nuclear-news

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

Talking football pitches but not in Qatar

thttps://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/talking-football-pitches-but-not-in-qatar/ 5 Dec 22, Whilst the World Cup action on the pitch in Qatar is the current focus of many millions of fans of ‘the beautiful game’, the UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities are seeking out the answer to a football-related question much nearer to home. 

Rolls-Royce has been talking big about the prospects for its so-called Small Modular Reactors in recent days, but everyone remains confused as to how big the reactor is. Although the intended power output is clear, at 470 MW being roughly compatible with a first-phase Magnox nuclear reactor, various media articles have reported the SMR as occupying a surface area amounting to between ‘one and a half and ten football pitches’.

Football’s world governing body, FIFA, sets international standards for the dimensions of playing pitches based on metres, but even these are at variance. The length of a pitch can be between 90 metres and 120 metres from goal line to goal line and the width between 45 metres and 90 metres.

Quite a difference, so the NFLA decided they want to use Wembley Stadium with a playing pitch of 105 metres by 68 metres as a reference football pitch most people can relate to.

The Chair of the UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities Councillor David Blackburn has just written to Tom Samson, Chief Executive Officer of Rolls-Royce SMR, seeking out the answer.

Councillor Blackburn said “If we do not know how big it is we do not know what we are dealing with, and it is way overdue for Rolls-Royce to provide clarity. With the FIFA standard size of a football pitch being variable, we have gone for Wembley Stadium as a reference most people, whether football fans or otherwise, can relate to. We have asked how many ‘Wembley’s’ will the SMR fill? It is now over to Mr Samson to respond. We shall of course bring you the final score when we have it.”

December 5, 2022 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

Imperialist wars—and what could be done about them — IPPNW peace and health blog

Although all wars are not imperialist wars, it is remarkable how many imperial conquests have occurred over past centuries. Mobilizing their military forces, powerful states and, later, nations carved out vast empires at the expense of weaker or less warlike societies.  Some of the largest and best-known empires to emerge over the millennia were the Persian, the Chinese, […]

Imperialist wars—and what could be done about them — IPPNW peace and health blog

December 5, 2022 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Pursuing Assange in a US court could cause even more embarrassment than the WikiLeaks’ publications. 

It’s possible that pursuing Assange in a US court could cause even more embarrassment than the WikiLeaks’ publications. As the years have passed, we have learned that a Spanish security firm recorded his every move and those of his visitors and legal counsel in the Embassy of Ecuador. This was passed to the CIA, and was used in the US case for his extradition. The trial of Daniel Ellsberg for leaking the Pentagon Papers failed because his psychiatrist’s records were stolen by investigators, and this should set a precedent for Assange.

Enough is enough for Albanese on Assange: our allies may respect us if we say this more. https://johnmenadue.com/enough-is-enough-for-albanese-on-assange-our-allies-may-respect-us-if-we-say-this-more/ By Alison Broinowski, Dec 2, 2022

The Prime Minister’s surprise revelation that he has raised the case against Julian Assange with US officials and urged that charges of espionage and conspiracy be dropped opens up many questions.

Mr Albanese thanked Dr Monique Ryan for her question on Wednesday 31 November, giving what appeared to be a carefully prepared and timed answer. The Independent MP for Kooyong sought to know what political intervention the government would make in the case, observing that public interest journalism is essential in a democracy.

The news flashed around between Assange supporters in and outside Parliament, and reached the Guardian, the Australian, SBS, and Monthly online. Neither the ABC nor the Sydney Morning Herald carried the story, even the next day. SBS reported that Brazil’s president-elect Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva expressed support for the campaign to free Assange.

But two days earlier, on Monday 29 November, the New York Times and four major European papers had printed an open letter to the US Attorney-General Merrick Garland, deploring the assault on media freedom which the pursuit of Assange represented.

The NYT, the Guardian, Le Monde, Der Spiegel and El Pais were the papers which in 2010 received and published some of the 251,000 classified US documents provided by Assange, many revealing American atrocities in Afghanistan and Iraq.

US Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning gave them to Assange, who redacted names of people he considered could be harmed by publication. A senior Pentagon serving officer later confirmed that no-one had died as a result. Manning was imprisoned, and then pardoned by Obama. Assange spent seven years in diplomatic asylum in the Embassy of Ecuador in London before British police removed him and he was imprisoned for breach of bail condition.

Assange has been in Belmarsh high security prison for three years, in poor physical and mental health. Court proceedings against him over extradition to face trial in the US have been farcical, biased, oppressive, and excessively prolonged.

In Opposition, Albanese said ‘Enough is enough’ for Assange, and he has at last done something about it in Government. What exactly, with whom, and why now, we don’t yet know. The PM’s hand may have been forced by the major dailies’ letter to Attorney-General Garland, which made Australian politicians and media appear to be doing nothing. Or he may have raised the Assange case in his recent meetings with Biden, at the G20 for example.

Another possibility is that he was talked into it by Assange’s barrister, Jennifer Robinson, who met with him in mid-November and spoke about the case at the National Press Club. When I asked if she could say if she and Albanese discussed Assange, she smiled and said ‘No’ – meaning she couldn’t, not that they didn’t.

Monique Ryan made the point that this is a political situation, requiring political action. By raising it with US officials, Albanese has moved away from the previous government’s position that Australia couldn’t interfere in British or American legal processes, and that ‘justice must take its course’. That wasn’t the approach Australia took to secure the freedom of Dr Kylie Moore-Gilbert, imprisoned for espionage in Iran, or of Dr Sean Turnell from jail in Myanmar. It isn’t Australia’s approach in China either, where a journalist and an academic remain in detention.

By taking up Assange’s case, Albanese is doing nothing more than the US always does when one of its citizens is detained anywhere, or than the UK and Canada quickly did when their nationals were imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay. Australia allowed Mamdouh Habib and David Hicks to spend much longer in US custody before negotiating their release. We might gain more respect from our allies if we adopted their speedy approach to these cases, than we do by subservience to British and American justice.

It’s possible that pursuing Assange in a US court could cause even more embarrassment than the WikiLeaks’ publications. As the years have passed, we have learned that a Spanish security firm recorded his every move and those of his visitors and legal counsel in the Embassy of Ecuador. This was passed to the CIA, and was used in the US case for his extradition. The trial of Daniel Ellsberg for leaking the Pentagon Papers failed because his psychiatrist’s records were stolen by investigators, and this should set a precedent for Assange.

Even though Biden once called Assange a ‘hi-tech terrorist’, as President he is now an advocate of human rights and democratic freedoms. This might be a good time for him to put them into practice. Doing so would make both Biden and Albanese look better than their predecessors.

December 5, 2022 Posted by | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

‘Guinea Pig Nation’- Lax rules for new reactors deliberately endanger communities

“Make no mistake about it—while NRC is doing its part to serve nuclear industry needs, we should not lose sight of the fact that it is the aggressive pro-nuclear agenda of the Biden Administration that has unleashed a juggernaut of financial and PR support for new nuclear reactors. Everything from the tens of billions of dollars allocated for new nuclear in the Infrastructure Act and the IRA [Inflation Reduction Act, which establishes a nuclear power production tax credit], to the national dog-and-pony show [the recent U.S. tour promoting nuclear power] of Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, demonstrates the administration’s intentions to run roughshod over the objections of the public. We have a hard fight ahead of us.”

‘Guinea Pig Nation’ — Beyond Nuclear International NRC will weaken regulations for new “advanced” reactors says scientist
By Karl Grossman
“Guinea Pig Nation: How the NRC’s new licensing rules could turn communities into test beds for risky, experimental nuclear plants,” is what physicist Dr. Edwin Lyman, Director of Nuclear Power Safety with the Union of Concerned Scientists, titled his presentation last week.

The talk was about how the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is involved in a major change of its “rules” and “guidance” to reduce government regulations for what the nuclear industry calls “advanced” nuclear power plants.

Already, Lyman said, at a “Night with the Experts” online session organized by the Nuclear Energy Information Service, the NRC has moved to allow nuclear power plants to be built in thickly populated areas. This “change in policy” was approved in a vote by NRC commissioners in July. 

For a more than a half-century, the NRC and its predecessor agency, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, sought to have nuclear power plants sited in areas of “low population density”—because of the threat of a major nuclear plant accident.

But, said Lyman, who specializes in nuclear power safety, nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism, the NRC in a decision titled “Population-Related Siting Considerations for Advanced Reactors,” substantially altered this policy. 

The lone NRC vote against the change came from Commissioner Jeffery Baran who in casting his ‘no’ vote wrote “Multiple, independent layers of protection against potential radiological exposure are necessary because we do not have perfect knowledge of new reactor technologies and their unique potential accident scenarios….Unlike light-water reactors, new advanced reactor designs do not have decades of operating experience; in many cases, the new designs have never been built or operated before.” 

He noted a NRC “criteria” document which declared that the agency “has a longstanding policy of siting nuclear reactors away from densely populated centers and preferring areas of low population density.”

But, said Baran, under the new policy, a “reactor could be sited within a town of 25,000 people and right next to a large city. For reactor designs that have not been deployed before and do not have operating experience, that approach may be insufficiently protective of public health and safety…And it would not maintain the key defense-in-depth principle of having prudent siting limitations regardless of the features of a particular reactor design—a principle that has been a bedrock of nuclear safety.”

That is just one of the many reductions proposed in safety standards.

“The central issue,” commented Lyman in an interview following his November 17th presentation, “is that the NRC is accepting on faith that these new reactors are going to be safer and wants to adjust its regulations accordingly, to make them less stringent—on faith.”

The key motivation, he said, behind the nuclear industry’s push to significantly weaken safety standards is that the line of smaller nuclear power plants the nuclear industry is now pushing—including what it calls the “small modular nuclear reactor”— are going to be “much more expensive” than the existing light-water nuclear power plants, the most common type of nuclear power plant, which are large and are cooled by plain water. Thus, he said, these “advanced” nuclear plants would be more costly to operate than using energy alternatives, “certainly wind and solar.”

And the NRC is complying with the nuclear industry.

It’s a demonstration of one of the alternatives for the acronym for the NRC—Nuclear Rubberstamp Commission.

The list of proposed safety reductions in the PowerPoint portion of Lyman’s presentation under “Cutting corners on safety and security to cut costs,” and what the nuclear industry “wants” in what the NRC calls its “Part 53” assemblage of changes, included, in addition to the already completed alteration of

siting criteria:

  • Allowing nuclear power plants to have a “small containment—or no physical containment at all.” Containments are the domes over nuclear plants to try to contain radioactive releases in an accident.
  • “No offsite emergency planning requirements.” The NRC has been requiring emergency planning including the designation of a 10-mile evacuation zone around a nuclear power plant.
  • “Fewer or even zero operators.” The nuclear industry would like advanced nuclear plants to operate “autonomously.”
  • Letting the plants have “fewer” NRC “inspections and weaker enforcement.”
  • “Reduced equipment reliability reporting.” 
  • “Applications” for an advanced reactor “should contain minimal information.”
  • “The NRC’s review standards should be lenient.”
  • Letting the plants have “fewer inspections and weaker enforcement.”
  • “Fewer back-up safety systems.”
  • “Regulatory requirements should be few in number and vague.”
  • “Zero” armed security personnel to try to protect an advanced nuclear power plant from terrorists. 

What the industry wants

from Part 53

  • Regulatory requirements should be few in number and vague. – details should go in non-binding guidance.
  • Applications should contain minimal  detail. 
  • The NRC’s review standards should be lenient. 
  • Fewer inspections and weaker enforcement.

The Nuclear Energy Information Service’s summary of his presentation stated: “Under the direction of Congress, the NRC is developing new regulations to facilitate licensing of experimental reactors by relaxing safety security standards and by relying on safety demonstrations that utilize computer simulations rather than experimental data. The major focus of this effort, known as ‘Part 53,’ is being written with an unprecedented level of industry involvement. If ‘Part 53’ is enacted, first-of-a kind reactors would be located in densely populated urban areas without any promise for emergency evacuation, planning, without security forces to protect against terrorist attack, and without highly trained operators—and all without meaningful opportunities for public input.”

These “are sometimes referred to as ‘advanced reactors.’ However, that is a misnomer for most designs being pursued today…largely descend from those proposed many decades ago,” the report continued.  

“In part,” it went on, “the nuclear industry’s push to commercialize NLWRs is driven by its desire to show the public and policymakers that there is a high-tech alternative to the static, LWR-dominated status quo: a new generation of ‘advanced’ reactors. But a fundamental question remains: Is different actually better? The short answer is no. Nearly all of the NLWRs currently on the drawing board fail to provide significant enough improvements over LWRs to justify their considerable risks.”

In the report, Lyman extensively examines issues involving each of the NLWR (Non Light Water Reactors) or “advanced” reactors. 

David Kraft, director of the Chicago-based Nuclear Energy Information Service, after Lyman’s talk said in an interview: “Dr. Lyman warns us all once again how largely beholden to the nuclear industry the NRC is. NRC is willing to twist and contort even reasonable safety regulations in ways that cater to nuclear industry desires to a degree that would rival a toy balloon-dog at a children’s party. It is this kind of almost institutionalized acquiescence to industry wants that has led many to believe that NRC stands for Not Really Concerned.”

Kraft continued: “Make no mistake about it—while NRC is doing its part to serve nuclear industry needs, we should not lose sight of the fact that it is the aggressive pro-nuclear agenda of the Biden Administration that has unleashed a juggernaut of financial and PR support for new nuclear reactors. Everything from the tens of billions of dollars allocated for new nuclear in the Infrastructure Act and the IRA [Inflation Reduction Act, which establishes a nuclear power production tax credit], to the national dog-and-pony show [the recent U.S. tour promoting nuclear power] of Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, demonstrates the administration’s intentions to run roughshod over the objections of the public. We have a hard fight ahead of us.”

Founded in 1981, Nuclear Energy Information Service is among the safe-energy, anti-nuclear organizations that are challenging the NRC’s effort to change its “rules” and “guidance” to boost “advanced” nuclear plants. It plans to soon post through its website a recording of Lyman’s Zoom presentation.

December 5, 2022 Posted by | safety, USA | Leave a comment

UK government may be covering up the extent of its involvement in the arrest and incarceration of Julian Assange

MINISTER ‘MISLED PARLIAMENT’ ON FOREIGN OFFICE ROLE IN SECRET ASSANGE OPERATION New information suggests the UK government may be covering up the extent of its involvement in the arrest and incarceration of the WikiLeaks founder.

 https://declassifieduk.org/minister-misled-parliament-on-foreign-office-role-in-secret-assange-operation/ MATT KENNARD AND JOHN MCEVOY 2 DECEMBER 2022

A British MP has accused a Foreign Office minister of “misleading parliament” over his department’s involvement in the secret operation to arrest Julian Assange.

Kenny MacAskill MP, a former Scottish justice secretary, asked the Foreign Office “whether any people working on Operation Pelican were based within [its] Department’s premises.” 

Pelican was the secret Metropolitan Police-led operation to seize Assange from his asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, which was mounted in April 2019. 

Junior foreign minister David Rutley told parliament last week in answer: “No Foreign and Commonwealth Office [FDCO] officials were directly assigned to work on Operation Pelican.”

However, in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOI) request in July last year, the Foreign Office had already admitted: “Three FCDO officials did some work on Operation Pelican, the most senior of which was Head of Latin America Department.”

Declassified on Tuesday revealed the UK government had assigned 15 staff to Pelican, but this number did not include any Foreign Office personnel. 

‘Misled parliament’

Under the Ministerial Code, ministers have a duty to “be as open as possible with parliament” and to “give accurate and truthful information”. A House of Commons guide states that “this requirement governs the answers ministers provide to parliamentary questions”.

The misleading of parliament is a serious charge that can lead to a minister’s resignation or sacking. 

David Rutley, the Conservative MP for Macclesfield, has been foreign minister for the Americas and Caribbean since October 2022, and serves under foreign secretary James Cleverly. 

A supporter of Rishi Sunak, Rutley has met the US ambassador to Britain and travelled to Colombia and Panama since taking up office.

Kenny MacAskill, MP for East Lothian, told Declassified: “This new information shows that foreign minister David Rutley misled parliament in answering my recent question. It demonstrates not just the standard obfuscation I have become used to, but actual distortion of the facts about the UK government’s effort to ‘get’ Julian Assange.”

He added: “The actions of the British government have not simply been to assist the US. They have been active and willing participants in the state-sponsored cruelty meted out to Assange. And then tried to hide it all.”

18 officials

Operation Pelican’s existence was only revealed in the memoirs of former foreign minister Sir Alan Duncan which were published last year. The UK government routinely blocks, or obfuscates its answers to, information requests about the Assange case.

For instance, the Home Office and the Cabinet Office have refused FOI requests regarding communication between departments about Pelican. The Foreign Office claimed it holds no information on the matter.


In March, Home Office minister Kit Malthouse even told parliament that his department, despite having eight staff assigned to Pelican, holds no information about which other ministries were involved. 

Then, in a later response to a FOI request, the Home Office refused to confirm or deny whether it holds information on inter-departmental communication about Pelican. This refusal to rule out whether the Home Office does hold information on the matter raises concerns that Malthouse may also have earlier misled parliament.

The new information takes up to 18 the number of officials the UK government has admitted to deploying on Operation Pelican. 

These included senior officials such as the Deputy National Security Advisor at the Cabinet Office and the International Director at the Home Office, according to documents obtained by Declassified through a FOI request. 

Declassified has revealed that four of Britain’s most powerful government ministries, including the Foreign Office, are refusing to say if their officials have met with US authorities to discuss Julian Assange. 

December 5, 2022 Posted by | secrets,lies and civil liberties, UK | Leave a comment

 Britain may be scaling back its nuclear plans.

 Britain may be scaling back its nuclear plans. The chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, has ordered a review of government investment in nuclear power, we report today. Under 2021 spending plans, up to £1.7 billion of funding was made available for the construction of new nuclear plants. Those who support such spending say it is essential if the UK is to have energy
security and stick to its commitments on carbon emissions.

Its opponents argue that nuclear power is expensive, plants are subject to lengthy delays and the money would be better spent on expanding green alternatives such as wind, solar and storage technology. What’s your view? Voting closes at midday on Friday. [At the time of sending a link to the poll is not available and there is no other story about scaling back nuclear plans on
the website]

 Times 4th Dec 2022

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/readers-poll-should-the-uk-build-more-nuclear-power-stations-5g2djvmtb

December 5, 2022 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

China keeps aggressively surrounding itself with US bases: notes from the edge of The Narrative Matrix

We’ll either move from competition-based systems to collaboration-based ones, eliminating all the obstacles necessary for us to do so, or we will go extinct. We are at our adapt-or-die juncture as a species.

Pearls and Irritations, By Guest writer Caitlin Johnstone, Dec 2, 2022

It still amazes me how many people who fancy themselves anti-establishment critical thinkers will spend all day mindlessly regurgitating mainstream media lines about China.

* There are Chinese people with real grievances against their government.

* The US empire’s propaganda machine will spin current protests in China to advance imperial agendas.

* Western intelligence agencies will become more and more involved in these protests the longer they go on.

I cannot emphasise enough how little respect I have for anyone who parrots US empire narratives about China and how completely dismissive I am of all their attempts to explain to me that it’s actually right and good to do this. Literally all of our major problems are because of the people who rule over us; if you’re buying into the narrative that who we should really be mad at right now is a government on the other side of the planet with no power over us, you’re a fucking loser. You’re a bootlicking empire simp. You’re worthless, bleating human livestock.

Why does China keep aggressively surrounding itself with US military bases?

Everyone knows the US has invaded countries completely unprovoked very recently and will definitely do so again, but we still have to pretend that Putin is the worst thing since Hitler.

It’s disturbing how many people I encounter who claim Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is worse than America’s invasion of Iraq because Ukraine is a “democracy”. How fucked up do you have to be inside to believe human lives are worth less because of their nation’s political system?

Leaving aside the fact that a nation which bans political parties, shuts down opposition media, imprisons opposition leaders, and is vastly more accountable to Washington than to its own people is in no way a “democracy”, that’s just a profoundly disturbed way of looking at life. A mother holding the remains of a child whose body has been ripped apart by military explosives does not care whether her country is considered a “democracy” by the western governments who are invested in that country’s military outcomes.

Rightists correctly believe that liberals subscribe to an artificially constructed worldview designed by the powerful in the service of the powerful, but incorrectly believe that they themselves do not.

Common debates:

* Which status quo party is best

* Which side of the culture war is correct

* How the western empire should act

* What capitalism should look like

Uncommon debates:

* Should status quo politics exist

* Should the western empire exist

* Should capitalism exist

* Should class war replace culture war

And it is of course entirely by design that the former are common and the latter are uncommon. Keeping everyone debating how establishment power structures should exist, rather than if they should, ensures the survival of those power structures.

It’s actually a really big problem that the most visible “left” in the US is completely worthless on war and militarism. When Americans who are critical of those things look right and see people like Rand Paul and Tucker Carlson doing something then look left and see AOC and Bernie doing nothing, which side do you think they’ll choose?

And of course this is because the so-called progressive Democrats are not “left” in any meaningful way, but your average mainstream American doesn’t know that, and perception is reality. The US is the nation where antiwar sentiment is most important and the most urgently needed, and it’s been buried on the left. Americans are trained that Clintonites are “centre-left” and AOC/Bernie are “far left”, and anyone further to the left than them on foreign policy is demonised by these progressives as a Russian agent. This creates the very understandable impression that the entire left is pro-war.

When you’ve got Ilhan Omar and AOC calling people who protest US proxy warfare at their rallies Russian operatives and antiwar leftists like Jill Stein branded as Kremlin agents, the message mainstream Americans come away with is that antiwar sentiment is only welcome on the right.

Again, I get this isn’t true and there’s lots of antiwar sentiment on the true left in the US, but nobody sees that left. It’s denied any media presence or political validity; mainstream Americans don’t know the difference between an anti-imperialist socialist and a Berner. This causes antiwar Americans to drift to the right; I’ve watched it happen in real time with some of my US followers. I do my best to make the case for the left, but I’m just one voice amid a surging deluge of messaging they’re getting that the real opposition is on the right.

Naming your war machinery after the Indigenous tribes your government genocided is the modern-day equivalent of wearing the skulls of your enemies on your war horse.

A lot of acceptance of the status quo worldview boils down to a failure of imagination. People literally can’t imagine the possibility that reality is as different as it is from what they’ve been told by their teachers, parents, pundits and politicians. It’s actually unfathomable to them, and that is because it’s so different. The world we’re trained to see by establishment perception managers is as different from the real world as any fictional world is.
The claim that capitalism is the best system for generating profits is basically correct; it’s hard to beat greed and starvation as a carrot and stick to get the gears of industry whirring. The issue here is that merely generating profits won’t solve most of the world’s problems, and in fact many of our problems come from the fact that capitalism is too effective at turning the gears of industry. Our biosphere is dying largely because capitalism values making lots of things but not un-making things; we’re choking our ecosystem to death because it’s profitable.

Capitalism has no real answers for problems like ecocide, inequality, exploitation and caring for the needful. Yes “let the markets decide” will generate lots of profits for those set up to harvest them, but profit-seeking cannot address those very serious problems. The “invisible hand of the market” gets treated as an actual deity that actually exists, with all the wisdom necessary to solve the world’s problems, but in reality the pursuit of money lacks any wisdom. It can’t solve our major problems, it can only make more stuff and generate more profit……………………………………….

We’ll either move from competition-based systems to collaboration-based ones, eliminating all the obstacles necessary for us to do so, or we will go extinct. We are at our adapt-or-die juncture as a species.  https://johnmenadue.com/china-keeps-aggressively-surrounding-itself-with-us-bases-notes-from-the-edge-of-the-narrative-matrix/

December 5, 2022 Posted by | 2 WORLD, spinbuster | Leave a comment

Potential for ‘worrying’ Hinkley Point C delay highlights need for renewables

Potential for ‘worrying’ Hinkley Point C delay highlights need for
renewables. The potential delay to the Hinkley Point C project has been
described as “worrying” by the Association for Renewable Energy and Clean
Technology (REA).

 New Civil Engineer 2nd Dec 2022 https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/potential-for-worrying-hinkley-point-c-delay-highlights-need-for-renewables-02-12-2022/

Potential for ‘worrying’ Hinkley Point C delay highlights need for renewables

December 5, 2022 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

IAEA hoping to get a protection zone at the Zaporizhzia nuclear power plant

 The International Atomic Energy Agency hopes to reach an agreement with
Russia and Ukraine to create a protection zone at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear
power plant by the end of the year, the head of the U.N. atomic watchdog
was quoted as saying.

 Reuters 2nd Dec 2022

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/iaea-chief-hopes-find-solution-zaporizhzhia-nuclear-plant-by-year-end-2022-12-02/

December 5, 2022 Posted by | safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Europe, weaning off fossil fuels from Russia, but still dependent on Russia for nuclear fuel

 France has been accused of helping to fund Vladimir Putin’s war effort
by continuing to import nuclear fuel from Russia. Greenpeace on Friday
called it “scandalous” that uranium was still being bought by European
companies to be used in nuclear power stations across the continent.

The campaigning charity this week filmed the arrival of dozens of drums of
uranium, both raw and enriched, from Russia at the northern French port of
Dunkirk. Imports of nuclear fuel from Russia remain legal in Europe as
Brussels has not been able to ban them in eight rounds of sanctions
packages.

While Europe has been weaning itself off Russian fossil fuels
since the start of the invasion of Ukraine, its nuclear sector is still
heavily dependent on Russia and imports more than €200 million worth of
uranium every year.

 Telegraph 2nd Dec 2022

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/12/02/france-accused-aiding-putins-war-importing-russian-nuclear-fuel/

December 5, 2022 Posted by | ENERGY, EUROPE | Leave a comment

The Guardian view on biodiversity collapse: the crisis humanity can no longer ignore

The Guardian view on biodiversity collapse: the crisis humanity can no longer ignore

Guardian editorial

A million animal and plant species are perilously close to extinction. Their fate and ours are intimately connected

December 5, 2022 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Iran increasing its nuclear power

 Iran on Saturday began construction on a new nuclear power plant in the
country’s southwest, Iranian state TV announced, amid tensions with the
U.S. over sweeping sanctions imposed after Washington pulled out of the
Islamic Republic’s nuclear deal with world powers.

The new 300-megawatt plant, known as Karoon, will take eight years to build and cost around $2
billion, the country’s state television and radio agency reported. The
plant will be located in Iran’s oil-rich Khuzestan province, near its
western border with Iraq, it said.

Iran has one nuclear power plant at its
southern port of Bushehr that went online in 2011 with help from Russia,
but also several underground nuclear facilities. The announcement of
Karoon’s construction came less than two weeks after Iran said it had
begun producing enriched uranium at 60% purity at the country’s
underground Fordo nuclear facility. The move is seen as a significant
addition to the country’s nuclear program.

 PBS 3rd Dec 2022

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/iran-announces-start-of-construction-on-new-nuclear-power-plant

December 5, 2022 Posted by | Iran, politics | Leave a comment

Macron pushes a “renaissance” while French nuclear flops

A farce that would make Feydeau blush — Beyond Nuclear International

A farce that would make Feydeau blush — Beyond Nuclear International

December 4, 2022 Posted by | France, marketing, politics international | Leave a comment

140,000 signatures “against” extending the operational period and rebuilding nuclear power plants submitted to the government “Reducing dependence on nuclear power plants is the voice of the people.

Toshi Kamata speaks in front of approximately 140,000 signatures opposing the promotion of nuclear power plants in Chiyoda Ward, Tokyo, on April 2.

December 2, 2022
On December 2, the “Sayonara 10 Million People Action Committee,” a citizens’ group, submitted 140,463 signatures to the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) demanding the withdrawal of the nuclear power promotion measures being considered by the Kishida administration, including the extension of the operating period of nuclear power plants, which is stipulated to be “40 years in principle and 60 years maximum,” and the reconstruction (replacement) of nuclear power plants that are scheduled to be decommissioned. The signatures were submitted to the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) in late October.
　The signatures had been collected by the Executive Committee since late October. On the same day, a rally was held in the National Diet building, where reportage writer Toshi Kamata, representative of the callers, said, “The people’s voice in the wake of the TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident is to reduce dependence on nuclear power as much as possible. These are angry signatures asking what they are thinking,” he explained, handing the signatures to a METI official on the spot.
　During the exchange of opinions following the submission of the signatures, participants voiced their opinions, such as “We should hold public hearings and listen to the public before reaching a conclusion,” but the METI official merely stated, “We will consider public comments at an appropriate time.
　Regarding the proposal to rebuild a nuclear power plant that has been decided to be decommissioned with a next-generation nuclear power plant, the METI side said, “Instead of decommissioning the plant, we will build one. Whether or not they will be built on the exact site has not yet been determined,” the ministry said, declining to elaborate.
　The government aims to decide on a policy to utilize nuclear power plants at the end of the year and submit a bill to amend related laws to the Diet next year. (Nozomi Masui)
https://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/article/217564?fbclid=IwAR3_igZhYVZS84Y2FGrwmzbgO0okOf0-NcGLmeIPJMGLw9hLBSTussbThn0

December 4, 2022 Posted by | Japan | , , | 1 Comment

A book titled “Fukushima Daiichi NPP Accident Nakadori Litigation” (published by Sakuhinsha, Inc.).

The book is a compilation of the eight years leading up to the victory against TEPCO. “I hope the younger generation will read it so that it will not fade away.

November 27, 2022
A book titled “Fukushima Daiichi NPP Accident Nakadori Litigation” (published by Sakuhinsha, Inc.) summarizes the history of the lawsuit by 52 men and women of the “Nakadori ni Ikiru Kai” (represented by Fumiko Hirai) living in Fukushima City and Koriyama City, Fukushima Prefecture, who claimed they suffered psychological damages from the nuclear accident and sought payment of approximately 100 million yen from TEPCO (in March this year, the plaintiffs were declared winners by the Supreme Court). On March 26, the plaintiffs gathered in Fukushima City for a party to celebrate the publication of the book and to express their gratitude. The book is based on the plaintiffs’ tearful statements, which they rewrote and reworked many times to complete the book, and is filled with the history of their claims of emotional distress caused by the risk of radiation exposure and radioactive contamination. One of the plaintiffs said, “I hope the younger generation will read this book. One of the plaintiffs said, “I really want the younger generation to read this book. I hope the younger generation will read this book so that the nuclear accident will not fade away.

[“For Your Later Use”].
　The completed book is 472 pages in a 466-size format. It consists mainly of statements submitted by the plaintiffs to the Fukushima District Court along with their complaint, and includes a chronology of events since March 2014, the complaint, a statement of opinion (excerpts) requesting termination through settlement, and a summary of the appeal trial decision (Sendai High Court, January 2021). The book is as thick as a dictionary and not inexpensive, but it is truly a compilation of the “Nakadori Ikiru Kai” (Association for the Living of Nakadori). The book will be available in bookstores from the 30th of this month.
　Hiroko Sato, one of the plaintiffs, writes in her introduction, “This book is a compilation of the experiences of the ‘Nakadori Ikiru Kai’ (Association for Living in Nakadori).
　This book is a record of our fight in court to prevent people from saying that there was no damage caused by radiation from the nuclear accident, because we wrote statements about our grief, suffering, and anxiety caused by the accident.
　The 20 plaintiffs who gathered for the first time in many years on that day also commented that they could not read the statements without tears.
　I joined the trial because I thought it was important for ordinary housewives to speak out. The reality was harsh, and the process of writing the statements was especially difficult. There were times when I thought about quitting because it was so hard. When I read the book again, I could not read it without tears, because it describes everyone so nakedly, and I wondered how each and every one of them had suffered so much.
　I was surprised to see how much each and every one of you had suffered. I think this book is about that. We will not pretend that what happened did not happen. We will not put a lid on the painful feelings we had. That was important.
　I want the younger generation to read this book. I want the younger generation to read this book. I want them to understand that when an accident occurs at a nuclear power plant, it is so difficult and changes the lives of so many people. I want them to read this book so that they will not let the accident fade away.
　The psychological damage caused by low-dose radiation exposure continues to this day. We hope that many people will become aware of our lawsuit, which has caused us great emotional distress as a result of the nuclear accident, and that they will change their minds about restarting nuclear power plants. I believe this book has that kind of power. I am proud to be one of the main characters in this book.”
　I am proud to be one of the main characters in this book. I am glad that it became a book. It is good timing to publish the book at a time when the government is trying to restart the nuclear power plants.

We will not be forgotten.
　Fumiko Hirai (Fukushima City), who has been leading the way as the representative of the association, reiterated her thoughts at the time she started preparing for the trial, “If we keep quiet, it will be pretended that it never happened. Ritsuko Ueki (Fukushima City), who played a central role in the sponsorship, proudly stated, “The main characters of this book are the plaintiffs. Her husband Shozo, who had fought with her as a plaintiff, suddenly became ill in July and passed away in August. Although the shock still brings tears to her eyes, Ms. Hirai and the plaintiffs were united to the end.
　Two other plaintiffs who attended the publication commemoration also lost their husbands.
　One of the plaintiffs had not told her husband that she was participating in the trial.
　She said, “I didn’t tell my husband because I thought he wouldn’t get the message. I thought he wouldn’t understand, so I didn’t tell my husband.
　Another plaintiff lost her husband last December. She shed tears, saying, “My husband always said to me, ‘Do your best.
　I don’t know how many tears I shed during the long, long process of the trial. Some were tears of joy. No, there were more tears of frustration.
There were more tears of frustration. Lawyers for TEPCO denied all of the plaintiffs’ claims, dismissing them as having no health or psychological damage caused by radioactive contamination. In his ruling, however, Hisaoki Kobayashi, the presiding judge of the Sendai High Court, took a swipe at TEPCO, stating that “it can be said that the plaintiffs were actually exposed to radiation far exceeding conventional assumptions,” and that “the fear and anxiety [about radiation exposure] is not something as light as the ‘vague sense of anxiety’ claimed by the appellant [TEPCO]. The court stated in its decision that “the fear and anxiety of radiation exposure is not as light as the ‘vague sense of anxiety’ claimed by the appellant (TEPCO).
　Attorney Kichitaro Nomura, who represented the plaintiffs in winning the lawsuit, said in front of the plaintiffs, “From the time I filed the lawsuit, I had been thinking that I would like to publish a book after this lawsuit was concluded in a good way. Everyone followed my lead. I am deeply moved by the results of their efforts to write statements and to overcome the questioning of the plaintiffs. I am deeply moved. This was a major trial in my career as a lawyer. The hurdle is high, but if you read the contents of the book, I think you will find something that will resonate with you. He then introduced a comment from Professor Kageura Kyo of the University of Tokyo. He said that he had asked Professor Kageura to comment on the obi, but he was unable to do so due to poor health.
　He said, “Be aware of the fact that it is ‘my’ own damage. I think this is an extremely important point, not only in litigation, but also as a sovereign in a democratic society. In that respect, I thought this lawsuit was very important in that it was not only a victory against TEPCO, but also in that the individual dignity confirmed in the lawsuit led to a reaffirmation of our existence as sovereigns in a democratic society more generally.
　I think the lawsuit was a confirmation of the principle that all citizens are respected as individuals at all levels, including the fact that Mr. Nomura was the only lawyer against the five TEPCO lawyers, and one of the concrete ways to realize that principle.

TEPCO rejected the settlement recommendation.
　Preparation for this lawsuit began in the spring of 2014; it was filed against TEPCO in Fukushima District Court on April 22, 2016.
　The plaintiffs were 1) initially exposed to radiation due to the spread of radioactive materials following the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident in March 2011, 2) faced with the decision of whether or not to evacuate to avoid exposure to radiation, 3) unable to take appropriate measures to prevent exposure to radiation due to lack of timely and accurate information from TEPCO, 4) family division and separation caused by the voluntary evacuation, and 5) the future health problems of their children and grandchildren. (6) A sense of loss regarding their garden and vegetable garden after the decontamination process.
　The first oral argument was held in August 2016, and the plaintiffs themselves began questioning in February 2018.
　In December 2019, the Fukushima District Court recommended a settlement at the request of the plaintiffs, but TEPCO refused. After stating that “it is reasonable,” the amount of the approved amount was calculated in consideration of the individual circumstances of each plaintiff. The court ordered TEPCO to pay between 22,000 yen and 286,000 yen (a total of 1,234,000 yen) to 50 of the 52 plaintiffs.
　The plaintiffs accepted the judgment, but TEPCO appealed. The appeal hearing at the Sendai High Court will conclude with the first oral argument in September 2020. In January 2021, the High Court ruled that “as in the original trial, the plaintiffs’ legally protected rights were infringed upon with regard to the mental distress they suffered from March 11, 2011, the date of the accident, to December 31 of the same year, exceeding the acceptable limit of social life, and that they incurred increased living expenses during the above period. The court ordered TEPCO to pay compensation, stating that “it is reasonable to award compensation in the amount of 300,000 yen, taking into consideration the fact that the plaintiffs’ living expenses increased during the above-mentioned period.　
　TEPCO filed a “petition for appeal and acceptance of appeal” to the Supreme Court, but in March of this year, the third Petty Bench of the Supreme Court unanimously decided by five judges that “the case will not be accepted as an appeal hearing. The decision of the Sendai High Court, which recognized the plaintiffs’ emotional damages, became final. The decision came after eight years, including the period of preparation prior to the filing of the lawsuit, and eleven years since the nuclear accident occurred.

http://taminokoeshimbun.blog.fc2.com/blog-entry-690.html?fbclid=IwAR37_zbzagO9sFwrR2crNV2u4J3xaSQ4xq2f14JzUdH0xoZN0yYbYLWaNrM

December 4, 2022 Posted by | Fuk 2022 | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »