Investigation underway after nine nuclear missileers develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
ABC News 23 Jan 23
Nine military officers — who had worked decades ago at a nuclear missile base in Montana — have been diagnosed with a blood cancer, and there are “indications” the disease may be linked to their service, according to military briefing slides obtained by The Associated Press. One of the officers has died.
Key points:
- One of the nine officers diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma has since died
- Top officials say military medical professionals are investigating the new cases
- Previously, 14 cancer cases were investigated at the base, which was deemed safe
All of the officers — known as missileers — were assigned as many as 25 years ago to Malmstrom Air Force Base, home to a vast field of 150 Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile silos.
The nine officers were diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, according to a January briefing by US Space Force Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Sebeck.
Missileers ride caged elevators deep underground into a small operations bunker encased in a thick wall of concrete and steel.
They remain there sometimes for days, ready to turn the launch keys if ordered to by the country’s president.
“There are indications of a possible association between [this] cancer and missile combat crew service at Malmstrom AFB,” Lieutenant Colonel Sebeck said in slides presented to his Space Force unit this month.
The “disproportionate number of missileers presenting with cancer, specifically lymphoma” was concerning, he said…………………………..
Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma — which, according to the American Cancer Society, affects an estimated 19 out of every 100,000 people in the US annually — is a blood cancer that uses the body’s infection-fighting lymph system to spread………………..
The median age for adult non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is 67, according to the National Institutes of Health.
However, the former missileers affected are far younger.
Officers are often in their 20s when they are assigned duty watch.
The officer who died, who was not identified, was a Space Force officer assigned to Schreiver Space Force Base in Colorado, with the rank of major, a rank typically achieved in a service member’s 30s.
Two of the others are in the same Space Force unit with the rank of lieutenant colonel, which is typically reached in a service member’s early 40s…………………………………………………
Last year, President Joe Biden signed the PACT Act, which greatly expanded the the types of illnesses and toxic exposures that would be considered presumptive — meaning a service member or veterans would not face an uphill battle to convince the government that the injury was tied to their military service — in order to received covered care. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-23/nuclear-missileers-develop-non-hodgkins-lymphoma/101883726
Ukraine storing weapons at nuclear plants.
https://www.rt.com/russia/570349-ukraine-stockpiling-ammo-plants/ 23 Jan 23
Kiev is using the facilities as cover for stockpiles of Western-made munitions, Moscow’s foreign intelligence chief says.
Ukrainian forces are storing Western-supplied missiles and artillery shells in nuclear power plants, Russian Foreign Intelligence Service Director Sergey Naryshkin said on Monday. He claimed that Kiev has been using the plants as cover for ammunition stockpiles..
There is credible information that Ukrainian troops are stockpiling the Western-supplied weapons and ammunition on the territory of nuclear power plants,” Naryshkin said, according to a statement on the intelligence service’s website. He added that the armaments include rockets for US-made HIMARS launchers and missiles used by foreign air defense systems, as well as “large-caliber artillery shells.”
According to Naryshkin, several cars loaded with “lethal cargo” were delivered by rail to the Rovno Nuclear Power Plant in western Ukraine during the last week of December alone. “They rely on the calculation that the Russian Armed Forces would not strike nuclear power plants because they realize the danger of a nuclear disaster,” the intelligence chief said.
Both sides have raised concerns over the safety of power plants since the conflict between Russia and Ukraine broke out in late February. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) deployed a monitoring mission to the Rovno plant last week and promised to station experts in other facilities in Ukraine.
Russia has accused Ukrainian forces of shelling the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant, which is Europe’s largest. It is located in the eponymous region which, along with three other former Ukrainian territories, joined Russia following referendums in September.
Kiev denied targeting the facility and claimed that Russia was using the plant as a base and cover for its soldiers. Russian officials said that heavy weapons have never been deployed to the site, and that a select number of armed security personnel were maintaining the safety of the plant, as it is located near the frontline.
David Schlissel: Small modular reactor project likely to end badly for Utah utilities
NuScale plan shows no promise of being better than solar and wind.
https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2023/01/19/david-schlissel-small-modular/ By David Schlissel The Tribune, Jan. 20, 2023,
Solar and wind power, augmented by battery storage, are becoming less expensive. Hydropower and geothermal energy already are providing substantial amounts of power in many parts of the country. Cost-effective, proven technologies exist and can speed the transition to a carbon-free economy.
Small modular reactors (SMRs) designed by NuScale are not among them.
More than two dozen of the 48 Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) members have signed on to buy power from the NuScale SMR when the project is planned to come online in 2029. But a history of the project — and of nuclear energy projects in general — suggests the project is likely to end badly for utilities and worse for ratepayers.
UAMPS announced earlier this month that the cost per megawatt-hour (MWh), a unit of measurement roughly equivalent to the electricity used by the average U.S. home for a little more than a month, has risen from $58/MWh to $89/MWh, a 53% increase. Plus, the cost of power from the project would be much higher than $89/MWh without more than $4 billion in subsidies the project would receive from the U.S. government. Already, the total cost of the project has risen from $5.3 billion to $9.3 billion.
Nuclear advocates often claim that the costs of nuclear reactors fall after a first design, which (if true) would be very good news for the NuScale design. Unfortunately, the nuclear industry has never shown the ability to take advantage of a learning curve, and there is no evidence to suggest that it will be able to do so now. A 2020 Massachusetts Institute of Technology study found the costs of successive nuclear projects are more expensive than the original project, which is very bad news for the NuScale design.
It’s also not good news for ratepayers. New reactor designs are already notoriously expensive and highly unlikely to meet initial deadlines. The Westinghouse AP1000 design at Plant Vogtle in Georgia, for example, was originally expected to cost $14 billion and begin operation in 2016. Its price tag has soared past $34 billion, and it won’t provide power until later this year.
Think corporations like Georgia Power, which are posting record profits, will pick up the tab? Think again: Residential consumers have already eaten $1.66 billion of construction costs, with more on the menu.
To be sure, nuclear energy has some advantages. It doesn’t emit carbon dioxide, takes up a relatively small amount of space and produces large amounts of energy. Its advantages, however, become far less apparent when the costs of a nuclear facility — and the time that it takes to build even a modest-sized project — are considered.
Proven, less-costly clean alternatives exist, especially in the western U.S. Geothermal, for example, made up 5.7% of California’s electricity generation in 2021; it was responsible for 9% in Nevada, and it’s being pushed as a much less expensive alternative to the NuScale project. Solar covers about 16% of Arizona electricity production and 6% in New Mexico. Almost 20% of Wyoming electricity comes from wind; in Idaho, the figure is about 16%.
The NuScale SMR is just another in a long line of overhyped and overpriced nuclear projects that take too much time and money — resources the planet doesn’t have in abundance if we’re serious about avoiding cataclysmic climate change by limiting global warming to 1.5⁰C by 2050.
Small modular reactors may be viable one day — but they are not today, will not be tomorrow, and may never make as much economic sense as renewable sources of electricity. We should stick to carbon-free energy sources that make financial and environmental sense.
It comes down to weapons
NewAge, by Richard Moser , Jan 22,2023
THE deep divisions in the US left over the Ukraine war can be reduced to a single practical question: Do you support sending weapons to Ukraine?
The answer to that question depends on whether or not you accept the idea that we’re the cops of the world. The two parties accept this without question but the pro-weapons left? Behind a facade of left-sounding words, political practice tells the tale……………..
The pro-weapons left hides their collaboration with NATO behind the seemingly simple idea that ‘Ukraine has the right to get weapons or seek aid from anywhere they see fit.’ Except that ‘anywhere’ does not exist in the real world. Ukraine is not a customer in some free market for weapons. There is a highly structured supply chain for weapons that is a long-standing feature of the US empire and it is directed by the US war machine. The US has dominated the weapons trade since its rise to global power after WWII. Yes, Russia was often in second or third place, but Ukraine will sure not get its weapons from Russia. The only ‘anywhere’ that actually exists is the US government, which is the primary source for weapons transfers to Ukraine.
The other flaw in the ‘from anywhere they see fit’ formula is the assumption that weapons given from the US to Ukraine are simply an exercise in Ukrainian self-determination — not one way it’s incorporated into the US-dominated global order. Self-determination is not a by-product of the world’s largest military alliance, whose standard operating procedure is to turn allies into pawns and proxies. The drill begins with the mandatory weapons trade demanded of all NATO members. The Ukrainian defense minister recently admitted that Ukraine is a NATO proxy trading blood for weapons.
No, the existing international order is not some normal, natural state of affairs whose peace and harmony was disrupted by the ‘unprovoked’ Russian invasion. To believe that, you’d have to ignore decades of historical context, including the obvious expansion of NATO that put missiles and troops on Russia’s borders, military advisers inside Ukraine and the less obvious policy of ‘full spectrum dominance’ by which the US seeks to dominate ‘everyone, everywhere, all at once.’ The neoliberal world order is no more based on free markets than self-determination or peace.
Instead, Ukraine found itself between two great powers with a long history of hostility and rivalry. Its only hope for self-determination would have been to maintain the balancing act of neutrality and diplomacy, playing one power off the other. …………………………………………………….. more https://www.newagebd.net/article/192295/it-comes-down-to-weapons
French government moves to fully nationalise the nuclear industry
The French state acquired enough EDF shares on the market to start
squeeze-out proceedings as it fully nationalises the nuclear energy giant,
the finance ministry said on Friday.
The government now holds 92.71% of
voting rights in EDF, the ministry said, marking the successful end of the
full takeover proceedings, launched by President Emmanuel Macron’s
government last summer, which cost Paris some $10 million.
Debt-laden EDF, Europe’s biggest nuclear power operator, runs France’s nuclear reactor
fleet, some hydropower plants and other production sites and supplies
millions of households with electricity. Its de-listing from the Paris
stock market will be the end of an era for the utility which was partially
privatised in 2005, when a chunk of its share capital was floated at 33
euros ($35.82) a share.
Reuters 20th Jan 2023
The French nuclear sector up against the wall in terms of recruitment.
The French nuclear sector up against the wall in terms of recruitment. To
build the six reactors announced by the government, the sector must recruit
at least 10,000 people per year until 2030.
L’usinenouvelle 18th Jan 2023
Canadian MP Charlie Angus Questions the Claims of SMRs (Small Modular Reactors)
Proponents of SMRs are on a major spin campaign. None of them have been approved for licensing. The Toronto Star calls them a “boutique boondoggle”. The IPCC raises serious questions about the dangers of nuclear proliferation. Chris Keefer is their big proponent. Here is the exchange at the Natural Resources Committee.
“Proponents of SMRs are on a major spin campaign. None of them have
been approved for licensing. The Toronto Star calls them a “boutique
boondoggle”. The IPCC raises serious questions about the dangers of
nuclear proliferation.”
Nuclear Regulatory Commission certifies NuScam’s design for small nuclear reactor, despite predictions on uneconomic costs
1st small modular nuclear reactor certified for use in US
AP News, By JENNIFER McDERMOTT, January 21, 2023
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has certified the design for what will be the United States’ first small modular nuclear reactor.
The rule that certifies the design was published Thursday in the Federal Register. It means that companies seeking to build and operate a nuclear power plant can pick the design for a 50-megawatt, advanced light-water small modular nuclear reactor by Oregon-based NuScale Power and apply to the NRC for a license.
It’s the final determination that the design is acceptable for use, so it can’t be legally challenged during the licensing process when someone applies to build and operate a nuclear power plant, NRC spokesperson Scott Burnell said Friday. The rule becomes effective in late February………
It’s the seventh nuclear reactor design cleared for use in the United States. The rest are for traditional, large, light-water reactors………….. The first small modular reactor design application package included over 2 million pages of supporting materials………..
However, David Schlissel at the Ohio-based Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis expressed concerns about the costs. Schlissel, who has studied the history of the nuclear power industry and the finances of the NuScale project, expects they will continue to go up, which could limit how many NuScale reactors are built. He said he thinks they’re not competitive in price with renewables and battery storage.
………… The U.S. Energy Department said it provided more than $600 million since 2014 to support the design, licensing and siting of NuScale’s VOYGR small modular reactor power plant and other domestic small reactor concepts. ……………………………..
Four separate reports show that the UK could save over €120 bn by 2050 by switching to a renewable energy strategy
LUT University in Finland has found that a 100% renewable energy/storage
mix would save the UK over €120 bn by 2050 compared with the UK
Government’s current net zero plan.
That’s one conclusion from a series of
scenarios in a new LUT report. Its ‘Best Policy Scenario’ (BPS), aims for
100% renewable energy in 2050, with offshore wind as the main resource,
limiting onshore wind and solar according to available land area, but it’s
backed up by a second scenario called ‘Inter-Annual Storage’ (IAS) which
adds on to the BPS the required inter-annual storage needed to provide good
levels of insurance against the possibilities of low-wind years.
A third scenario (BPSplus) tests the limits of higher land area availability for
onshore wind and solar photovoltaics, and where also renewable
electricity-based e-fuel imports are allowed. And finally, a fourth scenario, called ‘Current Policy Scenario’ (CPS), looks at the UK Government’s strategy for net zero as published in 2020.
A very worthwhile assessment exercise – all credit to Dr David Toke and the ‘100%
Renewables’ lobby group for supporting it. It does clearly show that a zero
carbon 100% renewables scenario is possible, at lower cost than any other
scenario. As Toke notes the implications are that ‘all public and
enforced consumer spending on new nuclear power and carbon capture and
storage should be scrapped and instead funding should be put into renewable
energy, energy efficiency and storage capacity.’
Renew Extra 21st Jan 2023
https://renewextraweekly.blogspot.com/2023/01/lut-university-in-finland-has-found.html
Ukraine Narrative Fraying, But Weapons Will Continue To Flow
/ WENT2THEBRIDGE
Some truth from official sources has begun leaking out: Ukraine is losing in the NATO proxy war against Russia. Two Polish officials said so, Condoleeza Rice in the Washington Post said so, and the mainstream/lamestream press began admitting it as well. The wrong conclusion is that more weapons will ensure Ukrainian victory, but that did not stop the U.S. and NATO from pledging more weapons.
Ukraine’s government has come a bit unraveled this week with key advisor Oleksiy Arestovych resigning and then being arrested and put on the Mirotvorets kill list for (accidentally?) admitting that Ukraine caused a Russian missile to go off course and fall on an apartment building killing 44 civilians in Dnipro.
Then there was the mysterious crash of a helicopter carrying all the top officials of the Ministry of the Interior, an accident which killed all aboard plus some children from the kindergarten it fell on.
Next, the president of Ukraine addressed the World Economic Forum at Davos looking pale and strained and claiming to be uncertain whether the president of Russia is actually alive……
But some things remain unchanged. Western cheerleaders of the war effort are falling all over themselves to pledge their support for “democracy” in a country that banned opposition parties and “free speech” in a country that banned the use of Russian, the first language spoken by many of its citizens. …..
So, as part of a week of anti-imperialist and anti-war actions organized by members of UNAC for Martin Luther King, Jr. week (see the full list here) a hardy band of the unconfused stood in Portland, Maine yesterday at the evening commute.
We were on the second shift after a mid-day vigil in nearby Brunswick that occurs weekly. At that event a surprising number of passersby had expressed agreement with our anti-NATO stance remarking “Ukraine is the most corrupt country in Europe” or “Ukraine is full of Nazis” before the light changed and they drove away. This felt like a shift in public opinion, barely discernible but distinct from our past experiences with the public around this issue…………….
I’m not sure when we’ll be back in Portland, but the hour-long vigil at 11:30am in front of the Tontine Mall in Brunswick will continue weekly for now. https://went2thebridge.org/2023/01/20/ukraine-narrative-fraying-but-weapons-will-continue-to-flow/
US may assist Ukrainian strikes on Crimea – NYT
https://www.rt.com/news/570108-us-ukraine-crimea-strikes/ 20 Jan 23, Publicly, Washington has so far avoided endorsing Kiev’s attacks inside Russian territory
The US government is weighing whether to supply Ukraine with the capability to attack the strategically important Crimean Peninsula, according to the New York Times. The discussions highlight a gradual shift among US officials toward more brazen support for Kiev, even as Washington insists it does not seek confrontation with Moscow.
Following months of hesitation, the White House is now warming to the idea that Ukraine may “need the power” for strikes deep inside Russian territory, namely military targets in Crimea, the Times reported on Wednesday, citing several unnamed US officials.
“American officials are discussing with their Ukrainian counterparts the use of American-supplied weapons, from HIMARS rocket systems to Bradley fighting vehicles, to possibly target … Crimea,” the outlet said, adding that Washington “has come to believe that if the Ukrainian military can show Russia that its control of Crimea can be threatened, that would strengthen Kiev’s position in any future negotiations.”
Despite Moscow’s heavy fortifications on the peninsula, which hosts Russia’s Black Sea Fleet and other military bases, Crimea remains a “major focus” of Ukrainian battleplans, according to the Times. It is unclear exactly how Washington hopes to assist attacks on the region, but the outlet suggested the decision to supply Kiev with Bradley infantry fighting vehicles showed willingness to help Ukraine “go on the offense – including targeting Crimea.”
Alongside troop transports provided by France and Germany, the military vehicles “could be the vanguard of an armored force that Ukraine could employ in a counteroffensive this winter or spring,” unnamed “government and independent analysts” told the Times.
However, even as the White House allegedly considers supporting attacks on Russian soil, President Joe Biden continues to refuse Ukrainian requests for longer-range missiles and heavy battle tanks that could be used in a future offensive. He has previously warned that such aid could provoke direct hostilities with Moscow and even kick off a nuclear war, though such concerns appear to be slowly waning as the conflict drags on.
“The fear of escalation has changed since the beginning,” an unnamed US defense source told a British newspaper last month, suggesting the Pentagon had “given a tacit endorsement of Ukraine’s long-range attacks on targets inside Russia.”
While State Department spokesman Ned Price insisted on Wednesday that the US is not placing any “limits” on Ukrainian strikes or “making targeting decisions” on Kiev’s behalf, the latest discussions at the White House may indicate a shift in opinion among some officials.
Historically a Russian territory from the late 18th century until its transfer to Ukraine under Soviet authorities in 1954, Crimea held a referendum to reunify with Russia following the Euromaidan coup of 2014. Kiev and its Western backers have refused to recognize the vote, however, and say the peninsula is still rightfully Ukrainian land, with President Vladimir Zelensky reiterating hopes for the “reconquest” of the region last month.
Russian officials have repeatedly stated that the goals of the military operation in Ukraine would be completed no matter how long it takes. Amid Kiev’s repeated requests for longer-range weapons, Moscow warned Washington and other NATO states that such supplies would cross a “red line” and make them “a direct party to the conflict.”
President Vladimir Putin made it clear, following referendums in Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson and Zaporozhye regions in September, that Moscow would defend not only Crimea but all new territories “with full force and all means at our disposal.”
The Disastrous Downsides of South Korea Building Nuclear Weapons
38 North BY: SIEGFRIED S. HECKER, JANUARY 20, 2023
Is South Korea Willing to Lose Its World-leading Nuclear Power Program to Build the Bomb?
In a wide-ranging interview on January 11, South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol warned Pyongyang that if North Korea’s nuclear threat continues to advance, South Korea would consider building nuclear weapons of its own or ask the United States to redeploy them on the Korean Peninsula. Although President Yoon walked back these comments at the World Economic Forum in Davos, they were published in the South Korean press and reinforced by some Republic of Korea (ROK) defense analysts. Cheon Seong-whun said, “President Yoon’s comment could turn out to be a watershed moment in the history of South Korea’s national security.”
A South Korean decision to build its own bomb could, indeed, be a watershed. Threatening Pyongyang does little besides give it a stronger justification to enhance its own nuclear arsenal. I believe that such a move would trigger a tsunami that would wipe out Seoul’s remarkable economic miracle and destroy the soft power it has established around the world……………………….
The National Burden of a Nuclear Arsenal
Whereas President Yoon’s comment, “…we can have our own nuclear weapons pretty quickly, given our scientific and technological capabilities” is true, it doesn’t come close to capturing the national redirection, expense, and immense burden that Seoul would have to shoulder to field not just one bomb, but a nuclear arsenal to counter Pyongyang’s.
It is true that with its advanced technological capabilities, South Korea could probably build the bomb quickly. But a few bombs don’t make a nuclear deterrent, particularly if Seoul will have to go it alone. And let’s be clear, if Seoul were to go down this path, Washington could, and likely would, withdraw its nuclear umbrella. Building a nuclear arsenal to counter Pyongyang’s would require a major national redirection of its economy and diplomacy that would negatively affect nearly all facets of South Korean life for decades.
For nearly fifty years, South Korea has pursued a civilian nuclear energy program. It wisely focused on the middle of the fuel cycle—that is, reactor fuel fabrication, reactor construction and operation, and electricity production. It has built neither enrichment nor reprocessing facilities. Consequently, South Korea has no inventory of bomb-grade plutonium or uranium currently stockpiled. To build nuclear weapons, it would have to repurpose some of its civilian reactors to produce the plutonium bomb fuel (combined with using its laboratory-scale pyroprocessing facilities to extract plutonium) or construct a centrifuge facility to make highly enriched uranium. Either path would take at least two years to produce enough bomb fuel for even a few bombs. In the longer term, an effective nuclear deterrent would require new, dedicated nuclear weapons facilities, requiring substantial time and financial commitments.
The next step in building a bomb is weaponization—that is, designing, building and testing the nuclear devices. South Korea could surely master all scientific and engineering challenges of building a bomb—as it has demonstrated so convincingly in mastering civilian nuclear power generation. Some of the purely military aspects could be accomplished in concert with its conventional military technical complex. But to prove the design and fabrication, there would need to be nuclear testing, but where? Neighboring countries—China and Japan—would certainly object strongly, and there would undoubtedly be strong domestic opposition to tests from every South Korean province.
The nuclear warheads will also have to be integrated into delivery vehicles—such as ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, submarine-launched missiles or bombers. South Korea has all the basic building blocks, but it would still have substantial work to do to integrate the nuclear warheads into the delivery systems. Moreover, these requirements will continue to evolve as North Korea upgrades its offensive and defensive capabilities. The assembly, disassembly and fielding of nuclear devices pose serious safety and security risks and would have to be learned without help or advice from current nuclear powers. Seoul will also have to develop a command-and-control structure that is more stringent than anything it has done so far for its conventional military.
Another consequence of building a nuclear arsenal is that it will compete for resources—financial, personnel, and technical—with the South’s conventional military…………………………………………………………………………
Seoul Would Deal a Serious Blow to the Nonproliferation Regime
South Korea would be the first democratic country to withdraw from the NPT, dealing a blow to decades of US leadership in preventing nuclear proliferation. As serious as the North Korean nuclear threat is, I believe Washington would have no choice but to condemn and counter the South’s decision to build the bomb. The nonproliferation regime is a complex fabric of treaties, agreements, assurances, practices, and international organizations. North Korea’s bomb and Iran’s pursuit of the bomb have already stressed the regime. The negative impacts of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine are playing out now. South Korea should not join these countries in undermining the regime……………………………………………………………
Shooting Itself in the Foot
South Korea’s decision to build the bomb will be widely condemned…………………………..
The irony is that an indigenous nuclear arsenal will make South Korea less secure. It is likely to draw an escalatory response from the North, and Seoul may then have to face that threat on its own. ………………………………. more https://www.38north.org/2023/01/the-disastrous-downsides-of-south-korea-building-nuclear-weapons/
Diluted plutonium disposed of at Carlsbad nuclear waste site as program draws controversy
“DOE decided to do this before they did any of the analysis,” Hancock said. “All these documents are to give legal cover and justify decisions already made.”
Adrian Hedden, Carlsbad Current-Argus
Federal nuclear waste officials announced a shipment of diluted surplus, weapons-grade plutonium was disposed of using a repository near Carlsbad last month, after it was sent to New Mexico from South Carolina, amid criticism from nuclear watchdog groups in the state.
The shipment contained plutonium diluted using a process known as “downblending” that lowered its radioactivity to meet requirements at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, where the U.S. Department of Energy disposes of transuranic (TRU) nuclear waste in an underground salt deposit.
It was brought to WIPP from the DOE’s Savannah River Site, a laboratory where the federal government develops nuclear weapons.
After the downblending, the waste meets the definition of TRU waste, read an announcement from the DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), and can be legally disposed of at WIPP.
Disposal at WIPP was in response to a 2020 agreement between the DOE and State of South Carolina that called for the removal of 9.5 metric tons (MT) of plutonium waste from the state, reached after years of negotiations and litigation.
The waste was initially brought to Savannah River to be irradiated at a mixed-oxide (MOX) facility, converting the nuclear waste into fuel…………………………………………………………
The initial shipment was announced as the DOE was underway with a public comment period on using the same “dilute and dispose” method for 34 metric tons (MT) of plutonium waste, most of which is at the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas.
But this would entail shipping waste from Pantex to Los Alamos, then to Savannah River Site for final packaging before going to WIPP, meaning the waste would cross through New Mexico three times.
Opponents of this proposal in New Mexico feared the repeated trips through their state would increase the risk of exposing their communities to radiation.
Critics oppose use of New Mexico site to dispose of plutonium
Don Hancock, nuclear waste program manager at Albuquerque watchdog group Southwest Research and Information Center said the group and others in the state opposed the project and its use of WIPP.
He said DOE’s practice of seeking approval for separate segments of the plutonium waste, rather than for all of the waste at once was intended to protect decisions already made without public input.
“DOE decided to do this before they did any of the analysis,” Hancock said. “All these documents are to give legal cover and justify decisions already made.”…………………………………………
Hancock argued using WIPP as the disposal site for the plutonium, even after its diluted to meet the requirements of TRU waste, marked an undue expansion of WIPP’s mission beyond what the people of New Mexico agreed to when the facility was sited in their state.
“We don’t oppose geologic disposal. We don’t think WIPP is the right place,” he said. “WIPP has a limited mission. It was never intended for surplus plutonium. It’s already been decided. The public should be outraged.” https://www.currentargus.com/story/news/2023/01/20/diluted-plutonium-disposed-of-at-carlsbad-nuclear-waste-site/69811929007/
France issues a 10,000-page dossier to convince people of the safety of the Cigeo nuclear waste site
.
Nuclear waste: a 10,000-page dossier to convince people of the safety of
the Cigeo landfill site.
The National Agency for the Management of
Radioactive Waste has submitted a creation authorization application which
opens the way to an investigation phase lasting several years.
This is a major step in view of the possible burial underground in the east of
France, on a still distant horizon, of the most dangerous nuclear waste.
The National Agency for Radioactive Waste Management (Andra) announced on
Tuesday, January 17, that it had officially sent the Ministry of Energy
Transition its request for authorization to create (DAC) for the Cigéo
deep geological disposal center on Monday. This file, heavy with 10,000
pages, opens the way to several years of investigation which could lead to
a green light from the authorities for the construction of infrastructures,
on land located on the border of the departments of Meuse and Haute- Marl.
Le Monde 17th Jan 2023
Ukraine war boon/boondoggle for U.S. arms makers, Pentagon’s warfighting capabilities
Anti-Bellum January 20, 2023 Author: Rick Rozoff
Stocking Ukraine could generate foreign military sales boom
Replacing the military equipment transferred to Ukraine by the United States’ NATO allies could lead to roughly $21.7 billion in foreign military sales or direct commercial sales for American industry, according to research by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Center on Military and Political Power.
….It would also enhance the quality of the weapons U.S. warfighters wield and strengthen U.S. defense industrial base capacity.
In addition to the $24.2 billion worth of security assistance the United States has committed (as of Jan. 6) to Ukraine since Russia’s Feb. 24 invasion, other NATO members have contributed billions of dollars’ worth of equipment. It is difficult to calculate precisely the cumulative value because many countries, unlike the United States, do not publish detailed lists.
NATO countries (not including the United States) have cumulatively increased their real defense spending each year since 2015, and those levels of defense spending are likely to increase further….Poland, for example, is raising its defense spending from 2.2% of its gross domestic product to 3%, which will help Warsaw purchase more military equipment………….. https://antibellum679354512.wordpress.com/2023/01/20/ukraine-war-boon-boondoggle-for-u-s-arms-makers-pentagons-warfighting-capabilities/
1 This Month
Shut down the radiation-damaged Heysham nuclear reactors now
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
-
Archives
- October 2026 (289)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
