nuclear-news

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

Bill before Australian Parliament would allow UK and USA to dump decades of high-level nuclear waste in Australia.

Dave Sweeney, 6 May 24

Minister Marles has a Bill before Parliament to establish a dedicated regulator for military radioactive waste arising from AUKUS – it is deeply flawed legislation but a particular concern is that it would permit Australia hosting UK and US naval nuclear waste – including waste from six decades of their nuclear submarine programs.

Media attention to this has been limited apart from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/poison-portal-us-and-uk-could-send-nuclear-waste-to-australia-under-aukus-inquiry-told and a story from today’s Australian.

ACF has put in a submission and a supplementary and presented to a current inquiry by the Senates Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

This Committee – https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Foreign_Affairs_Defence_and_Trade/ANNPSBills23 – is due to report on May 13 and is likely to be supportive of the plan and there are concerns that Marles may look to do a deal with Dutton and steam this legislation through under the cover of the Budget week.

Marles states that the government ‘has no intention’ to do this but we have clear confirmation that the legislation would allow for the import and hosting of AUKUS partners military waste.

On 13 March 2024, the Chair of the Senate Committee investigating the bill asked Government officials: “could you also clarify whether there is scope in the legislation for Australia to take high-level waste from the US and UK submarines? Mr Kim Moy from the Department of Defence confirmed that this was the case. In a subsequent hearing on April 22, Senator David Shoebridge sought to establish whether other stakeholders were aware of this fact. Mr Peter Quinlivian, Senior Legal Counsel for weapons manufacturer BAE Systems Australia, admitted that “the legislation, as drafted, is in language that would accommodate that scenario”.

This loophole must be closed

May 6, 2024 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, politics, wastes | , , , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine war – the changing face of weaponry

I mused today on the lovely words of the lovely war-mongering Australian Minister for Defence – Richard Marles. He’s nearly as good as that USA smarm master Antony Blinken – in choosing the nicest words to cover nasty stuff.

Today he was talking about Australia sending $millions to Ukraine – for:

uncrewed aerial systems air-to-ground precision munitions  spurring on competition among Western nations to harness technology and drive down the equipment’s production cost.

All these weasel words sort of obscure the reality that one big goal is to support the American, Australian, and even Israeli weapons companies. Yes – Israel.  In February, the Israeli company Elbit Systems received a A$917 million contract from the Australian Defence Department.

The other goal is to be part of American militarism and its experimental work in Ukraine.

You see – the beauty of the Ukraine war, for America, is that there should be no American lives at risk. Tough about the Ukrainian lives, (and of course the thousands more Russian soldiers’ lives don’t count).

But this is a sort of experimental interim-type war – between having troops of soldiers getting killed and just having heaps of civilians getting killed, (and seeing if America can win by having no persons at risk in it).

World War 1 was the classic – the ultimate war for killing soldiers. – estimated 9.7 million and also 10 million civilians

World War 2 an even bigger killer of soldiers – 20 million, but also 40 million civilians – an “improvement” in killing civilians.

The “in-between” wars – Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan – have still been a mixture of killing soldiers and civilians – but especially with the Afghanistan war – the emphasis shifted towards drone killings, with the officer directing the killing from the distant comfort of an office in USA.

So – getting back to the lovely Marles – he avoided words like “drones” and “missiles” – thus sort of obscuring the fact that Australian weapons are headed right into Russian territory as part of an American long distance attack. Of course, it is called defence – though it is not at all clear that Australia is under military threat from Russia.

Anyway, Ukraine is a good practise ground for deploying weapons that can kill civilians of another country. The weapons-makers are getting better and better at this. The Biden administration last month secretly shipped long-range missiles to Ukraine. The newest 1$billion package  will include additional long-range ATACMS. Nuclear weapons might be deployed in Poland. Biden administration’s $850 billion defense budget request for fiscal year 2025 includes $69 billion for nuclear weapons.

It’s all great fun. USA will be able to more or less comfortably fight another country (? China) without putting any “boots on the ground”, (except perhaps a few Taiwanese boots – but after all, they’re not even being worn by white feet, so – no matter, really)

The only fly in the ointment is that American militarism is causing a reaction in other countries. They have populations and leaders who feel that they will have to reciprocate. And they too have gee-whiz clever men with little-boy minds who devise killing machines.

It is truly a vicious circle. There’s a lack of leaders with wisdom. But no shortage of the mealy-mouthed Marles and Blinkens who make it sound as if everything is OK.

April 28, 2024 Posted by | Christina's notes | , , , , | Leave a comment

UK court orders delay to extradition of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to US on espionage charges

By Associated Press, By OLIVER PRICE , 27 March 2024  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13239885/Julian-Assange-appeal-against-extradition-court-rules.html?fbclid=IwAR05bAhgRzHKwygiC0ljNnPEU_bL1uwPz2mIRy7vU9RzSU0J_Qbi4aOpK_M_aem_AahKjiDK6G3wRltDvIaC_MtPOcRzYRMwUFpdRPeR7yiJcdMyJyjQi03SWVMX6MWQenTiiAm9LmgWVamqopIy9ZT_

The United States must give assurances that Julian Assange will not face the death penalty before judges will consider dismissing the WikiLeaks founder’s bid to bring an extradition appeal, the High Court has ruled.

Assange, 52, faces prosecution in the US over an alleged conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defence information following the publication of hundreds of thousands of leaked documents relating to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

In a 66-page ruling, Dame Victoria Sharp said: ‘Before making a final decision on the application for leave to appeal, we will give the respondent an opportunity to give assurances.

‘If assurances are not given then we will grant leave to appeal without a further hearing.

‘If assurances are given then we will give the parties an opportunity to make further submissions before we make a final decision on the application for leave to appeal.’

These assurances are that Assange would be protected by and allowed to rely on the First Amendment – which protects freedom of speech in the US, that he is not ‘prejudiced at trial’ due to his nationality, and that the death penalty is not imposed.

The judges said the US authorities had three weeks to give those assurances, with a final hearing potentially taking place in late May.

In her ruling, Dame Sharp said any assurances from the United States would need to include ‘that the applicant (Julian Assange) is permitted to rely on the First Amendment, that the applicant is not prejudiced at trial, including sentence, by reason of his nationality, that he is afforded the same First Amendment protections as a United States citizen, and that the death penalty is not imposed’. 

Speaking after the judgment, the Australian’s wife Stella Assange described the ruling as ‘astounding’.

She said: ‘What the courts have done has been to invite a political intervention from the United States… send a letter saying ‘its all ok’. I find this astounding.

‘This case is a retribution. It is a signal to all of you that if you expose the interests that are driving war they will come after you, they will put you in prison and will try to kill you.

‘The Biden administration should not issue assurances. They should drop this shameful case that should never have been brought.’

Addressing Julian Assange’s legal ground about freedom of speech guarantees in the US, Dame Victoria Sharp said: ‘The applicant wishes to argue, at any trial in the United States, that his actions were protected by the First Amendment.

‘He contends that if he is given First Amendment rights, the prosecution will be stopped. The First Amendment is therefore of central importance to his defence to the extradition charge.’

She continued: ‘If he is not permitted to rely on the First Amendment because of his status as a foreign national, he will thereby be prejudiced, potentially very greatly prejudiced, by reason of his nationality.’

Dame Victoria concluded: ‘It follows that it is arguable that the applicant might be treated differently at trial on the grounds of his nationality.

‘Subject to the question of whether this could be addressed by means of an assurance from the respondent, we would grant leave to appeal.’

WikiLeaks initially reacted positively to the news, saying Assange had been granted ‘leave to appeal’ his extradition, but he will only be allowed to do so if ‘assurances’ are not met.

Reacting to the ruling on X, formerly Twitter, this morning, WikiLeaks posted: ‘Julian Assange has been granted leave to appeal extradition to the US.

‘Having spent almost five years detained at the UK’s most secure prison the publisher will continue his long detention separated from his young family for revealing war crimes. #FreeAssangeNOW.’

WikiLeaks has now deleted this tweet.

WikiLeaks later added: ‘The court has given US Gov 3 weeks to give satisfactory assurances: That Mr. Assange is permitted to rely on the First Amendment to the US constitution; not prejudiced at trial by reason of his nationality; and that the death penalty is not imposed. #FreeAssange.’

The hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice today was attended by Assange’s wife Stella, dozens of journalists and members of the public, with hundreds observing remotely.

Dozens of people stood outside the central London courthouse to await the judgment, holding placards bearing the message ‘Free Julian Assange’ and chanting ‘There is only one decision, no extradition’.

Speaking at a press conference after Julian Assange’s bid to appeal against extradition to the US was delayed, Jennifer Robinson, WikiLeaks legal counsel, said the decision raised ‘fundamental concerns about free speech’.

She added: ‘It is absurd that we are five years into this case and the US has not offered assurance to protect him from (the death penalty).’ 

Ms Robinson added: ‘The judgment today demonstrates that if Julian was extradited to the United States there is a real risk and concern that he would not be afforded free speech protections.

‘We say the US should not be offering assurance in response to this judgment, they should be dropping the case and it is a case that should never have been brought in the first place.’

Speaking after the latest Julian Assange ruling, Michelle Stanistreet, general secretary of the National Union of Journalists, said: ‘A temporary reprieve is clearly preferable to an extradition that would have taken place in the coming days.

‘However, the conditionality around the grounds of appeal, which are contingent on the examination of US government assurances that he will not face the death penalty and has the right to free speech, mean the risks to Assange and press freedom remain stark.

‘Assange’s prosecution by the US is for activities that are daily work for investigative journalists – finding sources with evidence of criminality and helping them to get their stories out into the world.

‘If Assange is prosecuted, free expression the world over will be damaged.’

She added: ‘The nuanced nature of this appeal judgment makes an alternative ending to this situation even more pressing.

‘In recent months there has been increasing speculation about some kind of plea deal, to bring this saga to a swift and straightforward conclusion. I urge the US to return to these options.

‘Media freedom is under threat all over the world, compassion and common sense from the US Department of Justice would do much to restore Washington’s reputation as a bastion of free expression.’ 

Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has called for the US to drop the charges against Julian Assange.

Speaking outside the Royal Courts of Justice, Mr Corbyn said Tuesday’s decision was ‘big step forward’ for Assange’s case but that it is ‘not the victory’ his supporters are looking for.

Mr Corbyn said: ‘Above all, the pressure has to be on the US administration to drop the charges against Julian Assange.

‘He’s a brave journalist who tells the truth.’

When asked why Assange’s case was important to him, the Corbyn said: ‘Because he’s told some very uncomfortable truths about the military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places around the world, but also the effects of corporate greed on the natural world and environment.

‘If Julian goes down for that, then every serious journalist around the world is going to be feel a bit constrained, and that’s dangerous.’

n a January 2021 ruling, then-district judge Vanessa Baraitser said that Assange should not be sent to the US, citing a real and ‘oppressive’ risk of suicide, while ruling against him on all other issues.

But later that year, US authorities won their High Court bid to overturn this block, paving the way towards Assange’s extradition.

During a two-day hearing in February, lawyers for the 52-year-old asked for the go-ahead to challenge the original judge’s dismissal of other parts of his case to prevent his extradition.

And in a judgment today, Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Johnson dismissed most of Assange’s legal arguments but said that unless assurances were given by the United States, he would be able to bring an appeal on three grounds.

The judges said the US authorities had three weeks to give those assurances, with a final decision to be made in late May.

At the start of Assange’s bid last month, Mark Summers KC argued the US’s prosecution would be retribution for his political opinions, meaning it would be unlawful to extradite him under UK law.

However the two judges rejected this argument.

Dame Victoria said: ‘The applicant’s case before us amounts simply to a reassertion of his case on this issue, and a disagreement with the (district) judge’s conclusion.

‘It does not engage with the judge’s reasoning. Far less does it identify any flaw in her factual conclusions.’

March 26, 2024 Posted by | Legal | , , , , | Leave a comment

TODAY. AUKUS nuclear pact – a lame duck?

What is AUKUS? It’s a weird nuclear pact – loftily described as a trilateral security pact for the Indo-Pacific region.

In reality it’s an agreement made without the knowledge of the Australian people, without discussion in Parliament , to make Australia pay close to $400 billion for second-hand nuclear attack submarines, including their radioactive trash.

How did this agreement come about?

In 2021, Australia’s then Prime Minister, Scott Morrison was a Trump-like figure, basically incompetent, but willing to do anything to get his face on the international media. He organised this extraordinary agreement, much to the joy of the nuclear lobby and Western war-hawks in general.

Morrison caused an international incident, in breaking Australia’s contract with France for non-nuclear submarines, (which would be much better suited for Australia’s coastal security monitoring”)

Is there opposition in Australia to this costly boondoggle?

Yes, but not enough. With the media about 70% owned by Murdoch outlets, the Australian public was fed a steady diet of what a threat China is to us, and how the AUKUS nuclear submarine will save us and blah blah.

And then, we got a new Prime Minister – Labor’s Anthony Albanese, (who has a history of opposition to nuclear). It was a national sigh of relief to get rid of the narcissistic and unpredictable Morrison. But ’twas too much to hope that Albanese would have the guts to stand up to the USA, or indeed to appear “weak” to the Australian public.

What is the present situation with AUKUS?

Well, apart from the misgivings of Australia’s near neighbours, like Indonesia, and the Nuclear-Free Zone, now there’s even trouble in the USA camp. On 12 March came the Tuesday release of the Biden administration’s 2025 defence budget request,  – with reduced funding, well below the production rate of 2.33 subs a year the US says is necessary to sell any submarines to Australia. They got cold feet about the deal, as the USA is struggling to build the nuclear submarines that it needs for itself.

Meanwhile the American opposition, whatever you think of Donald Trump, is at the moment less keen on the idea of waging war against China. I mean – they probably do want to, – but they don’t like spending the money on making military stuff for another country.

There are, of course, other problems with the AUKUS nuclear submarine plan. Like the fact these subs will almost certainly be obsolete before they ever get under the water. China, with its shallow coastal waters, is making lots of small drones , that could detect and destroy these nuclear submarines. The AUKUS sub and its peers are intended for surveillance only. but they could be fitted with nuclear warheads. Perhaps that’s the plan. Who knows?

Meanwhile – is there a chance that Australia could avoid this costly boondoggle? And actually have the money to meet some real needs?

March 14, 2024 Posted by | Christina's notes | , , , , | Leave a comment

Japan’s quiet payouts to cities near nuclear plants fuels speculation of political ploy

n-nuclear-a-20171014-870x758.jpg
Shimane and Tottori prefectures hold a joint drill in Hoki, Tottori Prefecture, in October 2015 for residents living near nuclear power plants in the prefectures. The government has expanded a state subsidy for cities hosting plants to include municipalities within a 30 km radius.
In an apparent bid to win support for the restart of nuclear power plants, the state has quietly expanded the scope of subsidies for host cities to include local governments within 30 kilometers of the facilities, a charge the government denied Friday.
The change came into force in April with no announcement to the media from the industry ministry, fueling speculation that it was meant to assuage the concerns of municipalities surrounding host cities about plants taken offline in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear crisis.
A government official, however, denied this speculation.
“We reviewed the system after learning that nuclear power plants also influence surrounding areas,” the official, with the industry ministry’s Agency for Natural Resources and Energy said, adding that the change had been reported on the ministry’s website and that local governments were briefed.
Under the shift, more than 150 local governments are entitled to the subsidy, for which ¥4.5 billion ($40 million) was allocated in the fiscal 2017 budget, the same amount as in fiscal 2016. The ministry has requested a ¥5 billion budget for fiscal 2018.
According to the agency, the program began in fiscal 2016, mainly to promote renewable energy and other measures to revitalize the economies of municipalities hosting nuclear power plants when the facilities are scrapped due to old age.
Utilities face a constant cycle of reactors going online or offline through decommissioning or the suspension of operations. For example, at Chugoku Electric Power Co.’s nuclear plant in Shimane Prefecture, the No. 1 unit is set to be decommissioned as the operator seeks to restart its No. 2 unit.
The change from fiscal 2017 allowed the subsidies to be paid out to towns and villages within 30 km of a nuclear complex, in addition to the host prefectural governments.
To gain approval for restarts, utilities effectively need to obtain consent from prefectural and municipal governments hosting the nuclear complexes, although such efforts are not required by law.
Since the 2011 nuclear disaster, which caused damage to a wide area, surrounding municipalities have stepped up calls for a stronger voice in deciding whether to resume nuclear reactor operations.
But the state and utilities are reluctant to expand the scope of municipalities from which they need to obtain consent, saying that doing so would make restarts exceedingly difficult.

October 14, 2017 Posted by | Japan | , , | Leave a comment