UK government’s proposals on radioactive substances : -all of its 7 “consultation questions” should be vigourously opposed.

Nuclear Waste Consultation, No2 Nuclear Power SAFE ENERGY E-JOURNAL No.97, April 2023

The UK and devolved governments have launched a consultation on proposals to update and consolidate policies on managing radioactive substances and nuclear decommissioning into a single UK-wide policy framework. (1) The new document will basically replace existing policy which dates back to a 1995 document commonly known as Command 2919. The proposals focus on 3 areas: managing solid radioactive waste; updating the policy for nuclear decommissioning; managing nuclear materials and spent nuclear fuel. Proposals include leaving lower-level waste behind on decommissioned sites; disposing intermediate level waste in near surface facilities and, most shockingly, reintroducing reprocessing.

In a draft response, I argue that the consultation has its priorities the wrong way round. In Part 1 there is far more emphasis placed on cost-effectiveness and removing burdens from industry, whereas protecting public health appears to be relegated to a second-class objective. Even here the emphasis is on meeting safety and environmental regulations rather than maximising public health protection, with no recognition of the uncertainties involved in radiation protection.

There needs to be a new emphasis on openness, transparency and public consultation as plans for decommissioning and waste management are developed, so that the public is fully aware of the intended destination of each waste stream, radioactive discharges expected from each proposed method of waste management and the dose implications of each proposed action. The public should also be given access to independent advice.

The document says: Government “must strive to keep the creation of radioactive waste to a minimum,” which given that the latest UK Energy Security Strategy proposes increasing the target for new nuclear power stations from 16GW to 24GW is nothing short of misleading.

The proposals would embed the so-called Nuclear Waste Hierarchy into Government Policy. In our view the Hierarchy promotes methods of radioactive waste management which are basically ways of diluting and dispersing radioactive waste around the environment, ultimately discharging radioactive substances into our estuaries, seas and atmosphere whilst masquerading as the environmentally friendly sounding ‘waste hierarchy’. Diverting increasing quantities of radioactive waste to landfill, metal recycling and incineration plants is a policy of dilute and disperse rather than one of concentrate and contain. This is ‘waste management on the cheap’. Waste management techniques should be based on environmental principles, particularly the principle that hazardous waste should be concentrated and contained in isolation from the environment.

The document also proposes a new policy framework for near surface disposal facilities for some types of intermediate level waste in England and Wales. It should be noted that while these near surface facilities might resemble Scottish near surface facilities, in Scotland waste could be retrieved if something went wrong, but in England and Wales retrieval is not planned for.

The new policy also proposes the promotion of on-site disposal on nuclear and former nuclear sites with the rider “where it is safe to do so”. This is to “help drive earlier and more cost-effective nuclear decommissioning and management of radioactive waste without compromising safety and security.”

Finally, the consultation says “New and advanced reprocessing technologies, with integrated waste management, may be developed in the future which support advanced nuclear reactor systems. The UK Government is continuing to support the advanced nuclear sector through investments in research facilities and programmes.”

The Consultation Document asks 7 “Do you agree” questions. The answer to all seven should be “No”. https://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/SafeEnergy_No97.pdf

May 6, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, radiation, UK | Leave a comment

Reply to UK government’s nuclear dump consultation – STOP Undersea Nuclear Dump NOW!

MAY 3, 2023 BY MARIANNEWILDART

Radiation Free Lakeland have just put together a reply to the Government’s consultation on the nuclear dump plans. You don’t have to write a long reply to all their (loaded) questions. The main thing is to say that the GDF and Near Surface plans are too dangerous and that the Government should think again. Please do use the below for inspiration for your own replies to the consultation which can be found here https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/managing-radioactive-substances-and-nuclear-decommissioning

Your reply does not need to be long – even a sentence or two explaining why the Government should halt GDF plans would be good – Email your reply to the consultation here: RSNDPolConsult@beis.gov.uk

Managing radioactive substances and nuclear decommissioning

Consultation by: Department for Energy Security and Net Zero

1 March 2023 Notes from Radiation Free Lakeland sent by email to:RSNDPolConsult@beis.gov.uk 3rd May 2023

Radiation Free Lakeland are a volunteer civil society group who formed in 2008 as a response to the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely’s (now RWM/NWS) ‘steps to Geological Disposal’ which were halted by Cumbria County Council in 2013.. RaFL’s focus is nuclear safety.

Introduction: RaFL do not recognise the validity of this consultation for the following reasons:

a) TIMING – It is taking place at a time when the most expedient ( proximity to Sellafield ) target area for nuclear waste disposal is undergoing the upheaval of Local Government Organisation.

b) CRONYISM – The NDA and Nuclear Waste Services are being advised on “Investigation Techniques,” “Construction” and “Costings for Scenarios” including “co-location” of a GDF and NSD by the CEO of West Cumbria Mining. Mark Kirkbride’s coal mine, now approved by Government, lies directly between the target areas of Mid Copeland and Allerdale.

c) SAFE ENOUGH – The public are being misled over escalating radiation risks by the use of ALARP (As Low As Reasonably Practicable), the Waste Hierarchy and Best Available Techniques to recycle, incinerate and dispose of radioactive wastes by increasingly novel routes from recycling radioactive scrap metal to burial of high level wastes in sub-sea geology.

Consultation: Part I UK policy proposals for managing radioactive substances and nuclear decommissioning

1. Do you agree with the proposal to require the application of a risk-informed approach as a decision-making framework for the management of all solid radioactive waste?

NO. The public are being misled into answering Yes to this question – who would disagree with a “risk informed approach?” But what the consultation fails to reveal (or even refer to as far as we can see) is that the industry uses a device called ALARP which was instigated following a court case in 1949. A coal mine employee had been killed by a rock fall that might have been prevented if the tunnel roof had been shored up by the operator the UK National Coal Board (NCB). The appeal court’s decision was that the NCB did not have to take every possible physical measure to eliminate risk; it only had to provide protection where it was required.

This judgement enabled business owners to defend themselves from successful legal action by showing that they had taken all “reasonably practicable” measures to ensure safe operation, and that therefore risks were “As Low As Reasonably Practicable” or ALARP. The nuclear industry has taken this principle and used it to apply to radiation protection for the public – the consultation does not make any mention of ALARP but does mention its facilitator “Best Available Technique” which aims to provide “value for money” ie the cheapest option measured against human life.

If risk is either impossible or hugely expensive to reduce the industry chooses to do what is “reasonably practicable” to manage it and label the process “ALARP”. The obvious alternative is that the process would have to shut down. The ALARP principle for fatality risk is effectively set at 1 in 10,000 per annum for members of the public and 1 in 1000 per annum for nuclear workplace risks. Even by this optimistic industry standard the public risk from radioactive emissions is twice that of a fatality by car accident (one in approx 20,000 according to some statistics) and in a reverse lottery many times greater than that of winning the National Lottery – the difference being that the public can choose to avoid the fatal traffic accident or winning lottery ticket. This equates to thousands of ALARP deaths every year due to radioactive emissions even by the industry’s own optimistic standard.

An example of this is the decommissioning of Sellafield’s Pile 1 and 2. A new landfill area called Calder Landfill Extension Segregated Area Disposals (CLESA) for nuclear waste dumping was created to dispose of wastes from the demolition. “This Best Available Techniques (BAT) justification demonstrates that the environmental permit for CLESA should be varied to allow it to accept radioactive waste material with higher levels of tritium..” Despite the Environment Agency previously pointing out in 2014 “ it is doubtful whether the location of the LLWR site (at nearby Drigg) would be chosen for a new facility for near-surface radioactive waste disposal if the choice were being made now. It would not be in accordance with current national and international siting practice for new facilities.” Despite knowing that radioactive wastes that will still be dangerous to the public in many decades to come will sooner or later end up scattered along the beach and in the sea the Environment Agency have acquiesced to Sellafield’s ‘necessity’ for a newly enlarged landfill just metres from the Irish Sea containing radioactive rubble using ALARP and BAT to justify the industry’s ‘need’. Coinciding with ALARP and BAT is the fact that in recent years the Environment Agency once fully autonomous from Government (and the nuclear industry) have been systematically declawed with massively reduced funding over recent years to become less of a watch dog than a lap dog.

Image the Calder Landfill is Expanding next to the Irish Sea in order to dump decommissioning wastes from Piles 1and 2 along with radioactively contaminated animal carcasses etc https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/cumbria-and-lancashire/sellafield-rsa-major-permit-review/supporting_documents/10.%20MARP003_CLESA%20PCRSA%20Updated%20Report%206.12.17.pdf-1

2. Do you agree that application of the waste hierarchy should be an explicit policy requirement for the management of all solid radioactive waste where practicable?

NO. Radiation Free Lakeland have previously warned that the application of the “waste hierarchy” has opened up novel routes to the environment with increasing radioactive risks to the public. Examples:…………………………………………………………………………………………..

3. Do you agree with the proposed amendment to current policies on geological disposal to allow disposal of Intermediate Level Waste in near surface facilities?

No. The NIREX inquiry of 1997 rejected the deep disposal of Intermediate Level Wastes. Nirex’s aim was “to prevent radioactive material from coming into contact with groundwater in which it could dissolve, because this is the principal route by which radioactive material could be transported from a repository through the overlying rock to the surface where it could affect humans.” The Nirex inquiry concluded that this aim could not be achieved with deep disposal of ILW. Roll on 20 years and this fact is airbrushed out with the plan for Near Surface Disposal which would mean that Intermediate Level radioactive wastes would reach groundwater and the surface far sooner than the rejected NIREX plan for deep disposal………………………………………………………………

4. Do you agree with the proposed policy framework for the development of near surface disposal facilities by the NDA for the disposal of less hazardous ILW?

No. See answer above. “less hazardous” does not mean safe to “dispose” by shallow grave.

5. Do you agree that the policy of the UK Government and devolved administrations should promote the use of on-site disposal of radioactively contaminated waste from the decommissioning of nuclear sites, subject to environmental permits?

No. See 3. and 4. Waste cannot be “disposed” unless radioactivity has reduced to background levels. Radioactive waste should be retrievable, monitorable and able to be repackaged/shielded giving future generations the ability to protect themselves.

6. Are there any further improvements that we might consider in relation to the proposed update of the nuclear decommissioning and clean-up policy?

Yes – see 3. 4. And 5. In addition the first step is to stop the process of generating more nuclear wastes.

7. Do you agree with our proposed updates to the policy statement on the management of spent fuel?

No. See 6. Reprocessing spent fuel should be banned completely. Reprocessing generates ever more waste streams to be discharged to the environment and increases the volume of nuclear wastes dangerous to all life forms by at least 160 times. Sellafield’s reprocessing wastes are found in the Arctic but much of the waste has settled on the Irish Sea bed to be resuspended with the tides and activities such as borehole drilling and subsidence from sub-sea mining.

8. Do you agree with our proposed policy statement on the management of uranium?

No. Uranium should not be ‘re-used.’ Uses of uranium include military use which should be banned as it is effectively a chemical weapon. Depleted uranium is used for tank armour, armour, armour piercing bullets and aircraft weights. Depleted uranium is both a toxic chemical and radiation health hazard when inside the body.

8. Do you agree with our proposed policy statement on the management of uranium?

……………………………………………………………………………. https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2023/05/03/tell-uk-government-stop-undersea-nuclear-dump-now/

May 6, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES, UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Canada and Ontario are turning to nuclear energy as a green solution. Here’s the problem with that.

As more than $1 billion in public money is being committed to a new generation of reactors, critics are calling for a pause and a rethink, saying nuclear power’s cost overruns, construction delays and safety concerns outweigh its benefits as a provider of clean electricity.

By Marco Chown Oved, Climate Change Reporter, Thu., May 4, 2023

After a pause of more than 30 years, Ontario is poised to start building nuclear reactors again in an effort to provide the carbon-free electricity needed to avoid the worst effects of climate change.

Both Premier Doug Ford and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau have lauded nuclear power as a climate change solution, one that will help reduce emissions, attract green businesses and provide abundant electricity to enable society to stop burning fossil fuels.

But as more than $1 billion in public money is being committed to a new generation of reactors, critics are calling for a pause and a rethink, saying nuclear power’s cost overruns, construction delays and safety concerns outweigh its benefits as a provider of clean electricity — especially when renewables such as wind and solar are cheaper, quicker to build and have no long-term radioactive legacy.

The last nuclear plant Ontario built was so expensive that it caused the bankruptcy of Ontario Hydro, said Mark Winfield, a professor of environmental and urban change at York University.

“People don’t remember that,” he said. “Now, we’re sleepwalking back down a nuclear path and nobody’s asking the big questions about the costs, viability, risks and alternatives.”

Winfield, who is also co-chair of the Sustainable Energy Initiative at York, said the climate crisis has opened up a window of opportunity for nuclear power, aided by the public’s short memory.

“The nuclear industry is engaged in a full-court press, trying to take advantage of the decarbonization push to rehabilitate its reputation,” he said, an assertion supported by records in the lobbyist registry in Ontario.

Building nuclear to reduce emissions is a false solution, he said, because it will burden future generations with waste that will remain radioactive for thousands of years.

“It’s climate change for nuclear waste. Are we trading one giant intergenerational problem for another.

…………………….. Winfield and other critics point to nuclear power’s record of taking longer to build and costing more than anticipated — often by large margins — as the reason why the spread of the technology stalled decades ago.

……………………………. Nuclear power was never meant to be commercially viable, said Benjamin Sovacool, a professor of earth and environment at Boston University. It was developed in the United States as a way to convince the public that the power of the atom — which had demonstrated its catastrophic destructive potential during the Second World War — could be used for good, he said.

“There was this euphoria around what nuclear power could do,” he said. The only problem? “It was never cost effective.”

Sovacool published an academic paper that analyzed the construction timelines and budgets of more than 400 large-scale electricity projects around the world over the past 80 years. He found, on average, nuclear plants cost more than double their original budgets and took 64 per cent longer to build than projected. Wind and solar, by contrast, had average cost overruns of 7.7 per cent and 1.3 per cent, respectively.

“That’s why the market has not really embraced nuclear power at all. It just can’t compete with modern renewables,” said Sovacool. “Nuclear is stagnating and declining.”

……………………………………………………………. One of the only places where enthusiasm exists for new nuclear is China.

Over the past two decades, China has commissioned 50 new reactors, more than half of all new reactors built. In the rest of the world, twice as many reactors have been decommissioned (105) as were built (48). But even China’s passion for nuclear is eclipsed by its penchant for building solar.

Since 2001, China has added 47.5 GW of nuclear power generation to its grid, according to the World Nuclear Industry Report. But in the last decade — half that time — it has also built 13 times more wind and solar (630 GW), according to the International Energy Agency.

…………………………….. The cost increases associated with these undercut the case that nuclear power is reliable and inexpensive, Ramana said, prompting the nuclear industry to lowball cost estimates and provide unrealistic construction schedules.

“If politicians and the public were given accurate estimates, they’d say: ‘No thank you,’ ” he said. “There is an incentive to lie about this. If you look into the history, you should be very skeptical about promises.”

Canada was an early proponent of nuclear power, with the first experimental nuclear reactor outside the U.S. operating at Chalk River in the 1940s. Canada then developed its own civilian power technology — called CANDU — with prototypes built at Douglas Point, Ont., and Gentilly, Que., in the 1960s. The first large-scale reactor was built in Pickering in 1971, followed by Bruce in 1977, Point Lepreau, N.B., in 1983 and Darlington in 1990.

In Ontario, all three plants — Pickering, Bruce and Darlington — took longer and cost more to build than expected. Darlington, the last one to be completed, ended up costing $14.4 billion — triple the original budget.

Built to meet projections of soaring demand for electricity that didn’t materialize after the recession of the early ’90s, Darlington nuclear power plant bankrupted Ontario Hydro and led to the once-profitable public utility being broken into three.

The promised electricity price reductions also failed to materialize.

Now, three decades later, Ontario gets 53 per cent of its electricity from nuclear, but faces growing demand for noncarbon emitting electricity as industry returns to the province and cars and home heating electrify.

So Queen’s Park is turning to nuclear again.

Midway through $26 billion in refurbishments to extend the production lives of Darlington and Bruce, Ontario Power Generation (OPG) asked the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to prolong its operating licence for Pickering, Canada’s oldest operating reactor.

But that won’t be enough. The Independent Electricity System Operator said new nuclear reactors will be needed to get the province’s electricity supply to net-zero emissions. So, OPG has started the licensing process to build a first-of-its-kind small modular reactor (SMR)……………………………………

SMRs are supposed to solve the cost overruns and construction delays that plagued larger nuclear projects. They are to be assembled mostly in a factory, where costs can be better controlled, and their smaller size means they will be quicker to construct.

The SMR proposed for Darlington will have a 300 MW capacity. By contrast, each of the four existing reactors at Darlington have a capacity of nearly 900 MW.

But the very logic of going small undercuts the economies of scale that large nuclear reactors relied on, said Lyman. While they may cost a lot, full-scale reactors produce incredible amounts of electricity. Lyman doubts the smaller reactors will end up being much cheaper, but they’ll definitely produce less electricity — and he has concerns they could be less safe.

“In the drive to show these things are going to be cheaper, they’re cutting too many corners,” he said. “There may be a way to make it safe enough, but that’s not the way we’re going.”

The hypothetical consequences of a nuclear accident would be far worse in Ontario, where Darlington and Pickering are located very close to millions of homes, than most other nuclear plants around the world, said Theresa McClenaghan, a lawyer with the Canadian Environmental Law Association.

“We have been numbed to the danger,” she said. “The emergency planning zone extends well into Toronto.”………………. https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/analysis/2023/05/04/the-problemswith-canada-and-ontarios-new-push-for-nuclear-energy.html?rf

May 6, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, Canada | 1 Comment

As US-China Tensions Mount, We Must Resist the Push Toward Interimperialist War

What would it look like to build international solidarity against imperial rivalry from below?By Ashley Smith , TRUTHOUT, May 4, 2023

The daily news is filled with stories about the spiraling conflict between the U.S. and China over everything from trade to geopolitical squabbles and dueling military exercises. All of these converge over Taiwan — a small nation claimed by China as a renegade province, backed by the U.S., and home to the most advanced microchip manufacturing plants in the world.

These plants produce chips that power everything from iPhones to Washington’s F-35 fighter bomber, and other high-tech weaponry. That fact raises the stakes of a long-simmering dispute punctuated with periodic “Taiwan Strait Crises,” turning it into a volatile diplomatic, economic and military confrontation.

On Capitol Hill and in boardrooms, as Edward Luce notes, “the old Washington Consensus” of integrating of China has been replaced with a new one of “dis-integrating China.” Joe Biden has continued Donald Trump’s grand strategy of great power rivalry with Beijing………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

the relative decline of U.S. imperialism and the rise of today’s asymmetric multipolar world order. The U.S. remains, of course, the most dominant imperialist state, but it now faces China as a rising rival, a revitalized Russia as an outsize regional power and a host of sub-imperialist states from Saudi Arabia to Israel and Brazil, which variously challenge and cooperate with the U.S.

The Rise of Chinese Imperialism

Washington views China as its biggest rival. Beijing has transformed itself from an autarchic, underdeveloped economy into a capitalist superpower. It is now the world’s second-largest economy, the number one manufacturer, the largest exporter, main trade partner with most of the world’s major economies, a leading exporter of capital, largest creditor and a top recipient of foreign direct investment……………………………………………………

Biden’s Imperialist Keynesianism

Of course, the U.S. remains the world’s largest economy, controls the dollar as the international reserve currency, boasts the largest network of military allies, spends nearly three times as much as China on defense and possesses over 750 bases around the world. To enforce its supremacy, it has taken an increasingly aggressive turn to contain Beijing……………………………………………………………………………….

“Democracies” Versus Autocracies

To complement this imperialist industrial policy, Biden has launched a geopolitical campaign to forge a front of democracies against autocracies. A lot of this is ideological posturing, as U.S. democracy is, to say the least, ridden with crisis (remember January 6?) and the allies it invited to its two “Democracy Summits” included states that Freedom House categorized as “partly free,” “not free at all” and “electoral autocracies.”……………………………………………………………………………………………….

Taiwan: Strategic Flashpoint of Imperial Rivalry

The conflict between the U.S. and China is coming to a head over Taiwan, with American Gen. Mike Minihan going so far as to predict war in 2025. Beijing claims the island as a renegade province it aims to reintegrate, while the U.S. holds a position of “strategic ambiguity,” upholding a One China policy that only officially recognizes Beijing, while remaining unclear whether it would militarily defend Taiwan in order to deter China from invading and Taiwan from declaring independence.

………………………………………………………………………….. The Taiwanese people are caught between China and the U.S., their right to self-determination threatened by Beijing and cynically supported by the U.S. for imperial motives.

Neither Washington, Nor Beijing

War between the U.S. and China is, however, unlikely at this point. Their economies remain deeply integrated, both possess enormous stockpiles of nuclear weapons, and they are embedded in elaborate international geopolitical and economic institutions, all factors that mitigate the chances of war.

But, amid global capitalism’s multiple crises, both powers are whipping up nationalist hostility and implementing increasingly antagonistic geopolitical and economic policies. In such volatile conditions, it is essential for the international left to agitate against the drive toward imperialist war.

In the U.S., the left’s top priority must be to oppose Washington’s attempt to enforce its hegemony against China’s challenge. Washington remains, as Martin Luther King Jr. said decades ago, “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today,” a fact most recently confirmed by its destruction of Afghanistan and Iraq.

At the same time, we should not fall for the politics of “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” and support Washington’s main imperial rival, China, nor lesser ones like Russia. They are no less predatory and avaricious imperialist states, as Beijing’s record in Xinjiang and Hong Kong attests, as does Moscow’s similarly brutal one in Syria and Ukraine.

Building International Solidarity From Below

Instead, the left must build international solidarity from below between oppressed nations like Palestine, Ukraine and Taiwan, as well as exploited workers in both countries and throughout the world. This project is not an abstraction, but a necessity and possibility…………………………………………

Finally, the U.S. left must collaborate with the Chinese left (and the Asian left more broadly), which despite repression and difficult conditions, have developed extensive networks and publications like Hong Kong’s Lausan, Taiwan’s New Bloom, and Chinese groups and publications like Gongchao, Chuang and Made in China Journal. Now is the time to build internationalist anti-imperialism that rejects the false choice between Washington and Beijing and organizes across borders in a fight for international socialism that puts people and the planet first. https://truthout.org/articles/as-us-china-tensions-mount-we-must-resist-the-push-toward-interimperialist-war/?utm_source=Truthout&utm_campaign=43fadf3893-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_3_20_2023_13_41_COPY_04&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bbb541a1db-43fadf3893-650192793&mc_cid=43fadf3893&mc_eid=73e1cd43d0

May 6, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, weapons and war | 1 Comment

US Sells Taiwan 400 Harpoon Anti-Ship Missiles – Profits and Provocations, Not Protection

There are no clear solutions for Taiwan if it continues down the path of US-sponsored separatism and antagonism toward the rest of China, so much so that the only logical solution to “defeat” a Chinese blockade of the island is to not provoke one in the first place.

US Sells Taiwan 400 Harpoon Anti-Ship Missiles as US-Chinese Tensions Rise

03.05.2023 Author: Brian Berletic

As the US continues its proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, it also continues preparations for a similar conflict with China using the island province of Taiwan as its proxy of choice in Asia.

Toward this end, the US continues flooding the island province with billions of dollars worth of weapons.

One of the more recent announced weapon sales was 400 Harpoon anti-ship missiles.

Washington’s Flawed “Porcupine Strategy” for Taiwan

The anti-ship missiles manufactured by Boeing would presumably be part of developing much wider anti-access area denial (A2AD) capabilities for the administration’s armed forces on the island.

A Taiwan-based analyst, Pei-Shiue Hsieh, in an article for The Diplomat titled, “Building Taiwan’s Own Area Denial Capabilities,” would claim:

While some assert that Taiwan cannot counter a Chinese invasion on its own, the results of my analytical wargames show the opposite. The drills by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) last month likely demonstrated Beijing’s intentions to impose a naval blockade on the island in the event of a military confrontation. Taiwan’s military needs to prevent Chinese fleets from moving into their tactical positions or, if unable to prevent the blockade’s establishment, to disrupt ongoing PLA Navy (PLAN) operations.

In order to do so, the author suggests:

Taiwan must develop its own anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) strategy, which incorporates guided weapons and reconnaissance systems. Currently, Taiwan’s military possesses two possible options for guided anti-ship weapons: the ground-launched Hsiung Feng II/III and the ground- or air-launched AGM-84 Harpoon. With the reconnaissance information gathered by naval surveillance radars and MQ-9B SeaGuardian unmanned aerial vehicles, these legacy anti-ship missiles remain potent defenders of the island. However, as the PLAN is rapidly growing, Taiwan needs more than short- and medium-range options to cope with the PLA threat.

The Hsiung Feng III and Harpoon anti-ship missiles have ranges of 400 km and 139 km respectively. While these ranges may seem like more than enough to target and destroy Chinese warships imposing a sea blockade on the island of Taiwan, the problem is that while the missiles themselves have active radar homing, finding Chinese ships to home in on in the first place will be very difficult for Taiwan’s armed forces…………………………………………..

In a scenario where China is attempting to blockade Taiwan and China feels its surface vessels are at risk from anti-ship missiles, it can also employ submarines while using its formidable missile force to strike at and destroy not only military capabilities based on Taiwan, but also ports receiving military aid from abroad as well as ships attempting to deliver it. A blockade by any other name is still a blockade.

The other problem Taiwan’s administration faces is the time frame purchased weapons would actually reach the island. The 400 purchased Harpoon anti-ship missiles will take years at the earliest to arrive……………………

According to most estimates, the gap in military capabilities between China and the United States is set to close somewhere around 2025. By 2029, the gap would be in the process of widening, but this time in China’s favor.

Contracts for munitions like the LRASM are not even being publicly discussed, but should such contracts be signed, it’s likely Taiwan will be waiting as long or longer for the missiles to arrive, and that is assuming the missiles are developed into ground-launched systems to adapt to the reality Taiwan’s air force will not play a role in any hostilities with the rest of China.

Profits and Provocations, Not Protection

While Boeing is certainly profiting from the sale of 400 Harpoon anti-ship missiles to Taiwan, the move hardly enhances Taiwan’s military capabilities relative to the rest of China, nor does it do so within the window of opportunity the US seeks to provoke an armed conflict with China over Taiwan. If any blockade imposed by China around the island province of Taiwan is to be broken, it will have to be by the US military using a combination of anti-ship missiles and anti-submarine warfare.

US policymakers having wargamed an armed conflict between the US and China noted that the US would likely exhaust its arsenal of long-range anti-ship missiles of all kinds, a result of America’s limited military industrial capacity, a shortfall on demonstration amid its proxy war with Russia in Ukraine at the moment.

But even if the US didn’t run out of missiles and if the US was successful in thwarting China’s use of naval vessels to impose a blockade, a de facto blockade can still be imposed through the use of China’s long-range missiles fired from the mainland at Taiwan’s ports and any ships attempting to utilize them.

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”. https://journal-neo.org/2023/05/03/us-sells-taiwan-400-harpoon-anti-ship-missiles-as-us-chinese-tensions-rise/

May 6, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | marketing, Taiwan | Leave a comment

Former Nuclear Leaders: Say ‘No’ to New Reactors

4 May 23 https://www.powermag.com/blog/former-nuclear-leaders-say-no-to-new-reactors/?fbclid=IwAR2p2HtrPYKkWrNjfiZn6QDDg8wbo7FVIzW28k4Du7RVnH_HMuWSDQ4OgWk

The former heads of nuclear power regulation in the U.S., Germany, and France, along with the former secretary to the UK’s government radiation protection committee, have issued a joint statement that in part says, “Nuclear is just not part of any feasible strategy that could counter climate change.”

The statement issued Jan. 25 notes the importance of global action to combat climate issues, but the four leaders say nuclear power is too costly, and too risky an investment, to be a viable strategy against climate change.

The four leaders issuing the joint statement include:

Dr. Greg Jaczko, former Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and founder of Maxean, an energy company.
Prof. Wolfgang Renneberg, a university professor and former Head of the Reactor Safety, Radiation Protection and Nuclear Waste, Federal Environment Ministry, Germany.
Dr. Bernard Laponche, a French engineer and author, and former Director General, French Agency for Energy Management, former Advisor to French Minister of Environment, Energy and Nuclear Safety.
Dr. Paul Dorfman, an associate fellow and researcher at the University of Sussex, and former Secretary UK Govt. Committee Examining Radiation Risk from Internal Emitters.

Here’s the text of the statement:

“The climate is running hot. Evolving knowledge of climate sensitivity and polar ice melt-rate makes clear that sea-level rise is ramping, along with destructive storm, storm surge, severe precipitation and flooding, not forgetting wildfire. With mounting concern and recognition over the speed and pace of the low carbon energy transition that’s needed, nuclear has been reframed as a partial response to the threat of global heating. But at the heart of this are questions about whether nuclear could help with the climate crisis, whether nuclear is economically viable, what are the consequences of nuclear accidents, what to do with the waste, and whether there’s a place for nuclear within the swiftly expanding renewable energy evolution.

“As key experts who have worked on the front-line of the nuclear issue, we’ve all involved at the highest governmental nuclear regulatory and radiation protection levels in the US, Germany, France and UK. In this context, we consider it our collective responsibility to comment on the main issue: Whether nuclear could play a significant role as a strategy against climate change.

“The central message, repeated again and again, that a new generation of nuclear will be clean, safe, smart and cheap, is fiction. The reality is nuclear is neither clean, safe or smart; but a very complex technology with the potential to cause significant harm. Nuclear isn’t cheap, but extremely costly. Perhaps most importantly nuclear is just not part of any feasible strategy that could counter climate change. To make a relevant contribution to global power generation, up to more than ten thousand new reactors would be required, depending on reactor design.”

The statement includes a list of items (below) the leaders see as making an argument against nuclear power.

In short, nuclear as strategy against climate change is:

Too costly in absolute terms to make a relevant contribution to global power production
More expensive than renewable energy in terms of energy production and CO₂ mitigation, even taking into account costs of grid management tools like energy storage associated with renewables rollout.
Too costly and risky for financial market investment, and therefore dependent on very large public subsidies and loan guarantees.
Unsustainable due to the unresolved problem of very long-lived radioactive waste.
Financially unsustainable as no economic institution is prepared to insure against the full potential cost, environmental and human impacts of accidental radiation release – with the majority of those very significant costs being borne by the public.
Militarily hazardous since newly promoted reactor designs increase the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation.
Inherently risky due to unavoidable cascading accidents from human error, internal faults, and external impacts; vulnerability to climate-driven sea-level rise, storm, storm surge, inundation and flooding hazard, resulting in international economic impacts.
Subject to too many unresolved technical and safety problems associated with newer unproven concepts, including ‘Advanced’ and Small Modular Reactors (SMRs).
Too unwieldy and complex to create an efficient industrial regime for reactor construction and operation processes within the intended build-time and scope needed for climate change mitigation.
Unlikely to make a relevant contribution to necessary climate change mitigation
needed by the 2030’s due to nuclear’s impracticably lengthy development and construction time-lines, and the overwhelming construction costs of the very great volume of reactors that would be needed to make a difference.

May 6, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, climate change | Leave a comment

Former CIA Officer Says Decision to Drone Attack Kremlin Was Made by the United States

Deadly escalation an effort to provoke major Russian response.

Summit News, 5 May, 2023, Paul Joseph Watson

Former CIA intelligence officer Larry Johnson says the decision to launch a drone attack on the Kremlin was made by the United States.

The Wednesday attack, which was likely to have been targeting Russian President Vladimir Putin, was stopped by electronic warfare systems which disabled the drones before they could reach their target.

According to Johnson, the attack must have been spearheaded by the Biden administration and the US military-industrial complex because “decisions on such attacks are made not in Kiev, but in Washington.”

“Washington should understand clearly that we know this,” Johnson told reporters.

Although the attack, which Ukraine denied it was involved in, failed to accomplish its tactical goal, it was still highly “symbolic,” according to Johnson……………………………………….

Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. denounced the attempted drone attack as a dangerous escalation. https://summit.news/2023/05/05/former-cia-officer-says-decision-to-drone-attack-kremlin-was-made-by-the-united-states/

May 6, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA | Leave a comment

The Antidote to Oliver Stone is Philippe Carillo’s Film “Fukushima Disaster: The Hidden Side of the Story”

This Week’s Featured Interview:

Libbe HaLevy, Host of Nuclear Hotseat, 3 May 23 https://nuclearhotseat.com/podcast/antidote-oliver-stone-fukushima-disaster/

Philippe Carillo has made a 52-minute film that busts the myths of nuclear reactor safety that is clear, easily understood, and devastatingly powerful. Philippe is a French citizen currently living in the Vanuatu archipelago. While living in Paris, he worked on several major documentary projects for the BBC, 20th Century Fox, French National TV, and independent film productions. He moved to Hollywood in 2003 and made his first feature documentary in Hollywood in 2013, Inside the Garbage of the World. The film won 3 awards, was distributed worldwide, and inspired a wave of change regarding plastic pollution.

Philippe moved to Vanuatu in 2017 and has since made more than100 short films in that country. In 2022, he decided to finish his feature documentary about Fukushima which was started in 2016. That film, FUKUSHIMA Disaster – The Hidden Side of the Story, was the topic of our conversation.

I spoke with Philippe Carillo on Friday, April 14, 2023.

May 5, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, media | 2 Comments

France’s government postpones its nuclear safety reform indefinitely.

The merger of ASN and IRSN will not be examined by a joint committee during the
examination of the nuclear acceleration law on May 4th. The OPECST is
invited to discuss the future of this controversial merger. Game over for
the nuclear safety reform project. Announced by the government at the
beginning of February, the merger of the Nuclear Safety Authority, in
charge of civil nuclear safety, and the Institute for Radiation Protection
and Nuclear Safety (IRSN), in charge of nuclear safety expertise “is
withdrawn,” said the office of Energy Minister Agnès Pannier Runacher on
Friday.

Les Echos 28th April 2023

https://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/energie-environnement/le-gouvernement-reporte-sine-die-sa-reforme-de-la-surete-nucleaire-1939323

May 5, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | France, safety | Leave a comment

What happens to the UK’s nuclear waste?

Elly Foster. 2nd May 2023 https://ecohustler.com/technology/what-happens-to-the-uks-nuclear-waste

What are the plans for disposing of the UK’s nuclear waste?

Let’s not talk about it!

Nuclear reactors have existed in the UK since 1956, 67 years. In all this time no single government nor the industry itself has come up with a decent plan for getting rid of the dangerous waste. I have been a science teacher for many years and in the curriculum on electricity generation, students are always taught the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power. They are simply taught that it is expensive to dispose of the waste. What they are not taught is how it is being stockpiled in places like Sellafield and how open concrete ponds of water filled with dangerous waste exist right next to the Irish Sea.

We have all seen what happened in Japan when Fukushima was affected by an earthquake. But this is the UK and we don’t suffer earthquakes here, or do we? Listening to our Government, to the Labour Party, to the Liberal Democrats and to Plaid Cymru, nuclear power is the way to get us out of the climate emergency hole. Of course what they really want to promise voters is that they can carry on consuming electricity with abandon. They like to argue that nuclear power is clean. What they mean is that it produces no CO2 as a by-product of the reaction process, but they fail to tell you how much CO2 is emitted in the construction of the power station, the transport and the decommissioning. They like you to think that only nuclear power can provide a baseload so that we can ‘keep our lights on’. They don’t tell you that it is possible to generate enough electricity if we were to drastically cut our unnecessary consumption and use our grid in a smart way.

And they never talk about the waste issue

We need to have a close look at the plans for nuclear waste dumping. In the industry’s parlance this is called a Geological Disposal Facility. The name says it all. Find some geologically stable rocks and dispose of the waste for millennia. A previous government asked all communities politely who would be prepared to have such a facility on their doorstep. Naturally not many communities came forward willingly, one in Lincolnshire and one which is the subject of this article.

It’s not that the local people were shouting hoorah, no; it’s more that their local council chiefs shouted JOBS and COMMUNITY BENEFIT. And it is seen as a community with a nuclear ‘heritage’, hence it is the obvious choice. Certain local people immediately started campaigning against this idea as they understood the reality on the ground, or rather under the ground. They knew that in fact the geology in their area is not that stable at all.

Coal consipracy?

It gets worse. The community I am describing is in West Cumbria. Many of you will know of plans to open a new coal mine there. We have heard the arguments that it is for coking coal and that we need it for the steel industry or otherwise we’ll have to import it, stated to be the unsustainable option. The pro’s love to pull this sustainability argument out of the hat; they think they sound so green.

Now, did you know that the CEO of West Cumbria Mining is none other than the same guy the Government has appointed to be its chief advisor on dumping nuclear waste? Something stinks, doesn’t it? His name is Mark Kirkbride. The two areas in Cumbria assigned for the nuclear waste dump are absolutely adjacent to the proposed under the sea coal mine. And this is a deep coal mine, prone to worse earthquakes than fracking. I have checked major news outlets for linking the new coal mine approval with nuclear waste dumping but cannot find one item.

Harm to marine animals

It gets worse still. In 2006 an organisation I was involved with called Save Our Sea (SOS) was set up to stop drilling for oil and gas in Cardigan Bay. The companies involved couldn’t just start drilling, and they couldn’t just start carrying out seismic testing to see if there was any oil or gas. An environmental assessment had to be done. They needed to know if there are animals affected by this. In Cardigan Bay there is a resident population of bottlenose dolphins and there are harbour porpoises, common dolphins and other migratory cetaceans.

What makes Cardigan Bay so different from the Cumbrian Coast? Just recently a stretch of this Cumbrian coastline has been designated a Marine Conservation Zone. So there must be plenty to protect. And in any case, migrating species swim all over the Irish Sea. But for some unfathomable reason, no environmental assessment has been carried out and apparently is not needed. Says who? Answer: the Nuclear Waste Services, Radioactive Waste Management (this is the body with Mark Kirkbride as its key advisor) and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.

Local people didn’t get a say but they did find lots of dead harbour porpoises, seals and hundreds of jellyfish. The seismic testing itself delivered blasts every 5 seconds, 24 hours a day, for 20 days. The dump pit in the Irish Sea they hope to create would be 25km2. Last year the seismic testing was carried out near Copeland, centred on Seascale, this year they are planning to do the same at Allerdale.

It’s up to us all to stop this madness

Please read the following links and help stop these plans. Demand an answer from your MP if they are in favour of nuclear power as to how they think the waste should be disposed of, and demand that they find out why no environmental assessment or public consultation needs to be carried out before any seismic testing can take place. Also demand to know why a person like Mark Kirkbride can be both CEO of a coal mine and advise on nuclear dump sites next to his coal mine. Then sign the petition and share it with your friends. We must stand by the campaigners of West Cumbria who are a seriously good bunch of activists and defeat plans for nuclear dumping and for coal mining.

Useful links

May 4, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

The dangers of nuclear escalation have not receded

Putin would use a tactical weapon if pushed

1ai news, 3rd May, Keir A. Lieber Keir Lieber is the Director of the Center for Security Studies and Security Studies Program, and Professor in the School of Foreign Service and Department of Government at Georgetown University.

Since the Cuban missile crisis, the idea of all-out nuclear war in Europe has been almost unthinkable. And many Western commentators have dismissed Putin’s recent threats of nuclear blackmail as scare tactics. But we should not be so confident in our assessment argues nuclear expert Keir Lieber. If the West doesn’t tone down it’s rhetoric of a decisive military victory against Russia, we could be heading for catastrophe in Europe.

Many analysts believe that the danger of Russian nuclear weapons use against Ukraine or NATO has receded. Occasional escalatory threats by Russian President Vladimir Putin have been largely dismissed as scare tactics by Western officials, who remain confident that nuclear deterrence will hold under most plausible circumstances.

Such confidence is misguided. Both strategic logic and international history suggest that Putin is likely to use nuclear weapons if he faces the prospect of a devastating defeat in the Ukraine war or a future conflict with NATO. Specifically, if Putin perceives an existential threat to his regime, then he will be compelled to prevent that outcome – even if it requires taking risky escalatory steps, including the use of tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate tools of last resort; any rational leader would consider using them if his or her regime or life were on the line.

Of course, Russia’s poor military performance in Ukraine makes a future direct attack by Russia on a NATO country seem unlikely. But that same conventional military weakness explains the danger of Russian nuclear escalation in both the current war in Ukraine and any conflict with NATO, if one were to occur.

The brutal fate of leaders like Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, who lost wars to superior adversaries without having a nuclear option, looms large…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Both strategic logic and international history suggest that Putin is likely to use nuclear weapons if he faces the prospect of a devastating defeat in the Ukraine war

The only wise response to Putin’s nuclear use in Ukraine would be to negotiate some kind of resolution in which all parties could declare Potemkin victories. If that is the path we are heading down, the United States and its allies should dial-down any rhetoric about achieving decisive victory and, instead, find a solution before nuclear weapons are used.……………. https://iai.tv/articles/the-dangers-of-nuclear-escalation-have-not-receded-keir-lieber-auid-2470

May 4, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Antony Blinken, Jake Sullivan, and the ‘made men’ of the Biden administration

Antony Blinken and the ‘made men’ of the Biden administration

BY JONATHAN TURLEY, – 04/22/23 https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/3963743-antony-blinken-and-the-made-men-of-the-biden-administration/

Secretary of State Antony Blinken would really, really prefer to talk about grain in Ukraine this week. But many people are less interested in what Blinken is doing as secretary of state than in what he did to become secretary of state.

This week, Blinken was implicated in a political coverup that could well have made the difference in the 2020 election. According to the sworn testimony of former acting CIA Director Michael Morrell, Blinken – then a high-ranking Biden campaign official – was “the impetus” of the false claim that the Hunter Biden laptop story was really Russian disinformation. Morrell then organized dozens of ex-national security officials to sign the letter claiming that the Hunter laptop story had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”

Morrell further admitted that the Biden campaign “helped to strategize about the public release of the statement.”

Finally, he admitted that one of his goals was not just to warn about Russian influence but “to help then-Vice President Biden in the debate and to assist him in winning the election.”

Help it did. Biden claimed in a presidential debate that the laptop story was “garbage” and part of a “Russian plan.” Biden used the letter to say “nobody believes” that the laptop is real.

In reality, the letter was part of a political plan with the direct involvement of his campaign, but Biden never revealed their involvement. Indeed, over years of controversy surrounding this debunked letter, no one in the Biden campaign or White House (including Blinken) revealed their involvement.

Of course, the letter was all the media needed. Discussion of the laptop was blocked on social media, and virtually every major media outlet dismissed the story before the election.

That was also all Biden needed to win a close election. The allegations that the Biden family had cashed in millions through influence peddling could have made the difference. It never happened, in part because of Blinken’s work.

Once in power, Blinken was given one of the top Cabinet positions. He was now one of the “made” men of the administration.

He was not alone. The 2016 election was marred by false allegations of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Unlike the influence peddling allegations made against Biden, the media ran with those stories for years. It later turned out that the funding and distribution of the infamous Steele dossier originated with the Clinton campaign. The campaign, however, reportedly lied in denying any such funding until after the election. It was later sanctioned for hiding the funding as legal expenses.

Those involved in spreading this false story were rewarded handsomely. For example, the second collusion story planted in the media by the campaign concerned the Russian Alfa Bank.

The campaign used key Clinton aide Jake Sullivan, who went public with the entirely false claim of a secret back channel between Moscow and the Trump campaign.

Sullivan was also a “made” man who was later made Biden’s national security adviser. Others who were implicated in either the Steele dossier or Alfa Bank hoaxes also later found jobs in the administration. The Brookings Institution proved a virtual turnstile for these political operatives.

Many signatories on the Russian disinformation letter continue to flourish. MSNBC analyst Jeremy Bash signed the letter and was put on the president’s Intelligence Advisory Board. As with Sullivan, it did not seem to matter that Bash had gotten one of the most important intelligence stories of the election wrong.

Former CIA head James Clapper was referenced by Biden on the letter and was also a spreader of the Russian collusion claims. Despite those scandals and a claim of perjury, CNN gave him a media contract.

They are all “made” men in the Beltway, but they could not have succeeded without a “made” media.

These false stories planted by the Clinton and Biden campaigns succeeded only because the media played an active and eager role. In any other country, this pattern would fit the model of a state media and propaganda effort. However, there was no need for a central ministry when the media quickly reinforced these narratives. This is a state media by consent rather than coercion. The Biden campaign knew that reporters would have little interest or curiosity in how the letter came about or the involvement of campaign operatives.

If Republicans did not control the House of Representatives, the Morrell admission would never have occurred. The Democrats repeatedly blocked efforts to investigate this story and the influence peddling allegations. Even this week, some Democrats called it a “tabloid story.”

Given the career paths of figures such as Blinken and Sullivan, there is a concern that other officials may see the value in “earning their bones” as “made” men and women. There is now a senior IRS career official who is seeking to disclose what he claims was special treatment given to Hunter Biden in the criminal investigation.

While the 51 former intelligence figures were eager to raise Russian disinformation claims before the election, most have become silent. After all, the letter served its purpose, as Morrell indicated, “to assist [Biden] in winning the election.” After the false stories planted before the 2016 and 2020 elections, the question is what is in store for 2024?

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

May 4, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA | 3 Comments

DEPLETED URANIUM: COURTS ACCEPT CANCER RISK DENIED BY ARMY

400 Italian soldiers who were exposed to DU in the Balkans had since died from cancer, and another 8,000 were suffering from the disease. They interviewed the lawyer at the centre of the litigation, Angelo Tartaglia, who urged Britain to “think about the risks and the consequences” of supplying Ukraine with DU shells.

An Italian Parliamentary commission into the issue found “shocking” levels of exposure among Italian veterans and said it had “helped sow deaths and illnesses”.

Courts across Europe have ruled that depleted uranium can cause cancer among troops. Yet the British army insists it is safe to supply Ukraine with the toxic tank shells.

PHIL MILLER, 2 MAY 2023

More than 300 Italian veterans who developed cancer after being exposed to depleted uranium ammunition have won court cases against Italy’s military. Some of the cases were brought by their bereaved relatives.

The judgments have mounted in recent years, with Italian courts repeatedly finding a link between cancer and service in the Balkans where such weapons were fired.

Although Italy does not have depleted uranium weapons in its own arsenal, Italian police and soldiers were deployed to Bosnia and Kosovo where NATO allies fired the controversial ammunition in the 1990s.

Depleted uranium (DU) is a chemically toxic and radioactive heavy metal produced as waste from nuclear power plants. Britain uses it to make armour-piercing tank shells, which are now being supplied to Ukraine.

Scientific debate continues about DU’s long-term risks to human health and the environment in post-conflict zones. British ministers insist it is low risk, and that there is only “some potential heavy metal contamination localised around the impact zone.”

But in the Balkans and Iraq, many believe it has caused cancer. That view was shared in 2009 by a coroner in England, who held an inquest into the death of Stuart Dyson, a British army veteran.

Dyson cleaned tanks during the Gulf war in 1991 and later developed a rare cancer, passing away in 2008. An inquest jury found it was “more likely than not” that depleted uranium had caused his death.

The Ministry of Defence rejected the ruling and refused to pay his widow a pension for those who die from service. By contrast, the widow of Captain Henri Friconneau, a French gendarme who served in Kosovo, was granted a service pension when he later died from cancer.

An appeal court in Rennes ruled in 2019 that Friconneau’s death was due to his exposure to DU dust. France’s interior ministry accepted the judgment and added his name to a monument for those who died on operations in Kosovo.

When in Rome

But it is in Italy where the highest number of veterans have won compensation. One family received a 1.3m euros pay out in 2015 after the court of appeal in Rome found “with unequivocal certainty” a link between exposure to depleted uranium dust and cancer.

The Il Fatto newspaper said the judgement went further than previous rulings, as it recognised a causal link beyond just the balance of probabilities.

A more recent ruling in 2018 seen by Declassified found the court could not “rule out the possibility that a soldier who served” in the Balkans “would have been exposed to genotoxic pollutants, thus increasing the likelihood of illness.”

An Italian Parliamentary commission into the issue found “shocking” levels of exposure among Italian veterans and said it had “helped sow deaths and illnesses”.

Last month, Euronews reported that 400 Italian soldiers who were exposed to DU in the Balkans had since died from cancer, and another 8,000 were suffering from the disease. They interviewed the lawyer at the centre of the litigation, Angelo Tartaglia, who urged Britain to “think about the risks and the consequences” of supplying Ukraine with DU shells.

Tartaglia said: “There’s the possibility that both Ukrainian and Russian military officials might fall ill but most importantly pollution caused by military activities could cause irreversible damage to the environment which means that civilians too would be at risk”………………………………………………………………. more https://declassifieduk.org/depleted-uranium-courts-accept-cancer-risk-denied-by-army/

May 4, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | depleted uranium, Italy, UK | Leave a comment

MPs, Scientists Raise Alarm Over Climate Hype for Small Modular Reactors

The Energy Mix, May 2, 2023. Primary Author: Christopher Bonasia @CBonasia_

Several Members of Parliament and activists are warning the Canadian government that its support for nuclear energy projects could prove costly and ineffective—even as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau maintains that nuclear is “on the table” for achieving the country’s climate goals.

The federal government considers nuclear energy—including small modular reactors (SMRs) that are touted as easier to build and run than traditional nuclear plants—as key to meeting energy needs while aiming for net-zero by 2050.

………………..But on April 25, anti-nuclear activists and a cross-partisan group of MPs held a media conference on Parliament Hill, urging Ottawa to rethink its stance on nuclear and calling the energy source a dangerous distraction from climate action, reported CBC News.

Speakers in the group said Trudeau and his cabinet are getting bad advice about nuclear energy.

“The nuclear industry, led by the United States and the United Kingdom, has been lobbying and advertising heavily in Canada, trying to convince us that new SMR designs will somehow address the climate crisis,” said Prof. Susan O’Donnell, a member of the Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick (CRED-NB). The reality, she added, is that SMRs will produce “toxic radioactive waste” and could lead to serious accidents while turning some communities into “nuclear waste dumps”.

Moreover, there is “no guarantee these nuclear experiments will ever generate electricity safely and affordably,” O’Donnell said, since SMRs are still relatively untested.

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May called government funding for nuclear projects a “fraud.”

“It has no part in fighting the climate emergency,” May said. “In fact, it takes valuable dollars away from things that we know work, that can be implemented immediately, in favour of untested and dangerous technologies that will not be able to generate a single kilowatt of electricity for a decade or more.”

Liberal MP Jenica Atwin, New Democrat Alexandre Boulerice, and Bloc Québecois MP Mario Simard also attended the media event, the National Post reports. Atwin, who was first elected as a Green in 2019 before crossing the floor, “is the only Liberal to publicly break ranks so far, but said she has had conversations with colleagues who appear to be ‘open-minded’ to learning more about her concerns,” the Post says.

Advocacy groups like the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA) have also pushed back against SMRs, arguing they “pose safety, accident, and proliferation risks” akin to traditional nuclear reactors. CELA urged[pdf] the federal government to “eliminate federal funding for SMRs, and instead reallocate those investments into cost-effective, socially responsible, renewable solutions.”

The International Energy Agency (IEA) says renewables will “lead the push to replace fossil fuels” but that nuclear can help in countries where it is accepted. As of 2022, there were only three SMR projects in operation—one each in Russia, China, and India, CBC News reported.

Canada’s First SMR Passes Pre-Licencing

In Ontario, which currently produces 60% of its electricity from conventional nuclear stations, plans for one such SMR passed a regulatory checkpoint in March. Slated to be Canada’s first new nuclear reactor since 1993, the BWRX-300 is being built by Ontario Power Generation (OPG) and North Carolina-based GE Hitachi.

…………………………………………………………………….The review is not binding on the commission and does not involve the issuance of a licence, but its completion does give OPG “a head start on licencing,” said GE Hitachi spokesperson Jonathan Allen.

However, the pre-licencing review also revealed “some technical areas that need further development,” CNSC said. The commission will require OPG to supply further details on severe accident analysis and the engineered features credited for mitigation. OPG must also demonstrate that the reactor’s design meets the requirement for two separate and diverse means of reactor shutdown (or an alternative approach) and provide further information “on the protective measures for workers in the event of an out-of-core criticality accident.”

“From the list of areas needed for further development, it looks like [GE Hitachi] has some work to do,” said Allison Macfarlane, director of the University of British Columbia’s public policy school, who chaired the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) between 2012 and 2014.

BWRX-300 Raises Safety Questions

The BWRX-300 is a leading concept that GE Hitachi says is its simplest boiling water design, and could deliver 60% lower capital costs per megawatt than other SMRs.

But Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety for the Union of Concerned Scientists, told The Mix he has concerns about the design. He pointed to a joint CNSC-NRC review [pdf] that identified several issues associated with reactor containment, including a potential for “reverse flow” of steam from the containment back into the reactor vessel under certain accident conditions. The review also found that the reactor’s reliance on isolation condensers may not always be effective to remove heat from the reactor during loss-of-coolant accidents.

“The consequences of a failure of isolation condensers is apparent from the fate of Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1, which experienced a core melt only hours after the system was lost,” Lyman said, citing the 2011 nuclear disaster in Ōkuma, Japan.

He added he is “extremely skeptical” that the BWRX-300 design will mature quickly enough to allow CNSC to make a meaningful determination of its safety in time for the anticipated 2028 start date. SMR designs need to undergo further testing and analysis before they can be considered safe, and yet vendors are rushing to deploy new, untested reactor designs without going through the necessary stages of technology development, including testing of full-scale prototypes, Lyman said.

“History has shown that shortcuts in this process are an invitation to disaster,” he added.

SMRs fall under the same Class 1A Nuclear Facilities Regulations as traditional reactors, so they do receive the same level of CNSC scrutiny. With its mandate to ensure the safe conduct of nuclear activities in Canada, the commission “will only issue a licence if the applicant has demonstrated the reactor can be operated safely,” the spokesperson said.

Next steps for the DNNP include a CNSC assessment, already under way, to review OPG’s licence application. This will result in a Commission Member Document that offers results and recommendations to an independent commission. Then there will also be two public hearings. The first is slated [pdf] for January 2024 and will consider the applicability of the previous environmental assessment to the BWRX-300. A separate, future hearing will determine whether to issue a construction licence for the DNNP.

“It is the independent commission who will make the decision as to whether the licensee or applicant is qualified to carry on the proposed activities and in a safe manner that protects the public and the environment,” the CNSC spokesperson said. https://www.theenergymix.com/2023/05/02/canadian-mps-raise-alarm-over-nuclear-energy-drive-for-climate-goals/

May 4, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

The Philippines to be the South East Asian guinea pig for NuScam’s small nuclear reactors?

New in Marcos’ nuclear push: US firm seeks site in Philippines for costly small reactors Cristina Chi – Philstar.com, May 2, 2023 |

MANILA, Philippines (Corrected, May 3; 10:33 a.m.)— A top nuclear energy firm from the United States that has been developing a type of nuclear reactor flagged for being potentially financially risky as renewable energy becomes more affordable has expressed interest in putting up a site in the Philippines.

This comes as President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. takes his aggressive nuclear energy push to talks with US officials during his visit there this week — an agenda backed by his cousin House Speaker Martin Romualdez but roundly criticized by environmental groups………………………

Too expensive, too risky’

NuScale Power was flagged by independent think-tank Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis in 2022 for developing SMR technology that is “too expensive, too risky and too uncertain.”

The group also recommended that SMR “should be abandoned” given that the costs of available renewable sources are falling rapidly and that the SMR wouldn’t generate electricity before 2029.

Marcos is on a four-day trip to the United States that began last weekend, and he has so far met with US President Joe Biden and other business leaders, including executives of the energy firm.

…………. Clayton Scott, NuScale executive vice president for business, also expressed confidence that NuScale’s small modular reactor (SMR) technology “will perform as expected.” NuScale was also accompanied by local partner Enrique Razon, representing Prime Infrastructure Capital, Inc.

Marcos first met with NuScale executives in 2022 on the sidelines of the 77th United Nations General Assembly.

Among the deals clinched during Marcos’ meeting with US officials is the US Agency for International Development’s commitment to invest $5 million to support the Philippines’ exploration of the potential for nuclear energy to meet the country’s need for clean energy, “consistent with the highest standards of nuclear security, safety and nonproliferation.”

Environmental groups’ pushback

A financially unrewarding nuclear energy deal may not be the only risk posed by NuScale Power’s entry in the Philippines, according to environmental group Greenpeace.

Nuclear energy companies are “practically making the Philippines the guinea pig for untested risky technologies to promote their business” despite other local options for safer and cheaper renewable energy, Greenpeace campaigner Khevin Yu said.

Yu warned of the potential consequences of tapping nuclear energy for electricity in the Philippines given that Germany, like other developed countries, has weaned off nuclear power — an undertaking that it began in 2002 and was accelerated in 2011 after the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan.

Italy also permanently shut down all of its functioning nuclear plants in 2022.

Yu said that risks related to nuclear technology remain unresolved, and SMRs “are still untested and unproven.”

“(And) there is currently no way to safely store nuclear waste,” Yu said.

“Even if they actually succeed in putting up nuclear plants, it will take a long time before we are able to use it. Furthermore, we will be stuck with maintaining a ticking time-bomb, which will endanger the lives of nearby communities should an accident occur,” Yu added.

Yu, meanwhile, pointed out that the pivot to renewable energy became a topic of discussion between Marcos and Bide, which he said should now “be the focus of the current administration.” https://www.philstar.com/headlines/climate-and-environment/2023/05/02/2263238/new-marcos-nuclear-push-us-firm-seeks-site-philippines-costly-small-reactors

May 4, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | marketing of nuclear, Philippines | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries Next Entries »