie.”

Maggie Gundersen, who was a reporter and then a public relations representative for the nuclear industry and, like her husband Arnie became an opponent of nuclear power, speaks of how nuclear power derives from the World War II Manhattan Project program to develop atomic weapons and post-war so-called “Atoms for Peace” push. 

Gundersen says in becoming a nuclear industry spokesperson, “the things I was taught weren’t true.” The notion, for example, that what is called a containment at a nuclear plant is untrue because radioactivity “escapes every day as a nuclear power plant operates” and in a “calamity” is released massively. 

As to economics, she cited the claim decades ago that nuclear power would be “too cheap to meter.” The president of Fairewinds Energy Education, she says: “Atomic power is now the most expensive power there is on the planet. It is not feasible. It never has been.” Regarding the radioactive waste produced by nuclear power, she says “there is literally no technology to do that…It does not exist.”

As to international oversight, the documentary presents the final version of a “Report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation” issued in 2014 which finds that the radiation doses from Fukushima “to the general public during the first year and estimated for their lifetimes are generally low or very low….The most important effect is on mental and social well-being.”

Shimatsu says it is not only in Japan but on an international level that the consequences of radioactive exposure have been completely minimized or denied. “We are all seeing a global political agreement centered in the UN organizations, tie IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], the World Health Organization…All the international agencies are whitewashing what is happening in Fukushima. We take dosimeters and Geiger counters in there, we see a much different story,” he says. 

In Germany, says Maggie Gunderson, “the politicians chose” to do a study to “substantiate” that no health impacts “happened around nuclear power plants….But what they found was the radiation releases cause significant numbers of childhood leukemia.” A summary of that 2008 study comes on the screen. The U.S. followed up on that research, she says, but recently “the [U.S.] Nuclear Regulatory Commission said it was not going to do that study,” that “it doesn’t have enough funding; it had to shut it down.” She said the real reason was that it was producing “data they don’t want to make public.”

Beyond the airborne releases of radiation after the Fukushima accident, now, says the documentary, there is the growing threat of radioactivity through water that has and still is leaking from the plants as well as more than a million tons of radioactive water stored in a thousand tanks built at the plant site. After the accident, TEPCO released 300,000 tons of radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean. Now there is no land for more tanks, so the Japanese government, the documentary relates, has decided that starting this year to dump massive amounts of radioactive water over a 30-year period into the Pacific. 

Arnie Gundersen speaks of the cliché that “the solution to pollution is dilution,” but with the radiation from Fukushima being sent into the Pacific, there will be “bio-accumulation”—with vegetation absorbing radiation, little fish eating that vegetation and intensifying it and bigger fish eating the smaller fish and further bio-accumulating the radioactivity. Already, tuna off California have been found with radiation traced to Fukushima. With this planned further, and yet greater dispersal, thousands of people “in the Pacific basin will die from radiation,” he says.

Andrew Napuat, a member of the Parliament of the nation of Vanuatu, an 83 island archipelago in the Pacific, says in the documentary: “We have the right to say no to the Japan solution. We can’t let them jeopardize our sustenance and livelihood.” Vanuatu along with 13 other countries has signed and ratified the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. 

As the documentary nears its end, Arnie Gundersen says that considering the meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania in 1979, the meltdown at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in Ukraine in 1986, and now the three Fukushima meltdowns in 2011, there has been “a meltdown every seven years roughly.” He says: “Essentially, once every decade the world needs to know that there might be an atomic meltdown somewhere.” And, he adds, the “nuclear industry is saying they want would like to build as many as 5,000 new nuclear power plants.” (There are 440 in the world today.)

Meanwhile, he says, “renewable power is no longer alternative power. It’s on our doorstep. It’s here now and it works and it’s cheaper than nuclear.” The cost of producing energy from wind, he says, is three cents a kilowatt hour, for solar five cents, and for new nuclear power plants 15 cents. Nuclear “makes no nuclear economic sense.”

Maggie Gundersen says, with tears in her eyes: “I’m a woman and I feel it’s inherent for us as women to protect our children our grandchildren, and it’s our job now to raise our voices and have this madness stop.”

Philippe Carillo, from France, who worked for 14 years in Hollywood and who since 2017 has lived in Vanuatu, has worked on several major TV documentary projects for the BBC, 20th Century Fox and French National TV as well as doing independent productions. He says he made “The Fukushima Disaster, The Hidden Side of the Story” to “expose the nuclear industry and its lies.” His previous award-winning documentary, “Inside the Garbage of the World,” has  made changes regarding the use of plastic. 

“The Fukushima Disaster, The Hidden Side of the Story” can be viewed at Amazon, Apple TV, iTunes, Google Play and Vimeo on demand. Links are: iTunes; Apple TV; Amazon UK; USA; Google Play, and Video on demand.

July 11, 2023 Posted by | Fukushima continuing, Resources -audiovicual | Leave a comment

‘Grave concerns’ as Japan’s plan to release Fukushima water into the sea approved by nuclear watchdog

Japan’s nuclear meltdown 12 years ago led to a bandaid solution for radioactive waste. Now, time has run out and the next option is unthinkable.

Alex Blair, news.com.au 11 July 23

The UN’s international nuclear watchdog has come under heavy criticism after green-lighting Japan’s controversial plan to slowly dump radioactive water used to stem the 2011 Fukushima disaster.

When three reactors first went into meltdown over 12 years ago, nuclear authorities around the globe knew what was at stake. But a hasty bandaid fix — 1000 massive containment tanks built onsite — was never going to solve the issue long term. And now it appears time has run out for authorities looking to move forward.

Two years ago, Japan announced plans to gradually release the 1.33 million cubic metres of contaminated water into the sea over the next 30 to 40 years. Their strategy has now been approved after a lengthy review phase by the Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which claims the water will be processed to remove almost all radioactive elements, except tritium.

Efforts are now being made by nuclear and political authorities to ease public suspicion, with IAEA chief Rafael Grossi meeting with Fukushima residents this week in an effort to quell concerns.

However, one thing in particular has sparked intense backlash from surrounding nations and a portion of the global nuclear field. Within all the official box-ticking and PR campaigns urging confidence from the public, nuclear officials cannot be 100 per cent certain their plan will be safe and effective.

“These are global issues and need to address in a holistic manner,” Professor of Genetic Toxicology Awadhesh Jha told news.com.au. “Very limited information is available and we need to do more to assess the long-term effects, both with respect to human and environmental health.”

His criticisms echoed those from the Secretary General of the Pacific Islands Forum, Henry Puna, who said the release should be stalled “until we are certain about the implications of this proposal on the environment and on human health”.

In an article penned earlier this year, Mr Puna accused the Japanese government and international watchdogs of negligence, claiming there was no way to know the full impact until after decades of dumping nuclear material.

“The discussions this past year have not been encouraging,” he wrote.

We have uncovered serious information gaps and grave concerns with the proposed ocean release. Simply put, more data is needed before any ocean release should be permitted.

“Despite this, Japan is continuing with plans for discharge in the spring of 2023, relying on the next four decades of discharge to figure it out.

“It would be unconscionable for us as a region to once again allow ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of security.”

China, South Korea call for ‘transparent, convincing response’

China has been the most critical of Japan’s closest neighbouring nations, accusing Tokyo of turning the ocean into its “private sewer” and calling on more safety data from the nuclear watchdog.


Chinese officials have also accused the Japanese government of breaching “international moral and legal obligations”, warning that if the plan goes ahead, Japan “must bear all consequences”.

“Japan should stop the plan to release the water into the sea, but seriously consult with the international community and consider a scientific, safe, transparent and convincing response,” China’s ambassador to Japan said on Tuesday.

Meanwhile in South Korea, public polls revealed 80 per cent of the country are deeply concerned about the unknown long-term effects of the water release………………………

Tetsu Nozaki, chairman of the Fukushima Prefectural Federation of Fisheries Co-operative Associations, argued Japan’s government was misrepresenting local sentiment, which he said remained strongly opposed to the plan……………………………………

A radioactive isotope of hydrogen, tritium is one the most expensive, rare, and potentially harmful elements in the world, according to nuclear engineer Arjun Makhijani, a prominent anti-nuclear campaigner and president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research.

In his book Exploring Tritium’s Danger, Makhijani claims that “one teaspoon of tritiated water would contaminate about 100 billion gallons of water to the US drinking water limit; that is enough to supply about 1 million homes with water for a year”………………….

How will Japan’s plan work?

The diluted water will be discharged into the Pacific Ocean to Japan’s east via an undersea tunnel located off the coast.

With the IAEA’s approval, pumping could commence as early as August…………………………

But according to Professor Jha, further research is essential to comprehensively assess the potential risks posed by tritium to the marine food chain.

Professor Jha’s laboratory experiments indicate that tritium has the ability to accumulate in the tissues of shellfish, such as mussels and oysters.

He believes actual consequences of real-world exposure remain largely unexplored and require closer investigation.

“It needs an international research effort,” he said.

Professor Jha’s criticism came as the Tokyo Electric Power Company, the firm that runs the site, admitted the giant mass of water will need additional, “secondary” treatment to reduce the presence of other isotopes including ruthenium-106, cobalt-60 and strontium-90.

But there are still concerns over whether the water being released will have been completely cleansed before coming into contact with sea life.

“Unlike tritium, cobalt-60 is 300,000 times more likely to accumulate on the seafloor at the outlet of the pipes,” Ken Buesseler of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution said.

“It will build up over time, it will accumulate. So whatever amount you put in, it doesn’t just dilute away.”

What are the other solutions?

…………………..Buesseler on the other hand advocates for the treated water to be used in concrete production for massive buildings around the Fukushima plant.

Buesseler argues this would generate the least risk, with “little potential for human contact, as the concrete being used on the Fukushima Daiichi site and/or tsunami barriers for coastal protection”.

“Since contaminated water is still being generated, this ocean dumping – that is what it would be called if the water were put in a barrel and thrown overboard – of radioactive water would continue for 30 years (possibly more),” Buesseler writes.

“The water would still contain some strontium-90 and other radionuclides with attendant risks of uptake associated with seafloor sediments.

“Besides the radioactivity exposure, which TEPCO estimates will be well below 1 millisievert per year, the dumping would also create reputation damage to the fishing and tourist industries, not only in Japan but across other countries in the Pacific region.” https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/grave-concerns-as-japans-plan-to-release-fukushima-water-into-the-sea-approved-by-nuclear-watchdog/news-story/854cc5d9618a2a5bde1de2f657f49a89


July 11, 2023 Posted by | Fukushima continuing | Leave a comment

Red alert at Zaporizhzhia?

The threatened deadly scenarios could not happen at a wind farm

By Linda Pentz Gunter, 10 july 23 https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2023/07/09/red-alert-at-zaporizhzhia/

Amidst accusations from both the Russian and Ukrainian sides that the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in southeastern Ukraine has been wired for detonation or could be deliberately attacked during the current war there, one absolute truth remains: nuclear power plants are inherently dangerous. 

Whether the rhetorical threats are real or not remains subject for debate. What is incontrovertibly real is the danger a nuclear power plant poses. After all, that is why the two sides are making these threats in the first place: because the outcome would be so deadly. If Zaporizhzhia was a wind farm, it wouldn’t even be mentioned.

Each nuclear reactor contains a lethal radioactive inventory, in the reactor core and also in the fuel pools into which the irradiated fuel is offloaded and, over time, densely packed. Casks also house nuclear waste offloaded from the fuel pools. 

Zaporizhzhia is the largest nuclear power plant in Europe with at least 2,204 tons of highly radioactive waste within the reactors and the irradiated fuel pools. 

Depending on the severity of what transpires, any or all of this radioactive fuel could be ignited.

Amidst the confusion and unreliability of any pronouncements uttered through the “fog of war”, there remain several unanswered questions that have led to heightened rumor and speculation:

Has the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant in fact been wired for detonation and whose interests would be served by blowing up the plant? 

Why is there an exodus of both Russian and Ukrainian plant personnel? 

Will the sabotage of the downstream Kakhovka dam that resulted in catastrophic flooding, also lead to an equally catastrophic loss of available cooling water supplies for the reactors and fuel pools? 

Will the backup diesel generators, frequently turned to for powering the essential cooling each time the plant has lost connection to the electricity grid, last through each crisis, given their fuel must also be replenished, potentially not possible under war conditions?

None of these threats would make headlines if Zaporizhzhia was instead home to a wind farm or utility scale solar array. This perhaps explains the rush now to downplay the gravity of the situation, with claims in the press that a major attack on the plant would “not be as bad as Chornobyl” and that radioactive releases would be minimal and barely travel beyond the fence line.

This is an irresponsible dismissal of the real dangers. The measured assessment of Dr. Edwin Lyman at the Union of Concerned Scientists confirms that an attack on Zaporizhzhia could indeed be catastrophic.

The graphite moderator used at Chornobyl undeniably worsened the outcome of that explosion and its aftermath. The graphite fueled the fire and the smoke further suspended what became the radioactive fallout that traveled far and wide across the former Soviet Union and all of Europe.

The part played by the graphite moderator in increasing the severity of the Chornobyl disaster has led to an assumption that major fires and explosions at Zaporizhzhia would result in less serious consequences, given the reactors are not of the same design. All six at Zaporizhzhia are Russian VVERs, similar to the Pressurized Water Reactor used here in the United States. (Chornobyl was the older RBMK.)

However, while Zaporizhzhia may be a less primitive design, it is not harmless. (Absurdly, these 1980s reactors are described in the press as “more modern.”)

If the uranium fuel in the Zaporizhzhia reactors or irradiated fuel storage pools overheats and ignites, it could then heat up the zirconium cladding around it, which would ignite and burn fiercely as a flare at temperatures too hot to extinguish with water. 

The resulting chemical reaction would also generate an explosive environment. The heat of the release and any subsequent detonations could breach concrete structures, then loft radioactive gas and fallout into the environment to travel on the weather. 

Radioactive fallout could contaminate crucial agricultural land in Ukraine and potentially also in Russia should prevailing winds travel eastward at the time of the disaster. As we have learned from the Chornobyl fallout, this is an enduring harm that enters the food chain and human bodies and remains harmful in the environment indefinitely, as exemplified by the 1,000 square mile Chornobyl Exclusion Zone.

Who then consumes that food is also of critical importance. While Europe allows an already too high 600 becquerels per kilogram (Bq/kg) of radioactive cesium in food, contaminated food supplies from Ukraine that read at higher levels after a nuclear disaster could be exported to countries with even weaker standards, including the US where the limit is an unacceptable 1200 Bq/kg. But will those consuming such foodstuffs be counted among the victims of such a nuclear disaster? Likely not.

The true numbers of those harmed by the Chornobyl disaster will never be known due to institutional suppression and misrepresentation of the numbers and the absence of record-keeping in the former Soviet countries affected. Therefore, to suggest that a major nuclear disaster at Zaporizhzhia would be “not nearly as bad as Chornobyl” is too broad and speculative without looking at the specifics.

Those specifics depend on whether the disaster involves hydrogen explosions such as happened at Fukushima, or fires resulting from a bombing raid or missile attack, which could disperse more radioactivity further. It would also depend on whether all six reactors suffered catastrophic failures, whether all of the fuel pools were drained and caught fire and whether the storage casks were breached.

It would further depend on which way the wind was blowing, and if, when and where it subsequently rained out a radioactive plume, all factors that influenced where the Chornobyl radioactive fallout was deposited.

If Zaporizhzhia comes to harm, each side in the conflict will almost certainly hold the other responsible. But ultimately, the responsibility we all share is to reject the continued use of a technology that has the potential to wreak such disastrous consequences on humanity.

Nuclear power is the most dangerous way to boil water. It is unnecessary, expensive, and an obstacle to renewable energy development. It is intrinsically tied to the desire for — and development of  — nuclear weapons, the use of which could be the other lethal outcome in this war.

Zaporizhzhia is in the news almost every day. The propaganda may be deliberately alarmist, but the basis for the alarm is very real or it would not be in the headlines in the first place. 

It is time to see sense. Calling for a no-fire zone around Zaporizhzhia is not enough. We must call for no nuclear power at all.

Linda Pentz Gunter is the international specialist at Beyond Nuclear and writes for and curates Beyond Nuclear International. 

July 11, 2023 Posted by | safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Holtec hogs the money, but Michigan ratepayers will foot the bill for reactor resuscitation.

   by beyondnuclearinternational By Jeff Alson

The 52-year old Palisades nuclear power plant near South Haven, Michigan, on the shore of Lake Michigan near both Chicago and Grand Rapids, is one of the oldest and most degraded reactors in the country. In 2006, Palisades’ original owner, Consumers Energy, cited a wide range of major safety concerns when it sold the plant to Entergy, including that Palisades had one of the most embrittled reactor vessels in the country, needed a new reactor vessel head and steam generator, and had suffered from control rod drive mechanism seal leaks since it first opened. 

As natural gas, and then wind and solar, became cheaper and cheaper, Palisades’ electricity became increasingly uncompetitive. Michigan ratepayers subsidized its electricity for years, sometimes paying as much as 57% above market rates. Trying to minimize additional costs, Entergy refused to invest in the most important safety repairs.

In 2018, Entergy announced it would sell the old and dangerous plant to Holtec, a decommissioning company, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved. The plant was formally closed on May 20, 2022, nuclear fuel was removed on June 13, and the plant was sold to Holtec on June 28, 2022. 

The NRC then terminated Palisades’ operating license.

For four years, from 2018 through 2022, every major stakeholder—Entergy, the NRC, the Michigan Public Service Commission, energy and environmental NGOs, groups representing electricity consumers, and, notably, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer—agreed that Palisades should be shut down. 

The Governor’s own MI Healthy Climate Plan, released in April 2022, appropriately ignored Palisades’ imminent closure, since there are far cheaper and safer alternatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

What changed? Holtec saw an opportunity to feed from the public trough by getting billions of dollars of corporate welfare, from both the state and federal government, to raise Palisades from the dead.

Holtec has requested a $300 million subsidy from Michigan taxpayers and in late June got a $150 million blank check from the Michigan legislature added to the current state budget without any public debate whatsoever. More ominous, Holtec also wants Michigan ratepayers to, once again, be forced to buy electricity at above-market prices that could significantly raise Michigan’s electricity rates, already the highest in the Midwest.

For example, when operating properly, the 700 megawatt Palisades plant can generate about 6 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity per year. If this electricity were just one cent per kilowatt-hour more expensive than market prices, ratepayers would have to pay an extra $60 million per year. If it were five cents more expensive, the total subsidy would increase to $300 million per year. If Palisades operated for another 5 or 10 years, the total ratepayer subsidy could reach into the billions of dollars.

Holtec will likely apply for multiple federal subsidies as well. To reopen Palisades, Holtec has already applied to the Department of Energy (DOE) for a billion dollar nuclear loan guarantee under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, and may apply for an additional $1.2 billion from the 2021 Infrastructure bill. Separately, Holtec has applied to DOE for $7.4 billion in loan guarantees under the 2005 Energy Policy Act for one or more future small modular nuclear reactors.

Michigan taxpayers and ratepayers have had too many nuclear white elephants: ……………………………………………………………….

Jeff Alson is an Alliance to Halt Fermi 3 board member and an environmental engineer who worked on auto pollution issues for 40 years at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2023/07/09/holtec-hogs-the-money/

July 11, 2023 Posted by | business and costs, USA | 2 Comments

‘Russian victory’ worse than civilian cluster-bomb deaths – says Pentagon official

A US official has defended the decision to supply Ukraine with the weapons, which are banned in more than 100 countries.

US fears of Russian success on the battlefield outweigh concerns that deliveries of cluster bombs to Ukraine could result in civilian casualties, a senior Pentagon official acknowledged on Friday.

Speaking to reporters, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Colin Kahl defended the White House’s decision to approve another $800 million weapons package for Ukraine, including cluster munitions. The weapons are banned in more than 100 countries.

When they detonate, the munitions release many small bomblets over a wide area. A percentage of bomblets fail to detonate on impact, however, and unexploded elements pose severe risks to civilians for years after  fighting ends.

Asked if the Pentagon has assured its allies that the munitions will not cause excessive civilian harm, Kahl replied: “I’m as concerned about the humanitarian circumstance as anybody, but the worst thing for civilians in Ukraine is for Russia to win the war. And so it’s important that they don’t.”……………………………  https://www.rt.com/news/579374-pentagon-cluster-munition-civilian-casualties/

July 11, 2023 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Russia calls on NATO to discuss Ukraine nuclear plant

Canberra Times, 9 July 23

The leaders of the United States-led transatlantic NATO defence alliance should discuss Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant at their summit, Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova says.

NATO leaders will meet in Vilnius on Tuesday and Wednesday to tackle a wide range of topics, from divisions over Ukraine’s membership bid and Sweden’s accession to boosting ammunition stockpiles and reviewing the first defence plans in decades.

Accusing Ukraine of “systematic infliction of damage” to the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, Zakharova said “the NATO summit’s key attention should be devoted to it”.

“After all, the vast majority of the alliance members will be in the direct impact zone” (if something were to happen at the plant), Zakharova said on the Telegram messaging app.

Vilnius is some 1000 kilometres from the nuclear plant, Europe’s largest.

Both Russia and Ukraine have accused each other of planning to attack the plant, which is located on Russian-held territory in Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia region, near the front line of Russia’s conflict with Ukraine………….

The International Atomic Energy Agency experts based at the plant said they had yet to observe any indications of mines or explosives at the plant but needed more access to be sure.  https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8263420/russia-calls-on-nato-to-discuss-ukraine-nuclear-plant/

July 11, 2023 Posted by | EUROPE, safety | Leave a comment