Democracy in Japan cannot survive nuclear power
You yourself are an expert on nuclear energy. But you’ve decided to switch your focus to renewable energy sources. Why?
It’s because nuclear energy has no sustainable, democratic future. And that’s why I decided not to dedicate my life to nuclear, instead switching my focus to renewable sources.
Nuclear energy has no sustainable, democratic future in Japan’, DW, 29 Jan 16 Despite the majority of Japanese opposing a restart of the nation’s nuclear reactors, the government continues to press for a full resumption of nuclear power. Energy expert Tetsunari Iida tells DW the reasons behind it………Tokyo plans to increase nuclear power as a share of the country’s energy profile to between 20 and 22 percent by 2030.
However, public opposition to nuclear energy remains steadfast, as the disaster continues to loom in the Japanese psyche and many harbor safety concerns in the earthquake-prone country.
Kansai Electric Power Co. announced on January 28 plans to restart the nation’s third nuclear reactor, after it cleared new post-Fukushima safety regulations.
In a DW interview, sustainable energy policy expert Tetsunari Iida says the nuclear lobby in Japan has not only economic interests, but also a strong conviction in the conservative energy policy concept, which gives nuclear power a major role in the energy policy mix.
DW: Why has the government decided to restart some of the reactors despite protests from the population?
Tetsunari Iida: There is a strong belief among certain sections in Japan that nuclear power is one of the most important components of the energy mix. This is an old-fashioned and conservative energy policy concept shared by those at the center of Japan’s energy policy circle, such as the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and the country’s industry association Keidanren.
For them, the resumption of nuclear power generation is of utmost importance. That is why Japan’s government has been strongly urged to restart the nuclear reactors.
s the conservative government of PM Abe not taking the concerns of the population seriously?
No, I do not believe PM Abe takes the concerns of the population seriously. I am of the view that Abe still believes nuclear energy is safe, cheap and stable, even after the Fukushima disaster.
According to nuclear energy opponents, many Japanese are afraid of the potential consequences of restarting the nuclear reactors, and demand a change in energy policy. So why isn’t there much more public resistance to the government’s plans?
The majority of people in Japan have been against the Abe government’s plans to restart the nuclear reactors. This opposition, however, is not necessarily having an impact on the people’s political affiliations and their voting tendencies.
The Abe administration’s control over the media also helps explain the reason behind the lack of more public resistance to the nuclear plans.
How strong is the influence exerted by Japan’s nuclear lobby?
The nuclear lobby in Japan is powerful. It has not only economic interests, but also a strong conviction in the conservative energy policy concept, which gives nuclear power a major role in the energy policy mix……
Of course, renewable energy is really helpful to achieve energy independence. But the benefits are not solely limited to securing energy independence, as renewables also help to mitigate climate change, create jobs and boost economic growth.
Speaking in ecological and economic terms, which renewable energy sources are best suited for an industrialized nation such as Japan?
From resource potential point of view, wind and solar power are the best suited for Japan……..
Japan can afford to completely give up nuclear power. In fact, sticking to nuclear represents an old-fashioned economy, whereas renewable energy is a symbol of a new industrial revolution.
You yourself are an expert on nuclear energy. But you’ve decided to switch your focus to renewable energy sources. Why?
It’s because nuclear energy has no sustainable, democratic future. And that’s why I decided not to dedicate my life to nuclear, instead switching my focus to renewable sources.
Tetsunari Iida is director of the Institute for Sustainable Energy Policies in Japan. http://www.dw.com/en/nuclear-energy-has-no-sustainable-democratic-future-in-japan/a-19011468
The nuclear age is an age of terror
Nuclear Weapons and Nuclearism Abolish or be abolished http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/01/nuclear-weapons-and-nuclearism/ by Jan Oberg / January 29th, 2016
The nuclear age is an age of terror
Nuclear weapons are the ultimate weapons of terror. You can’t use them without killing millions of innocent people. Targetting innocent people, people who are not part of a conflict, is a central defining characteristics of terrorism.
That’s why the world’s governments decades ago decided to work for general and complete disarmament – i.e. for nuclear abolition – in the spirit too of Alfred Nobel.
As a matter of fact, the first UN General Assembly resolution of January 24, 1946 established a Security Council tasked with achieving ‘the eliminationfrom national armaments of atomic weapons and all other weapons adaptable to mass destruction.’
70 years ago!!
Today that Security Council consists of five arrogant nuclear powers in possession of more than 95% of the world’s nuclear weapons – and standing behind 75% of the world’s arms trade.
Today, however, people without a sense of history, addicted to militarist power and ignorant about ethics believe we can safely continue with nuclear arms races, doctrines for their use – and everything will go fine.
They even believe that those of us who uphold the ideals of nuclear abolition are naive: it is un-realistic to rid the world of these doomsday weapons, isn’t it?
Well, that’s like the man who has thrown himself out from the 48th floor and when passing the 8th convinces himself that “this is going fine.”
Private terrorism and state terrorism
The terrorist ideology most people associate with al-Qaeda and ISIS – small-scale and private – is found at a mega-level in state terrorism – the planned or accidental killing by nukes of millions upon millions of innocent civilians.
Whoever produces, possesses, stockpiles, does research on, has nuclear doctrines, plans the use of or actually uses nukes believes fundamentally in the philosophy of terrorism.
Whether NATO countries or North Korea.
Governments operating on that philosophy – also embedded in the term“balance of terror” – don’t want you to think of them in such terms.
They want us to believe that nuclear weapons preserve peace by deterring war.
However, this is nonsense. A deterrent is no deterrent if the adversaries know that the other will never, under any circumstance, push the button.
Fortunately, 107 countries are committed to ban nuclear weapons today.
Why they are so dangerous
1) Every nuclear weapon is there to be used if…the logic is false and human beings do not react rationally in stress situations.
2) There are constant incidents, accidents, risks, human and technical failures that endanger humanity’s survival.
Why do we so easily accept to live with the nuclear terror threat when we are obsessed about fighting a ‘war on terror’ only against the small-scale terrorists?
It’s time to take the fight to the next level – the fight against nuclear stateterror. Before it too becomes a nuclear private terror.
Jan Oberg is a peace researcher, art photographer, and Director ofTransnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research (TFF) where this article first appeared. Reach him at: oberg@transnational.org.Read other articles by Jan.
Effects on wildlife of massive LA gas disaster
Report: Wildlife “disappearing” around massive LA gas disaster — Residents: “It’s completely quiet”… birds, butterflies, rabbits, coyotes are missing… all fish in pond found dead — “All of this is gone… Makes me wonder how bad it really is” — Animal with “worst blood” ever seen by doctor (VIDEO)
City News Service, Jan 18, 2016 (emphasis added): Porter Ranch residents report unexplained ailments, behaviors in pets… [A family] lost all 20 of their brightly colored Koi fish after they started dying… [Others] have noticed fewer bird and wildlife sightings.
Al Jazeera, Jan 22, 2016: [The Katz’s], parents of five… are living a nightmare… Her pride and joy was her garden and a koi pond. She cries when she recounts how all 20 fish died…“The birds, the butterflies, all of this is gone. It’s quiet now.”
L.A. Daily News, Jan 22, 2016: “We used to see coyotes and animals” [Jennifer Marotta] said. “It makes me wonder how bad it really is.”
L.A. Daily News, Jan 16, 2016: [Residents] have noticed fewer bird and wildlife sightings… [Attorney Rex Parris wrote to officials] that pets are ill or disappearing and wildlife, such as birds and rabbits, seem to be disappearing as well from the community… [Sally Taylor’s dog] quickly became lethargic and threw up some 20 times within an hour… “[The vet hospital] said it was the worst blood work the vet has ever seen”… For the Balen family, it’s thesound of birds they’ve missed the most. In late December, they said the absence made their home… “completely quiet… for 10 years… every morning, we wake up to the birds chirping. Not anymore.”
KABC, Jan 19, 2016: [The gas leak is] affecting many pets… “We’re seeing probably several hundred total and it’s been going on for around three months now,” [Dr. David Smith at Northridge Animal Hospital] said. Smith said it started shortly after [they] first reported the leak… Smith said he has serious concerns about the health risks for the animals.
Government officials have come up with their own interesting explanations for the disappearance of wildlife:
L.A. Times, Jan 18, 2016: Wild animals may have left the area because of the noise coming from crews attempting to fix the well, [Department of Fish and Wildlife] spokeswoman Mary Fricke said.
Steve Gonzalez, public information officer for the Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, Jan 16, 2016: “There is a lot of noise and construction… Typically, animals like coyotes and bears will stay away from loud noises.”
A major economic drain – the renovation of Darlington nuclear station
Former OPG scientist calls nuclear reactors “major” economic drain, says renovation will ‘continue the bleeding’ TORONTO — The proposed $12.8-billion refurbishment of four nuclear reactors at the Darlington generating station is an ill-advised make-work project that will end up soaking taxpayers, a retired nuclear scientist says.
In a letter to Ontario’s energy minister, obtained by The Canadian Press, Frank Greening warns of the formidable technical hazards he says will undermine rosy projections for the project.
“I am quite mystified that you would consider the refurbishment of Darlington to be some sort of solution to Ontario’s economic woes, when in fact the premature failures of (nuclear reactors) are a major cause of Ontario’s economic problems,” writes Greening, a frequent critic of the industry.
“Spending billions of dollars trying to patch up Darlington’s four dilapidated reactors will simply continue the bleeding.”
Earlier this month, the province’s publicly owned generating giant, Ontario Power Generation, announced plans to start refurbishing Darlington — situated east of Toronto on Lake Ontario — this fall. The project aims to extend the life of the CANDU reactors, scheduled for permanent shutdown in 2020, by 30 years……
Greening argues the units are in need of rebuilding prematurely because their pressure tubes and feeder pipes will soon fail fitness tests. He also warns the reactors’ massive steam generators, which are not part of the proposed project, have had a less than stellar track record and will more than likely need replacement.
“Replacing these steam generators is fraught with very serious problems, both technical and economic, that could prevent the continued operation of Darlington beyond 2030,” said Greening, a senior scientist with OPG until he retired in 2000.
The decision to proceed with the refurbishment of Darlington could prove to be a disastrous mistake if it is discovered that steam generator replacement is in fact needed in the next 10 to 15 years.”
Environmental groups also argue such projects always run massively over budget and have cost taxpayers untold billions in the past and refurbishment is simply not worth the potential radiation risk to public safety.
The Ontario cabinet has so far given the green light to refurbish one of Darlington’s reactors. OPG would need separate approvals for each of the other three units. …….
Greening, however, argues the project is an attempt to put a “dying industry on life support” at the taxpayer’s expense.
“The inconvenient truth is that, after less than 25 years of operation, Darlington NGS is a mess,” he said.
“Its feeder pipes are falling apart and its pressure tubes are ready to crack. Darlington is another failed CANDU station desperately in need of a fix.”
The performance of four other refurbished CANDUs in Ontario, he argues, has fallen well short of what a new reactor typically delivers.
“This reveals the uncomfortable truth: A refurbished CANDU reactor is no substitute for a new one.”http://www.24news.ca/the-news/canada-news/196744-former-opg-scientist-calls-nuclear-reactors-major-economic-drain-says-renovation-will-continue-the-bleeding
Death of Dr. Herbert L. Abrams, long term activist for peace
Dr. Herbert L. Abrams, Who Worked Against Nuclear War, Dies at 95, NYT, By WILLIAM GRIMES JAN. 28, 2016 Dr. Herbert L. Abrams, a radiologist at Stanford and Harvard Universities and a founder of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985 for its work in publicizing the health consequences of atomic warfare, died on Jan. 20 at his home in Palo Alto, Calif. He was 95.
The death was confirmed by his son, John.
In the late 1970s, Dr. Abrams became interested in the health implications of nuclear policy. “It began to dawn on me that these weapons of annihilation were being considered for use in the settlement of disputes between nations when I had honestly not thought that that was ever in the cards,” he told The Los Angeles Times in 1989.
With a group of American and Soviet doctors, he helped create International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, with the goal of publicizing the health risks of a nuclear exchange and countering theories that physicians might be able to save enough people to continue civilized life. He later called nuclear weapons and nuclear war “the central health issue of the 20th century.”
Dr. Abrams served as founding vice president of the group, which was awarded the Unesco Prize for Peace Education in 1984 and the Nobel Peace Prize a year later. In announcing the award, the Nobel Committee said the group had performed an important service “by spreading authoritative information and by creating an awareness of the catastrophic consequences of atomic warfare.”………http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/science/herbert-abrams-worked-against-nuclear-war.html?_r=0
It’s looking increasingly as if the Hinkley C Nuclear EPR is dead in the water.
Unable to raise Hinkley C nuclear cash, EDF turns to French government, http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/2986989/unable_to_raise_hinkley_c_nuclear_cash_edf_turns_to_french_government.html Oliver Tickell 26th January 2016 Just as EDF was due to make its ‘final investment decision’ on Hinkley C, writes Oliver Tickell, Another delay. In spite of incredibly generous subsidies, the company is unable to finance it. Its last hope is to persuade the French state to take a 10% stake in the doomed project.
It was the decision a lot of people had been waiting for – EDF workers, the UK government, and campaigners for and against nuclear power in the UK.
As reported on The Ecologist today, The EDF board was due to make its ‘final investment decision’ on its controversial Hinkley Point C nuclear power station in Somerset, England, at a long-scheduled meeting tomorrow.
But now it has emerged in French newspaper reports that the decision has been deferred – indefinitely. No decision is now expected until after EDF presents its accounts on 16th February.
John Sauven, Executive Director of Greenpeace UK – the only national green NGO to campaign visibly on the issue – said today: “The EDF board is clearly rattled as they delay yet again this crucial investment decision. It could well signal curtains for Hinkley. EDF managers as well as employee representatives on the board are deeply concerned this project is too risky and too expensive.
“All three EPR projects are massively delayed and hugely over budget. There isn’t a shred of evidence that it’ll be fourth time lucky in Somerset. The UK government needs to join the 21st century and start backing the renewable technologies that are proven to work, are cheaper than nuclear power, create jobs in the UK and contribute to the fight against climate change.”
EDF: ‘We haven’t got the cash!’
The revelation comes in the French newspaper Les Echos, which has been consistently ahead of the pack with high-level leaks from EDF. According to its report, published today, the parastatal corporation has been unable to raise the full sum – some £18 billion – with which to progress the project:
“Two years ago EDF built a financial plan in which it would take 40-50% of the shares, which allowed it not to consolidate the investment in its accounts and so not to weigh too heavily on its balance sheet. Areva was to hold 10% and foreign shareholders the balance.
“But the difficulties of Areva, coupled with the delayed EPR under construction at Flamanville (Manche), changed last autumn: Areva will not participate in the round, and only Chinese investors (CGN), which see it as a gateway for developing their own reactors in Europe, will participate in the consortium, at 33.5%.”
The report goes on to cite the severe financial embarrassment that has overtaken EDF – its collapsing share price, negative credit outlook, increasing nuclear waste disposal liabilities, which just increased by around €10 billion yesterday, steep falls in the French wholesale power price (€37 to €28/MWh) reducing its income by €2 billion a year, and its forced €2.5 billion purchase of its bankrupt sister company, Areva.
Now EDF is demanding French Government support too But then comes the surprise: unable to raise funds it needs for Hinkley Point C through open market financing channels, it is asking the French Government to step in with a huge direct investment in the project, according to Les Echos:
“In this context, according to our information, EDF is now putting pressure on the State, its 84.5% shareholder, to find new financing. Since Areva would have contributed up to 10% in the project, EDF wishes to replace it with another entity.”
Considering that EDF has been casting around the world in its increasingly desperate search for cash, that can only mean one thing – that the French state should step in to make good the 10% funding gap left in the wake of Areva’s financial collapse.
But just consider the implications. First, EDF is itself effectively owned by the French state as 84.5% shareholder.
Second, it is being supported by the British government with a subsidy package of guaranteed index-linked power prices for 35 years at more than double the current wholesale price, plus ceilings on decommissioning and waste disposal costs, plus £10 billion loan finance guarantees, independently valued at over €100 billion over the project lifetime, all giving EDF an estimated 10% per annum return on capital.
Third, unable to obtain open market financing even with this UK energy user and taxpayer-financed package of amazing generosity behind it, it has been forced to turn to a third state-owned entity, China General Nuclear Company (CGN) to take a 33.5% stake in the project.
But now, fourth, even that’s not enough – and EDF needs to go back to its owner, the French government, to demand that it takes (or otherwise procures) a direct 10% stake in the project – because no one else will.
If anyone ever needed any convincing that nuclear power is utterly unable to survive in a free market economy, this is it.
But of course if any such thing happens, that would trigger yet another European Commission investigation into ‘illegal state aid’ for the Hinkley project. And even it it passes the hurdles, fresh legal challenges would surely follow, and further years of delay.
The final question – will any EPR ever be built?
It’s looking increasingly as if the Hinkley C EPR is dead in the water. The Flamanville EPR in France is facing huge problems with its metallurgical flaws in the reactor vessel and lid and it’s odds on that it will never be completed due to the massively escalating costs, delays, and safety uncertainties.
There are also big questions over the Olkiluoto EPR in Finland, as the costs of completing the hugely over-time, over budget reactor may be greater to EDF and Areva than walking away and abandoning the site.
Most likely to be completed is the twin-reactor Taishan EPR in China, which was meant to come in last of the bunch but is now well ahead. However there are widespread suspicions that its reactors, supplied by Areva, may suffer from the same flaws as those at Flamanville, explaining a long delay in construction activity.
So even if it ever is ‘built out’, Chinese safety regulators may never allow it to be turned on.
Sic transit gloria mundi.
What if EDF says no to Hinkley Point?
EDF is still at the table, but nuclear could go critical for Osborne, Guardian, Nils Pratley, 28 Jan 16 The UK’s nuclear energy strategy will be in meltdown if the French pull out of Hinkley. The best guess is, they’ll find the cash
What if EDF says no to Hinkley Point? What if the French power generator, under pressure from its unions and potential lenders, decides it can’t finance the £18bn project, even with the Chinese chipping in?
After all, the disgruntled French workers make a reasonable point. EDF’s last big foreign adventure, in Finland, is nine years behind schedule and massively over-budget, so why risk another expedition? EDF’s share price, remember, is down 85% since 2004: the company is in a weak position to resist its local critics.
The short answer is that the UK’s nuclear strategy would be in tatters if EDF backs out. If EDF can’t get financing for Hinkley, then Sizewell C, the company’s intended follow-on project in Suffolk, would also bite the dust. The same goes for the next plant at Bradwell in Essex, where Chinese constructors are supposed to be taking the lead, but are relying on Hinkley’s and Sizewell’s infrastructure and momentum.
And, if the UK’s nuclear strategy becomes a non-runner, then the government’s entire energy policy is dead. By the mid-2030s, Hinkleyand other new nuclear plants are supposed to have replaced the current clapped-out fleet and added capacity on top………http://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2016/jan/27/edf-hinkley-point-nuclear-power-strategy-uk-george-osborne-chinese-sizewell-bradwell
Nuclear apocalypse a more pressing danger than Islamic terrorism
Rearming for the apocalypse By Stephen Kinzer , Boston Globe, JANUARY 24, 2016 AMERICANS ARE IN near-panic over the danger posed by Islamic terrorists. That danger, however, pales beside an emerging new one. President Obama has proposed a frighteningly wrongheaded plan to “modernize” our nuclear arsenal at the unfathomable cost of about $1 trillion over the next 30 years. Terror will never reach even 1 percent of our population. Nuclear “modernization” increases the prospect of true devastation.
The nuclear threat seems diffuse and faraway, while the prospect of a deranged fanatic shooting up a cinema is as vivid as today’s news. Perhaps we have been lulled into security by the fact that no nuclear weapon has been used since 1945. Voices trying to alert us to the true threat are drowned out in a frenzy of over-the-top campaign speeches and TV rants about crazed Muslims.
Besides these grave dangers — global proliferation, accidental war, and nuclear terror — there is another: national bankruptcy. Obama’s project is ruinously expensive. Admiral Mike Mullen, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, calls it “spending ourselves into oblivion.” He describes our skyrocketing national debt as “the most significant threat to our national security.”
Now is the time to stop this program. So far, enthusiasm for it is confined to the White House and Pentagon. Once it is launched, rich procurement contracts will be portioned out to the districts of influential members of Congress. That will produce a self-interested constituency and give the project unstoppable momentum………https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2016/01/24/beware-obama-nuclear-weapons-plan/IJP9E48w3cjLPlTqMhZdFL/story.html
South Carolina would do better to switch to renewable energy not to nuclear dead end
Nuclear power enjoys large subsidies http://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/opinion/readers/2016/01/24/letter-nuclear-power-enjoys-large-subsidies/79131694/ Michael Kohl January 24, 2016 J. Winston Porter’s recent opinion piece regarding eliminating energy credits for wind and solar was misleading considering his support of nuclear energy. The nuclear industry has the highest degree of subsidization. Normally, utilities rely upon a variety of funding sources including corporate bonds. After the financal collapse of the Washington Public Power Supply System in 1983 with the loss of $2.3 billion to municipal bond investors, no financially prudent fund or investor will invest in the building of new reactors.
If nuclear power has a blank check for building new reactors in South Carolina, why is the nuclear industry concerned about solar and wind power? Perhaps it is that financially prudent utilities such as Duke Power and SCE&G are beginning to hedge their bets; not only investing in these alternative sources of power but also encouraging their customers to do so.
For less astute utilities such as Santee Cooper, the choice is to stay with coal where the cost of pollution control continues to rise. Nuclear reactors that are economically competitive, safe for the population and deal with the unresolved issues of nuclear waste require a level of ingenuity similar to that for expeditions to Mars.
Unfortunately for the nuclear industry, today’s most successful technical entrepreneurs are interested in going to Mars and building electric cars but not in the further development of nuclear power. What utilities in South Carolina today face is whether it is better to cut their losses on nuclear power and concentrate on becoming a 21st century utility that serves a distributive source for maintaining power generated by gas, hydropower, solar and wind, or stick with a government-sponsored boondoggle called nuclear power.
Republican presidential candidates clueless on the danger of nuclear arms race
Let’s Try to Avoid Another Nuclear Arms Race, Shall We? The Republican presidential candidates have no clue how dangerous the current age of nuclear rearmament really is. FOREIGN POLICY.COM BY TOM Z. COLLINA JANUARY 15, 2016 The Republican presidential debates have covered a range of national security issues, from China, to Islamist terrorism, to the defense budget. But only recently have the candidates begun talking about a key issue: the future of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. That’s the good news. The bad news is how shockingly little they know about the subject.
At the debate on Jan. 14, Ben Carson said he was concerned about adversaries “obtaining nuclear weapons that they can explode in our exoatmosphere and destroy our electric grid.” Rick Santorum mentionedthis too, as did Ted Cruz last year. This is a fringe issue, more the stuff of action movies than real life. Hardly prime-time debate material.
But when it comes to the dangers we actually face here in the real world, the candidates don’t fare much better. At the Dec. 15 debate, front-runner Donald Trump tripped over a question about the importance (and budget difficulties) involved in modernizing America’s nuclear triad. In response, he rambled that “nuclear is just the power, the devastation is very important to me,” a statement that plainly showed he hadn’t bothered to do his homework on the issue. In a Jan. 11 interview, Jeb Bush shot back, saying that if Trump wants to be the next president, “the dude ought to try to figure out what the nuclear triad is.”
None of the GOP candidates seem prepared to confront the complexities of our nuclear arsenal. Even worse, they fail to grasp the meat of the issue. Continue reading
Bernie Sanders opposes the one $trillion nuclear weapons plan
Bernie says there are higher priorities than spending a trillion dollars on nukes, Governing Under The Influence, Rebecca Aguilar on January 14, 2016
And he replied with “Yes, I do”. Senator Sanders continued on with his answer, “Obviously we need a strong defense. But the truth is there is enormous waste within the 600 billion dollar a year Defense Department. It turns out that the Department of Defense is the only agency that cannot sustain an independent audit. So I think there is a lot of waste, a lot of cost overrun. We are right now maintaining, I think I won’t swear to you, 5,000 nuclear weapons.”
Bernie was spot on, when he then said, “I don’t know what the world looks like at the end of 2,000 nuclear weapons going off. I don’t know that you’ll need another 3,000.” He then goes on to say, “You know what we could do for education with 30 billion dollars a year? You know what we could do for nutrition? You know what we could do with affordable housing? There is a lot higher priorities than maintaining that type of nuclear arsenal.” The crowd agreed with the Senator, and we applauded his answer…….http://gui.afsc.org/birddog/bernie-says-there-are-higher-priorities-spending-trillion-dollars-nukes
Green Party MP voices dangers of nuclear waste dump at Plymouth, questions Trident plan
Green party representative voices outrage at nuclear waste in Plymouth http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Green-party-voices-outrage-nuclear-waste-Plymouth/story-28535265-detail/story.html By Plymouth Herald January 15, 2016 A GREEN party MEP has spoken out about her outrage regarding nuclear waste in Plymouth.
Molly Scott Cato, the Green Party MEP for the region believes that local jobs linked to Trident submarines could be replaced by better, more socially useful employment and is urging local authorities and unions to back a process of “industrial conversion”.
The controversial question of whether to commission a new generation of nuclear-armed Trident submarines, at an estimated cost of £100bn will be discussed by the UK Parliament later this year.
Molly said: “I am deeply concerned about the health and safety hazards this nuclear waste dump poses to so many of my constituents.
“This is totally unacceptable.
“The dangers posed by nuclear waste are just one of the reasons that Greens have always been united in opposition to the replacement of the UK’s nuclear-armed Trident submarines.
“We also believe that nuclear weapons are immoral, unusable and a totally unacceptable use of public money.”
The government backs replacement, while Labour appear divided and are currently reviewing their policy on the issue
Ontario’s refurbishment of nuclear power plants is reckless
Nuclear renovation plan reckless http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editors/2016/01/15/nuclear-renovation-plan-reckless.html Jan 15 2016
Re: OPG to begin $12.8M nuclear plant renovation, Jan 12
OPG to begin $12.8M nuclear plant renovation, Jan. 12
Ontario’s decision to proceed with the refurbishment of the Bruce and Darlington nuclear power plants and to extend the life of the already long-past-due-for-closure Pickering plant, is stunning in its recklessness, its failure to engage in a rigourous, public examination of alternatives and lack of transparency about the risks and costs to the public.
The decisions will lock Ontario’s electricity system into decades of dependency on an expensive, risky and aging technology. This at a time when we are witnessing the most significant revolutions in electricity generation, transmission, distribution and storage technologies seen since the first emergence of electricity grids more than a century ago.
The future of sustainable energy systems lies in flexible, resilient, distributed generation systems, grounded on efficiency, renewable energy and smart grids, not high-risk megaprojects to rescue a technology whose time has passed.
Mark S. Winfield, Associate Professor, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University
If only your headline were correct. Sadly, the true amount, $12.8 billion, is probably only the beginning of the money pit the Liberals are wading into once more.
What happened to our new economic cooperation with Quebec? For a couple of billion tops, we could improve the transmission capabilities through eastern Ontario and buy their clean, renewable (actual) hydro power at less than the cost of nuclear generation.
Terry Kushnier, Scarborough
Testimony regarding Dominion Virginia Power’s nuclear plan – it’s unreasonable
Virginia State Corporation Commission eFiling CASE Document Cover Sheet ……Document Description Summary Direct Testimony & Exhibits of D. Scott Norwood, filed on behalf of the Office of the Attorney General’s Division of Consumer CounselThe Low-Information Opposition to the Iran Nuclear Deal
|
The Low-Information Opposition to the Iran Nuclear Deal Pulls a Full Chelsea Clinton, The Blaze
Jan. 15, 2016 Alasdair Denvil
“……..Didn’t you hear? Iran has poured concrete into their nuclear reactor at Arak (so that it no longer generatesweapons-grade plutonium), it’s put 25,000 pounds of enriched uranium – 98 percent of all it possessed – on a boat to Russia, and it is dismantling two-thirds of its uranium-enriching centrifuges. If you’re an opponent of the Iranian nuclear deal, there’s a good chance you didn’t know any of that. Because, as often as the deal has been pilloried by critics such as Donald Trump, Rush Limbaugh,Thomas Sowell, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin, they hardly ever mention that Iran has had to settle for a mere 660 pounds of low-enriched uranium, far too little for a nuclear arsenal. No, you hardly ever hear these critics spell out the concessionsIran has already made. Instead, we keep hearing that “we get nothing” out of the deal, that President Barack Obama is“giving” Iran the bomb, even that he wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon (which certainly explains why he unleashed theStuxnet virus to sabotage Iran’s nuclear facilities). Funnily enough, the same pundits who rail against “low-information voters” – people who’ve been “dumbed down” by media misinformation to the point that they “don’t know what they think they know” – have generated exactly that level of opposition to the Iranian nuclear deal. They’ve devised a selective information gap just like what they (often correctly) berate the mainstream media for creating….. if you’re going to oppose the deal, you have a responsibility do it honestly, based on giving people the full story about what it involves, rather than covering up details that don’t support your case…….. After all, it’s hard to see how Iran could fake giving away 25,000 pounds of enriched uranium. And even if you take the position that there’s more wrong with the deal than right about it, rejecting the deal would have involved risks of its own. How would Iran be further from getting a nuclear weapon if it held on to 11 tons of enriched uranium, kept running thousands of additional centrifuges, retained a nuclear reactor that spits out weapons-grade plutonium, and were allowed to keep its known nuclear supply chain free from prying eyes?…. the notion that the deal simply green-lights Iran’s nuclear program, giving them the go-ahead to get a nuke, is just flat-out untrue. It’s a blatant falsehood……http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/the-low-information-opposition-to-the-iran-nuclear-deal-pulls-a-full-chelsea-clinton/ |
1 This Month
29 Jan. Thursday 7-8 p.m. Webinar – World’s Largest Nuclear Station in Port Hope, ON?
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com/
31st January – Challenging the War Machine – a DECLASSIFIED UK SUMMIT
Website of the Week
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- January 2026 (283)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
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
nuclear-news 