Showing posts sorted by date for query FUKUSHIMA. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query FUKUSHIMA. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Thursday, August 22, 2024

Japan: Robot's Attempt To Get Nuclear Fuel Sample Of Damaged Fukushima Daiichi Reactor Suspended

The work was stopped Thursday morning when workers noticed that five 1.5-meter (5-foot) pipes used to maneuver the robot were placed in the wrong order and could not be corrected within the time limit for their radiation exposure, the plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings said.

Associated Press
Updated on: 22 August 2024 

Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant Photo: AP

An attempt to use a telescoping robot to remove a sample of melted fuel from a wrecked reactor at Japan's tsunami-hit Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant was suspended Thursday due to a technical issue.

The collection of a tiny sample of the debris inside the Unit 2 reactor's primary containment vessel would start the fuel debris removal phase, the most challenging part of the decades-long decommissioning of the plant where three reactors were destroyed in the March 11, 2011, magnitude 9.0 earthquake and tsunami disaster.

The work was stopped Thursday morning when workers noticed that five 1.5-meter (5-foot) pipes used to maneuver the robot were placed in the wrong order and could not be corrected within the time limit for their radiation exposure, the plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings said.

The pipes were to be used to push the robot inside and pull it back out when it finished. Once inside the vessel, the robot is operated remotely from a safer location.

The robot can extend up to 22 meters (72 feet) to reach its target area to collect a fragment from the surface of the melted fuel mound using a device equipped with tongs that hang from the tip of the robot.

The mission to obtain the fragment and return with it is to last two weeks. TEPCO said a new start date is undecided.

The sample-return mission is a first crucial step of a decades-long decommissioning at the Fukushima Daiichi. But its goal to bring back less than 3 grams (0.1 ounce) of an estimated 880 tons of fatally radioactive molten fuel underscores the daunting challenges.

Despite the small amount of the debris sample, it will provide key data to develop future decommissioning methods and necessary technology and robots, experts say.

Better understanding of the melted fuel debris is key to decommissioning the three wrecked reactors and the entire plant.

The government and TEPCO are sticking to a 30-40-year cleanup target set soon after the meltdown, despite criticism it is unrealistic. No specific plans for the full removal of the melted fuel debris or its storage have been decided.

Sunday, August 18, 2024

Japan’s seafood experiment clears the air on safety of water discharge from Fukushima nuclear plant

A look inside the marine organisms rearing test facility at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant on June 28, 2024. 
ST PHOTO: SAMUEL RUBY

Audrey Tan and Walter Sim
Updated
Aug 19, 2024


FUKUSHIMA – Tanks full of seafood are not what one usually expects to find at a nuclear power station.

Yet, The Straits Times discovered quite a spread at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station during a visit there in June.

Flounder, abalone and seaweed – all delicacies of north-eastern Japan – were being reared on site, though they were not bound for the dinner table.


Plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) has far greater aspirations for them.

The cameras in the flounder tanks provide a clue to their existence: By live-streaming the activities of these fishes 24/7, Tepco wants to show the world that water being discharged after treatment from the nuclear plant – the site of the 2011 nuclear disaster – is safe and has no negative impact on life underwater.

Sources of contaminated water include seawater used to cool the remaining nuclear fuel, as well as groundwater and rainwater that seep into the damaged reactors.

Within the marine life breeding facility, tanks are colour-coded.

Seafood in yellow tanks is reared in water that has been processed through the Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS) that removes radioactive material, and then diluted with seawater. This same mixture is what the plant discharges into the ocean.

Blue tanks contain fish reared in regular seawater.

Mr Kazuo Yamanaka, who oversees the marine organisms rearing test laboratory at Fukushima Daiichi, on June 28. ST PHOTO: SAMUEL RUBY


Mr Kazuo Yamanaka, who oversees the marine organisms rearing test laboratory at Fukushima Daiichi, told us during our visit: “When there were discussions over the release of the ALPS-treated water, we heard concerns from fishermen who were worried about the damage to their trades through harmful rumours.”


The fishing industry in Fukushima had expressed worries that consumers would be afraid of consuming seafood in the area.

“We spoke to locals and stakeholders in the fishing industry, who said they wanted to see flounder and abalone moving and growing healthily in seawater that has been mixed with ALPS-treated water,” Mr Yamanaka added.

At the marine organisms rearing test facility, flounders are raised in two environments: natural seawater and ALPS-treated water diluted with seawater. ST PHOTO: SAMUEL RUBY


Tepco started rearing the marine life in September 2022, about a year before the first discharge of ALPS-treated water into the Pacific Ocean began on Aug 24, 2023.

Japanese media reported that outgoing Prime Minister Fumio Kishida is set to visit the crippled nuclear plant on Aug 24, to mark the first anniversary of the first treated water discharge.

More On This Topic


Japan’s Tepco to start fourth release of treated waste water from Fukushima plant in late February


Radioactivity concentrations in the tissues of marine organisms are also monitored regularly, with the results published on Tepco’s website.

Eight batches of treated water have been released so far, with the most recent starting on Aug 7 and expected to end on Aug 25.

With the completion of the discharge of the seventh batch on July 16, about 55,000 cubic metres of water – enough to fill about 22 Olympic-size pools – has been discharged into the ocean so far.

Japan plans to continue releasing the diluted ALPS-treated water from Fukushima Daiichi over the next decades in a series of batches.

Yellow tanks house fish reared in diluted ALPS-treated water, while blue tanks house fish reared in regular seawater. ST PHOTO: SAMUEL RUBY

The United Nations’ nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has said the release meets international safety standards and would have “negligible radiological impact on people and the environment”.

In Singapore, the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) ensures food safety through a surveillance and monitoring regime, while the National Environment Agency (NEA) keeps watch over ambient radiation levels in Singapore via a network of 40 stations, and through regular sampling and laboratory analysis of Singapore’s waters.

In a joint response, the agencies said that no radioactive contaminants have been detected in food imports from Japan since 2013. Such contaminants had been detected in Japanese food imports in 2011 and 2012. Food imports from the East Asian country into Singapore have made up less than 1.5 per cent of total food imports over the past decade, with less than 0.01 per cent of food coming from Fukushima prefecture in 2022, they noted.

As for ambient radioactivity levels, these have remained within natural background levels, the agencies said


Making space

The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station sits on a sprawling compound measuring 3.5 sq km, about 10 times the size of the Singapore Sports Hub.

More than a decade since the plant was hit by a 9.0-magnitude earthquake and tsunami that resulted in the 2011 nuclear disaster, the plant still bears visible reminders of the incident.

The four buildings that house the nuclear reactors are still on site, and highly radioactive fuel debris still remains in two of them. Seawater is continually needed to cool the molten fuel.

Any water that comes into contact with the radioactive material – including the seawater used for cooling, as well as groundwater and rainwater that seep into the damaged reactors – becomes contaminated.

At Fukushima Daiichi, this contaminated water is treated via ALPS to remove most of the radioactive elements before it is stored in tanks.

Looking over the compound from a meeting room where we were briefed on safety protocols, we could see that most of the campus was covered with huge vats of blue, white and grey, which are used for storing the treated water.

The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station sits on a sprawling compound measuring 3.5 sq km, about 10 times the size of the Singapore Sports Hub. ST PHOTO: SAMUEL RUBY


As at January, there were more than 1,000 tanks on site, storing about 1.37 million cubic metres of water – equivalent to 548 Olympic-size swimming pools.

But as works to decommission – or to safely close and dismantle – the plant progressed, space was needed to construct new facilities.

Mr Junichi Matsumoto, Tepco’s chief officer for ALPS-treated water management, said: “Storing this treated water on site was always a stopgap measure – there is space for only so many tanks. That is why the Japanese government, after thorough consultation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, made the decision to discharge it.”

Japan first announced plans to discharge the treated water into the Pacific Ocean in 2021.

The Japanese authorities requested technical assistance from the IAEA to monitor and review those plans.

In 2023, the IAEA’s safety review concluded that Japan’s plans to release treated water stored at Fukushima Daiichi into the sea were consistent with its safety standards.
The treatment process

ALPS removes most of the radioactive elements from contaminated water via a series of chemical reactions.

But tritium – a radioactive form of hydrogen (H) – cannot be removed since water (H2O) containing tritium has chemical features almost identical to water with ordinary hydrogen.

The Fukushima plant is not the only nuclear station to discharge tritiated water – or water that contains tritium.

“Most nuclear power plants around the world routinely and safely release treated water, containing low-level concentrations of tritium and other radionuclides, to the environment as part of normal operations,” the IAEA added.

To allay concerns, Tepco further dilutes the ALPS-treated water with seawater before discharging it into the ocean.

A sample bottle of ALPS-treated water. PHOTO: TEPCO


Tritium concentrations in the ALPS-treated water diluted with seawater are less than 1,500 becquerels per litre (Bq/L), a unit of measurement for radioactivity.

The World Health Organisation’s guideline for the limit of tritium in drinking water is 10,000 Bq/L.

Mr Matsumoto said each batch of treated water released into the ocean involves stringent testing.

Workers check the ALPS-treated water for radioactive materials before discharge.

They also collect seawater samples from monitoring points around the power station after the discharge begins.

“Each time, the results have corresponded closely with our pre-discharge simulations, with levels of radioactive materials remaining well within agreed-upon safety standards,” added Mr Matsumoto, who is also corporate officer and general manager of Tepco’s Project Management Office.

The IAEA also independently monitors the tritium concentrations in each batch of treated water discharged by the nuclear power station.

The SFA and NEA told The Straits Times that tritium has not been detected in seafood imports from Japan.

But tritium is not a concern in seafood imports because it emits weak radiation, the agencies said in a joint response.

“The Japanese government has set a concentration limit for tritium at 1,500 Bq/L for the discharge of its treated nuclear wastewater and the international safety limit set by the World Health Organisation and Codex for tritium in food is 10,000 Bq/kg,” said SFA and NEA.

Mr Kazuhiro Shiono, 39, an employee at Marufuto Chokubaiten – a store selling seafood products at the Onahama Port about an hour’s drive from the nuclear plant – told The Straits Times that he was not worried about the discharge of the ALPS-treated water.

The entrance of the revitalised Onahama fish market in Fukushima on June 29. ST PHOTO: SAMUEL RUBY

“(Tepco) is releasing properly treated water in the ocean, not contaminated water. It is only water that has been properly treated. That is what the government is saying, and I’m absolutely relieved about that,” said Mr Shiono.

“If there were problems with the data, I’d be dead by now... I’ve been eating a lot of fish and giving fish to my own children,” added the father of two.
What is radioactivity?

It is the emission of radiation, a form of energy. There are two types of radiation – ionising radiation and non-ionising radiation.

Non-ionising radiation has enough energy to move atoms in a molecule around or cause them to vibrate, but not enough to remove electrons from atoms. Examples of this kind of radiation are radio waves, visible light and microwaves.

Ionising radiation has enough energy to knock electrons out of atoms. In large doses, it poses a health risk in living things as it can damage tissue and DNA in genes.
More On This Topic
Japan to consider allowing nuclear plant expansions
ST Explains: What are S-E Asia’s nuclear ambitions and why should S'pore care?


Ionising radiation in the form of alpha particles, beta particles, gamma rays or neutrons is produced by unstable forms of elements, which are the fundamental building blocks of nature.

There are some elements with no stable form that are always radioactive, such as uranium.

Ionising radiation comes from X-ray machines, cosmic particles from outer space and radioactive elements.



Thursday, August 15, 2024

Japan ends megaquake advisory on Nankai Trough disasters


Aug 15, 2024, 

TOKYO - Japan on Thursday ended its call for higher-than-usual risks of a major earthquake, one week after a strong tremor on the edge of the Nankai Trough seabed zone caused the government to issue its first-ever megaquake advisory.

Citizens can now return to normal life as no abnormalities were observed in the seismic activity of the Nankai Trough located along Japan's Pacific coast in the past week, said Yoshifumi Matsumura, the state minister for disaster management.

A Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) expert panel on Aug. 8 released an advisory that there was a "relatively higher chance" of a Nankai Trough megaquake as powerful as magnitude 9, after a magnitude-7.1 quake hit the country's southwest.


While the advisory was not a definitive prediction, the government asked residents of a wide range of western and central regions to review evacuation procedures in case of severe earthquake and tsunami disasters.

Prime Minister Fumio Kishida cancelled a diplomatic tour to Central Asia and Mongolia over the weekend to prioritise disaster management.

On Aug. 9, a magnitude-5.3 earthquake hit eastern Japan near Tokyo, but its epicentre was located outside of the Nankai Trough zone where the JMA signalled the chance of a megaquake, and the damage was small as only three mild injuries were reported.

Central Japan Railway ended its week-long precaution of reducing the speed of trains running near coastal areas, although the risk of another natural disaster, approaching Typhoon Ampil, forced the company to cancel high-speed trains connecting Tokyo and Nagoya on Friday.

Japan has predicted a 70%-80% chance of a Nankai Trough megaquake occurring in the next 30 years.

The government's worst-case scenario has estimated that a Nankai Trough megaquake and subsequent tsunami disaster could kill 323,000 people, destroy 2.38 million buildings and cause 220 trillion yen ($1.50 trillion) of economic damage.

Japan is one of the world's most earthquake-prone countries. More than 15,000 people were killed in a magnitude 9 quake in 2011 that triggered a devastating tsunami and the triple reactor meltdowns at a nuclear power plant in northeast Japan. 

REUTERS


Weeklong Japan megaquake alert ends


Public urged to remain vigilant and prepared



PUBLISHED : 15 Aug 2024
WRITER: Kyodo News

Signage showing evacuation routes from the shore in the event of an earthquake is put up at Shirahama beach in Wakayama Prefecture, as seen on Friday. (Photo: Kyodo)

KYODO - A weeklong government call for increased preparedness based on an advisory over a potential megaquake along the Pacific coast officially ended 5pm on Thursday, after no new major seismic activity was confirmed around the Nankai Trough.

The Nankai Trough megaquake advisory, the first since the system was implemented in 2017, prompted the central government and local communities to intensify disaster preparations over the past week. It also negatively impacted some tourism-related businesses during the summer holiday season.

Japan, a quake-prone nation, has long feared a magnitude 8 to 9 quake along the Nankai Trough within the next 30 years, with predictions that a wide area could be jolted and vast coastal regions engulfed by massive tsunami.

The megaquake advisory was issued just hours after a M7.1 quake rocked southwestern Japan on Aug 8, with its focus located in waters off Miyazaki Prefecture, on the western edge of the Nankai Trough.

The advisory is intended to inform the public of the higher-than-usual risk of a large-scale quake around the Nankai Trough for a week. The government is urging the public to remain vigilant and prepared, as the possibility of a major temblor has not been eliminated.

The Nankai Trough is an ocean-floor trench that runs along Japan's Pacific coast where the Eurasian and Philippine Sea tectonic plates meet.



The Japan Meteorological Agency stated that as of Wednesday, it had detected no seismic activity indicating any concerning changes in the presumed area where the megaquake could originate.

According to the Cabinet Office, the advisory has been applied to 707 municipalities across 29 prefectures where strong shaking and large tsunami are expected in the event of a major quake.

The government estimates that, in a worst-case scenario, a megaquake in the Nankai Trough could result in over 200 trillion yen (UScopy.36 trillion) in damage.

A M9.0 earthquake with an epicentre near land would increase the damage due to the collapse of housing and infrastructure, as well as reduced business activity.

Kuroshio in Kochi Prefecture, western Japan, where a 34-metre tsunami is expected in the event of a megaquake, responded to the advisory by establishing a disaster response headquarters and increasing the number of disaster response staff.

According to the prefecture, over 100 evacuation centres have been established, with up to 63 people having sought refuge.

Some beaches in western and southwestern Japan that were closed for swimming following last week's quake have reopened.

History shows that a major earthquake around the Nankai Trough occurs every 100 to 150 years. About 80 years have passed since the most recent.

The quake that devastated northeastern Japan on March 11, 2011, triggered massive tsunami and led to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster. It registered a M9.0, the strongest earthquake ever recorded in Japan.

Thursday, August 08, 2024

Japan’s PM cancels overseas trip after experts issue ‘megaquake’ warning


The Japan Meteorological Agency has issued its first-ever warning of the risk of a huge earthquake along the Pacific coast



Justin McCurry in Tokyo and agencies
Fri 9 Aug 2024

Japan’s prime minister, Fumio Kishida, has cancelled a visit to central Asia this weekend after experts warned that the risk of a “megaquake” occurring off the country’s Pacific coast had increased following Thursday’s magnitude 7.1 earthquake in the south-west.

Kishida, who is battling low approval ratings and faces challenges to his leadership in a ruling party presidential election next month, announced his decision at a press conference on Friday.


Tokyo braces for another ‘big one’ on 100th anniversary of deadly quake


He had been due to hold a summit with the leaders of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan in the Kazakh capital Astana on Friday evening and to meet the Mongolian president in Ulaanbaatar on Monday, according to the Kyodo news agency.

The Japan Meteorological Agency on Thursday issued its first-ever warning of the risk of a huge earthquake along the Pacific coast after a quake on the southernmost main island of Kyushu triggered a tsunami warning. No deaths or major damage have been reported.


The agency’s warning that the risk of a huge earthquake occurring along the Nankai Trough was higher than usual does not mean that a quake will definitely occur in the coming days. Public broadcaster NHK said Kishida’s overseas trip had been cancelled so that he could prepare for any eventuality.

The meteorological agency’s megaquake advisory warned that “if a major earthquake were to occur in the future, strong shaking and large tsunamis would be generated”.

It added: “The likelihood of a new major earthquake is higher than normal, but this is not an indication that a major earthquake will definitely occur during a specific period of time.”

The advisory concerns the Nankai Trough “subduction zone” between two tectonic plates in the Pacific Ocean, where massive earthquakes have hit in the past.

The 800-kilometre (500-mile) undersea trough runs from Shizuoka, west of Tokyo, to the southern tip of Kyushu and has been the site of destructive earthquakes of magnitude 8 or 9 every 100 to 200 years.

These so-called “megathrust quakes”, which often occur in pairs, have unleashed dangerous tsunamis along the southern coast of Japan, one of the world’s most seismically active countries.

In 1707, all segments of the Nankai Trough ruptured at once, unleashing an earthquake that remains the nation’s second-most powerful on record after the March 2011 earthquake along the north-east coast.

That quake triggered a tsunami that killed more than 18,000 people and led to a triple meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

Although it is impossible to predict the precise timing of earthquakes – apart from automated warnings that a quake could occur within seconds – government experts believe there is a 70% to 80% chance of an megaquake measuring magnitude 8 or 9 happening around the trough in the next 30 years.

In the worst-case scenario, the disaster would kill 300,000 people, with some experts estimating a financial hit as high as $13tn.

“The history of great earthquakes at Nankai is convincingly scary,” geologist Kyle Bradley and Judith A Hubbard wrote in their Earthquake Insights newsletter, but added that there was no need for the public to panic.

There was only a “small probability” that Thursday’s quake was a foreshock, Bradley and Hubbard wrote, adding: “One of the challenges is that even when the risk of a second earthquake is elevated, it is still always low.”

Monday, August 05, 2024

Nuclear threats are increasing – here’s how the US should prepare for a nuclear event


Cham Dallas, University of Georgia
Sun, August 4, 2024 
THE CONVERSATION

A visitor to the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum views a photo of the aftermath of the 1945 bombing. Carl Court/Getty Images


Because several generations have passed since the atomic bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki – the only use of nuclear weapons in warfare – some may think the threat from nuclear weapons has receded. But international developments, including nuclear threats from Russia in the war in Ukraine, have brought a broader awareness of the vulnerability to global peace from nuclear events.

I’ve been studying the effects of nuclear events – from detonations to accidents – for over 30 years. This has included my direct involvement in research, teaching and humanitarian efforts in multiple expeditions to Chernobyl- and Fukushima-contaminated areas. Now I am involved in the proposal for the formation of a Nuclear Global Health Workforce, which I proposed in 2017.

Such a group could bring together nuclear and nonnuclear technical and health professionals for education and training, and help to meet the preparedness, coordination, collaboration and staffing requirements necessary to respond to a large-scale nuclear crisis.


What would this workforce need to be prepared to manage? For that we can look back at the legacy of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as nuclear accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima.

The Hiroshima Prefecture Industrial Promotion Hall after the blast. Maarten Heerlien/Flickr, CC BY-SA


What happens when a nuclear device is detonated over a city?

Approximately 135,000 and 64,000 people died, respectively, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The great majority of deaths happened in the first days after the bombings, mainly from thermal burns, severe physical injuries and radiation.

The great majority of doctors and nurses in Hiroshima were killed and injured, and therefore unable to assist in the response. This was largely due to the concentration of medical personnel and facilities in inner urban areas. This exact concentration exists today in the majority of American cities, and is a chilling reminder of the difficulty in medically responding to nuclear events.

What if a nuclear device were detonated in an urban area today? I explored this issue in a 2007 study modeling a nuclear weapon attack on four American cities. As in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the majority of deaths would happen soon after the detonation, and the local health care response capability would be largely eradicated.

Models show that such an event in an urban area in particular will not only destroy the existing public health protections but will, most likely, make it extremely difficult to respond, recover and rehabilitate them.

Very few medical personnel today have the skills or knowledge to treat the kind and the quantity of injuries a nuclear blast can cause. Health care workers would have little to no familiarity with the treatment of radiation victims. Thermal burns would require enormous resources to treat even a single patient, and a large number of patients with these injuries will overwhelm any existing medical system. There would also be a massive number of laceration injuries from the breakage of virtually all glass in a wide area.

Officials in protective gear check for signs of radiation on children who are from the evacuation area near the Fukushima Daini nuclear plant in Koriyama in this March 13, 2011 photo. Reuters/Kim Kyung-Hoon/Files


Getting people out of the blast and radiation contamination zones

A major nuclear event would create widespread panic, as large populations would fear the spread of radioactive materials, so evacuation or sheltering in place must be considered.

For instance, within a few weeks after the Chernobyl accident, more than 116,000 people were evacuated from the most contaminated areas of Ukraine and Belarus. Another 220,000 people were relocated in subsequent years.

The day after the Fukushima earthquake and tsunami, over 200,000 people were evacuated from areas within 20 kilometers (12 miles) of the nuclear plant because of the fear of the potential for radiation exposure.

The evacuation process in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Japan was plagued by misinformation, inadequate and confusing orders and delays in releasing information. There was also trouble evacuating everyone from the affected areas. Elderly and infirm residents were left in areas near radioactive contamination, and many others moved unnecessarily from uncontaminated areas (resulting in many deaths from winter conditions). All of these troubles lead to a loss of public trust in the government.

However, an encouraging fact about nuclear fallout (and not generally known) is that the actual area that will receive dangerous levels of radioactive fallout is actually only a fraction of the total area in a circle around the detonation zone. For instance, in a hypothetical low-yield (10 kiloton) nuclear bomb over Washington, D.C., only limited evacuations are planned. Despite projections of 100,000 fatalities and about 150,000 casualties, the casualty-producing radiation plume would actually be expected to be confined to a relatively small area. (Using a clock-face analogy, the danger area would typically take up only a two-hour slot on the circle around the detonation, dictated by wind: for example, 2-4 o'clock.)

People upwind would not need to take any action, and most of those downwind, in areas receiving relatively small radiation levels (from the point of view of being sufficient to cause radiation-related health issues), would need to seek only “moderate shelter.” That means basically staying indoors for a day or so or until emergency authorities give further instructions.

The long-term effects of radiation exposure

The Radiation Effects Research Foundation, which was established to study the effects of radiation on survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, has been tracking the health effects of radiation for decades.

According to the Radiation Effects Research Foundation, about 1,900 excess cancer deaths can be attributed to the atomic bombs, with about 200 cases of leukemia and 1,700 solid cancers. Japan has constructed very detailed cancer screenings after Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Fukushima.

But the data on many potential health effects from radiation exposure, such as birth defects, are actually quite different from the prevailing public perception, which has been derived not from validated science education but from entertainment outlets (I teach a university course on the impact of media and popular culture on disaster knowledge).

While it has been shown that intense medical X-ray exposure has accidentally produced birth defects in humans, there is doubt about whether there were birth defects in the descendants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bomb survivors. Most respected long-term investigations have concluded there are no statistically significant increases in birth defects resulting in atomic bomb survivors.

Looking at data from Chernobyl, where the release of airborne radiation was 100 times as much as Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, there is a lack of definitive data for radiation-induced birth defects.

A wide-ranging WHO study concluded that there were no differences in rates of mental retardation and emotional problems in Chernobyl radiation-exposed children compared to children in control groups. A Harvard review on Chernobyl concluded that there was no substantive proof regarding radiation-induced effects on embryos or fetuses from the accident. Another study looked at the congenital abnormality registers for 16 European regions that received fallout from Chernobyl and concluded that the widespread fear in the population about the possible effects of radiation exposure on the unborn fetus was not justified.

Indeed, the most definitive Chernobyl health impact in terms of numbers was the dramatic increase of elective abortions near and at significant distances from the accident site.

In addition to rapid response and evacuation plans, a Nuclear Global Health Workforce could help health care practitioners, policymakers, administrators and others understand myths and realities of radiation. In the critical time just after a nuclear crisis, this would help officials make evidence-based policy decisions and help people understand the actual risks they face.

What’s the risk of another Hiroshima or Nagasaki?


Today, the risk of a nuclear exchange – and its devastating impact on medicine and public health worldwide – has only escalated compared to previous decades. Nine countries are known to have nuclear weapons, and international relations are increasingly volatile. The U.S. and Russia are heavily investing in the modernization of their nuclear stockpiles, and China, India and Pakistan are rapidly expanding the size and sophistication of their nuclear weapon capabilities. The developing technological sophistication among terrorist groups and the growing global availability and distribution of radioactive materials are also especially worrying.

In recent years, a number of government and private organizations have held meetings (all of which I attended) to devise large-scale medical responses to a nuclear weapon detonation in the U.S. and worldwide. They include the National Academy of Sciences, the National Alliance for Radiation Readiness, National Disaster Life Support Foundation, Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, and the Radiation Injury Treatment Network, which includes 74 hospitals nationwide actively preparing to receive radiation-exposed patients.

Despite the gloomy prospects of health outcomes of any large-scale nuclear event common in the minds of many, there are a number of concrete steps the U.S. and other countries can take to prepare. It’s our obligation to respond.

This article is an update to an article originally published in 2015 that includes links to more recent research and updated information on the threat of nuclear incidents. It was updated again in August 2022 to add a reference to nuclear threats related to war in Ukraine.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Cham Dallas, University of Georgia


Read more:


75 years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Vatican is providing moral guidance on nuclear weapons


A restart of nuclear testing offers little scientific value to the US and would benefit other countries


How American journalists covered the first use of the atomic bomb

Cham Dallas has received funding from: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), through the State of Georgia Division of Public Health (DPH), Georgia Emergency Preparedness (Hospital Preparedness and Ebola Emergency Training) U.S. Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR), through the State of Georgia Division of Public Health (DPH), “Georgia Hospital Emergency Preparedness Exercises” U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), through the Georgia Emergency Management Agency (GEMA), “Veterinary Medicine Training for the AMA Basic Disaster Life Support (BDLS) Curriculum United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), “FSIS/FERN Food Emergency Management Program Cooperative Agreement” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)/ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “Center for Mass Destruction Defense, a CDC Specialty Center for Public Health Preparedness” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (HRSA #BTCDP 05-080), “Bioterrorism Training and Curriculum Development Program He is affiliated with: Senator Max Cleland (D-GA); Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA); Congressman Paul Broun (R-GA); Congressman Jody Hice (R-GA)

Saturday, August 03, 2024

Slow down to save the planet, says Japan’s rock star philosopher Saito


By AFP
August 1, 2024


Kohei Saito's argument that capitalism is the root cause of climate change and we need to stop chasing growth to save the planet has struck a chord in Japan 
- Copyright AFP Philip FONG

Katie Forster

As Tokyo’s millions put in another day’s work on the coalface of capitalism, celebrity Marxist philosopher Kohei Saito and his friends are clearing rocks from a muddy mountain stream.

Saito’s core argument — that capitalism is the root cause of climate change and we need to stop chasing growth to save the planet — has struck a chord in the world’s fourth-largest economy, especially among young people.

The associate professor at the University of Tokyo has sold half a million copies of his latest book and last month spoke at music festival Fuji Rock, headlined by The Killers.

He has become a face of the global movement for “degrowth” — a word that “kind of freaks people out”, Saito told AFP as he tended to his slice of collectively owned land on the capital’s western outskirts.

“Maybe it’s not the best way to convince people, especially in America,” said the 37-year-old, whose hit title “Slow Down: The Degrowth Manifesto” came out in English this year.

But using the term is one way to “provoke or challenge” widely accepted economic principles which are leading to environmental ruin, he said.

Saito is not a member of the Japanese Communist Party and he rejects the need for top-down, Soviet-style systems.

Instead he believes in grassroots change led by projects such as Common Forest Japan, his attempt to reconnect with nature and build a democratically run community.

“Unless the left or liberal, progressive side offers a more attractive vision of the future… right-wing populism will take advantage of this crisis,” Saito said.

He is a regular TV news talk show guest, and recently made headlines for saying he was boycotting the Olympics, citing its “excessive commercialism” and “double standards” over Israel’s participation and Russia’s exclusion.

– ‘Degrowth isn’t just frugal living’ –

Saito’s calls for a world where fewer things are produced — reducing carbon emissions — and a break with overconsumption and long working hours have resonated with those disillusioned with the status quo in Japan.

The Japanese version of “Slow Down” came out in 2020, when the pandemic brought many industries to a standstill.

“I didn’t expect this was something people would be interested in, because Marx is outdated” and degrowth could sound like “some kind of negative dictatorship”, he said.

Yet coming of age after Japan’s 1980s boom years, Saito’s generation has seen decades of economic stagnation despite the pursuit of growth, he contends.

So “that kind of discussion has some attraction, especially to young people who don’t fetishise the old kind of Japanese miracle any more”.

New technologies such as electric cars, carbon capture or nuclear fusion cannot solve the climate problem in a system that is always seeking greater profit, Saito said.

Banning private jets and “excessive public advertisements” as well as “introducing a much more radical wealth tax” could be a starting point instead.

“But I also want to emphasise that degrowth is not simply about giving up everything and living in frugality,” said Saito.

It’s about challenging capitalism’s sense of “scarcity” that makes people insecure about the future — a stress they try to overcome with shopping and other intensive consumption which in turn “destroys the planet”.

– ‘No greedy behaviour’ –

On the mountainside, the slim, round-spectacled philosopher, his wife and two children, and around 20 others climbed up the stream’s banks, home to worms and wild mushrooms.

They moved stones and branches to allow the water to flow more easily, trying to reduce the risk of landslides.

Although his ideas could sound far-fetched to minds “almost dominated by the logic of capital”, Saito says the forest project exemplifies a society where there is “no greedy behaviour — because it doesn’t make sense”.

Growing up in Tokyo, Saito wasn’t much of a hiker and his parents weren’t political.

He discovered socialist thinkers like Noam Chomsky as a teenager interested in his “criticism of American imperialism”. Years later, Japan’s 2011 tsunami and Fukushima nuclear disaster brought home “the unsustainable relationship between humans and nature”.

While pursuing his PhD in Berlin, Saito investigated Marx’s take on ecology in the German’s notebooks from his later years.

The idea of degrowth dates back to the 1970s, but has gained traction recently with a slew of new books including “Less Is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World” by economic anthropologist Jason Hickel.

Saito makes clear in “Slow Down” that for now his ideas only apply to the world’s rich countries, which are disproportionately responsible for climate change.

Despite being a keen observer of local politics, as a philosopher, he says tricky decisions, like how much new infrastructure is too much, are not his to make.

“I’m not a good politician. Because politics is about compromise, right?”

Re

Thursday, August 01, 2024

FREE PAUL WATSON

Japan asks Denmark to extradite anti-whaling activist Paul Watson

Denmark announced Thursday that it has received Japan's extradition request for anti-whaling activist Paul Watson, who was arrested in Greenland last month on an international arrest warrant. Watson, the 73-year-old founder of Sea Shepherd, is facing charges related to a 2010 confrontation with Japanese whaling ships, raising concerns over his potential extradition and the motivations behind Japan's request.



Issued on: 01/08/2024 - 

File photo of NGO Sea Shepherd Conservation Society founder, Paul Watson of Canada, posing on board of the "Brigitte Bardot", a Sea Shepherd multihull moored in Paris, on January 15, 2015. 
© Loic Venance, AFP

By:NEWS WIRES

Denmark's justice ministry said Thursday that it had received Japan's extradition request for anti-whaling activist Paul Watson, who was detained in Greenland last month on an international arrest warrant.

Watson, the 73-year-old American-Canadian founder of the Sea Shepherd activist group, was arrested on July 21 in Greenland, an autonomous Danish territory, over a 2010 altercation with Japanese whaling ships.

Watson, who featured in the reality TV series "Whale Wars", founded Sea Shepherd and the Captain Paul Watson Foundation (CPWF), and is known for direct action tactics including confrontations with whaling ships at sea.

"The Ministry of Justice received a formal extradition request regarding Paul Watson from the Japanese authorities yesterday," the ministry told AFP in an email.

It said it would forward the case to Greenland police, "unless the ministry on the present basis finds grounds to reject the extradition request beforehand".

If the case is forwarded to Greenland police, they will investigate "whether there is basis for extradition", including whether it is in accordance with the extradition act applicable to Greenland, the ministry said.

But the ultimate decision on Watson's extradition will be made by Denmark's justice ministry, it added.

A custody hearing will be held in Greenland on August 15, pending a Danish decision on the extradition request.



'Personal vendetta'


Watson was arrested after arriving in Nuuk, Greenland's capital, when the ship John Paul DeJoria docked to refuel.

The vessel was on its way to "intercept" a new Japanese whaling factory vessel in the North Pacific, according to the CPWF.

One of the activist's lawyers, Francois Zimeray, said he was "not surprised" by the extradition request.

"Japan has a personal vendetta against Paul Watson, and this so-called offence is the pretext for revenge against a man who defied and therefore humiliated them," Zimeray told AFP.

He said an extradition to Japan would be a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, since "the country does not respect international standards on fair trials and prisons."

Watson was arrested on the basis of an Interpol "Red Notice" issued in 2012, when Japan accused him of causing damage and injury to one of its whaling ships in the Antarctic two years earlier.

He faces a charge of causing injury, which can carry up to 15 years in prison or a fine of up to 500,000 yen ($3,300).

He also faces a charge of forcible obstruction of business, which carries a penalty of up to three years in prison or a fine up to 500,000 yen.

Japan is one of only three countries in the world to permit commercial whaling, along with Iceland and Norway.

'No regrets'

Watson's wife on Thursday appealed to Denmark's King Frederik X and Queen Mary to secure his release.

"Please, Denmark, release Paul!" Yana Watson posted on Facebook, posting pictures of him with their two young sons.

"He has diabetes Type 1. Japanese prison will be lethal for him," she said.

Earlier this week, the head of the French branch of Sea Shepherd said Watson did not regret his actions despite the risk of extradition.

"Paul is doing well, he is in good spirits. He has no regrets," Lamya Essemlali said in a statement after visiting Watson in custody on Monday.

French President Emmanuel Macron's office has asked Danish authorities not to extradite Watson, who has lived in France for the past year.

Read moreFrance urges against anti-whaling activist Watson's extradition to Japan

A French online petition urging Macron to demand Watson's liberation has garnered more than 675,000 signatures, while another Sea Shepherd France petition urging Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen not to extradite Watson had almost 27,000 signatures as of Thursday.

Famed environmentalist and primatologist Jane Goodall has also called for his release, saying he was "simply taking action to try to prevent the inhumane practice of killing whales, which most countries have banned decades ago".

(AFP)


Paul Watson Nabbed in Greenland


 
 August 1, 2024
Facebook

Photo taken by Don Kimball outside the German Consulate in NYC in 2011 demanding Captain Watson’s release.

Captain Paul Watson, a co-founder of Greenpeace and the founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS), has been in jail in Nuuk, Greenland for over a week, after federal police from Copenhagen, Denmark boarded his vessel, the John Paul Dejoria, while it attempted to dock and refuel enroute to the Northwest Passage. Its mission was to intercept the new long-range Japanese whaler Kanjei Maru. Sailing under the flag of St. Kitts, Watson, an American-Canadian Citizen, and his crew of 25 volunteers were swarmed by 14 Danish SWAT team officers as they took the captain away in handcuffs on an arrest warrant from the Japanese government.

Watson, an environmental and animal rights icon and star of the Animal Planet TV series “Whale Wars”, speaking on Monday, July 29 from his cellblock in Nuuk where he is being held without bail, said there are no problems in the cellblock that he shares with 9 other prisoners. Watson noted that eight, of them were Inuit, the indigenous peoples who are the majority of the population of Greenland, and have been inhabiting the island since 2000 BCE. When questioned why Japan would go to such lengths to have him arrested and detained he called the charges, “politically motivated”, and that, “he embarrassed Japan, and this is their revenge.”

For years, under Watson’s iron hand and steel will, the SSCS fleet of converted cargo ships and trawlers, equipped with a helicopter, harassed illegal Japanese whaleling operations in the Antarctic Ocean. Watson said the whalers harpooned as many as 6,500 whales for what the Japanese call “scientific experiments”. Watson has lawyers working his case from all over the world, including one from France where he lives (in a boat of course) on the Seine River with his wife and child. Watson lamented that he would have had a first class seat for the Opening Ceremonies of the Olympics, if it hadn’t been for Danish cooperation is apprehending him on trumped-up charges of conspiracy to trespass on a Japanese whaler, or something akin to elevated-aggravated teasing. He also said that additional frivolous charges may be forthcoming from the scary samurai’s of the sea.

Watson believes that Japan wants to “shut him up”, and not just about their illegal whaling operations, but for his outspoken criticism about the continued failures by the Japanese government and the corporation TEPCO after the nuclear disaster there in 2011. Clean-up costs have already surpassed $200 billion according to the National Institute of Health’s, National Library of Medicine and National Center for Biotechnology Information. TEPCO is now intentionally dumping water used for cooling the reactors and laced with Tritium into the Pacific, some 13 after the meltdown of the three reactors at the Fukushima Daichi nuclear power plant. Paul said, similar to fears Julian Assange had of being extradited from England to the US, for his courageous but sometimes controversial actions, that if he is taken to Japan, “he may never see home again.”

Numerous calls to the Danish consulate in Washington, DC, Chicago, Il, NYC and Los Angeles, CA inquiring as to when Denmark would release Captain Watson on bail, went unanswered. Watson, because of his non-compromising position against whale hunting, has been in this precarious position before. Held in Germany in 2011, on similar charges of little merit, he escaped German custody and spent six months in exile avoiding apprehension.

Watson has France’s President Emmanuel Macron, movie star Bridget Bardot and world renowned Ethologist Jane Goodall calling for his release. It was France’s Secret Service that sank Greenpeace’s anti-nuclear sailboat, the, Rainbow Warrior in Auckland, NZ in 1985 when they placed a bomb on board, killing one of the crew.

Watson was “forced out” of the SSCS in 2022, but still has ties with the French and Brazil chapters. Now operated by property mangers from Florida, Watson said the substantial donation to the SSCS from life-long animal activist, philanthrope and beloved TV personality, the late Bob Barker, is a big point of contention. He called what happened, “a hostile takeover”, of the SSCS. He now has his own foundation, the Captain Paul Watson Foundation, calling themselves, “Neptune’s Pirates”.

Paul said there will be a hearing by the High Court of Greenland on August 15th to determine if the case would proceed, and says that if it does he could still appeal the ruling in Denmark itself. He asks his supporters to put pressure on the Danish government to release him immediately as his actions to defend whales from being hunted down by Japanese whalers is wholly justified as it has been illegal to hunt whales since the International Whaling Commission ruling banned it in 1986.




Wednesday, July 31, 2024

Bedford Metals secures uranium permit for Ubiquity Lake

Canadian junior Bedford Metals  has secured an exploration permit for its Ubiquity Lake uranium project in northern Saskatchewan, Canada. 


By Cecilia Jamasmie of Mining.com July 30, 2024 

Yellowcake from Rabbit Lake mine. (Image courtesy of Cameco.)

Canadian junior Bedford Metals (TSX-V: BFM) has secured an exploration permit for its Ubiquity Lake uranium project in northern Saskatchewan, Canada.

The licence allows Bedford to start field activities to validate the targets identified in previous surveys.

The planned prospecting program will include investigating and mapping historic showings and target zones identified through successive geophysical programs, the company said.

Given the project’s proximity to the southern tip of the Athabasca Basin, the Vancouver-based company is pursuing an exploration model similar to Fission’s Patterson Lake South deposit and NexGen’s Arrow deposit.

Bedford Metals is simultaneously advancing its Close Lake uranium project, located on the eastern side of the Athabasca Basin, by claims held by Cameco (TSX: CCO) (NYSE: CCJ), the world’s second largest uranium producer.

The granting of the exploration permit for Bedford comes amid favourable market conditions. Uranium contract prices have reached over 16-year highs due to supply uncertainty and increased demand from utilities seeking to secure the radioactive fuel to rapidly expand their capacity to power growing AI data centres.

Term prices are now around $79 per pound, the highest since 2008, and are expected to increase further in the coming months.

The commodity, which fuels nuclear reactors, has benefitted from renewed interest in building global nuclear capacity. This is partly due to the push to switch to greener power sources, but also a consequence of inflationary pressure.

Prices may not last this high, analysts say, as Kazatomprom, the world’s largest uranium miner, is set to resume full production next year. The move will end production cuts adopted during uranium’s prolonged bear market following the Fukushima nuclear disaster.

Cameco is looking to ramp up its McArthur River operation in Canada. This will add a further 6,900 tonnes of uranium to the global feedstock.

Other important actors are also increasing output. Australia’s Paladin (ASX: PDN) announced first commercial production from the Langer Heinrich uranium mine in Namibia in April, after having the mine idled for six years.

The good news is that the International Atomic Energy Agency predicts that global demand for uranium will exceed 100,000 tonnes per year by 2040. This is more than double the present worldwide production.

Currently, two-thirds of the world’s uranium comes from Kazakhstan, Canada and Australia.

Sunday, July 28, 2024

 More Nuclear Reactors? Deceptive Tunes from the Pied Piper of Vienna


 
 July 26, 2024
Facebook

Image by Lukáš Lehotský.

Rafael Grossi, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Director General, has been busy over the last few years. The media has often reported on his efforts to highlight “the risk of a major nuclear accident” at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant. Grossi has also met with Russian President Vladimir Putin twice to discuss the situation at Zaporizhzhia, arguing that a “severe nuclear accident…would recognize no borders” and “we must do everything possible to prevent” such an accident.

But Grossi has also simultaneously been increasing the risk of accidents, albeit inadvertently, by calling for building more nuclear reactors. This advocacy takes many forms. He has written op-eds in prominent outlets like Foreign Affairs. He has been trying to canvas countries to start nuclear power programs. For example, in March 2024. he went to Baghdad and committed to working with Iraq to help build a nuclear reactor “for peaceful purposes”. And as a way to deal with the unaffordable costs of nuclear reactors, he has pushed the World Bank and Asian Development Bank to provide funding for building nuclear plants.

None of this make sense. When viewed as investment advice to banks, Grossi’s promotion of nuclear power does not meet the laugh threshold. According to Grossi, the banks’ lack of funding for nuclear energy is “out of date, out of step with what is happening”. But it is Grossi’s advocacy that is out of step with happening to nuclear energy in the real world.

When nuclear energy is evaluated through how much it contributes to the world’s electricity production, the technology has been declining continuously for over 25 years, from 17.5 percent in 1996 down to 9.2 percent in 2022. For reasons discussed later, this trend will likely continue. In other words, the importance of nuclear energy is diminishing. Investing more money into a technology that some scholars argue is “destined for decline” makes little sense.

When analyzing Grossi’s advice to these development banks, one should remember what these institutions are supposed to do. The World Bank’s mission is “to end extreme poverty and boost prosperity on a livable planet”. And the Asian Development Bank has a similar mission, with a regional focus on Asia and the Pacific. The World Bank’s mission, in particular, mentions the multiple, intertwined crises we are confronting and emphasizes both the need for “affordable energy” and how quickly these crises should be addressed, stating “time is of the essence”. Nuclear energy fails on both counts.

Expensive and Slow

Electricity from nuclear reactors is costly and does not provide affordable energy, especially when compared to other low-carbon, renewable sources of energy. During the same period mentioned earlier, the share of all electricity generated by modern renewables has risen from just over 1 percent of in 1996 to 15.9 percent in 2023. Today, it is utility-scale solar photovoltaic power that provides the least costly option for generating electricity plants in many countries. This is why, in 2020, the International Energy Agency dubbed solar “the new king of the world’s electricity markets”. Money spent on nuclear reactors by banks would only divert funds away from investing in renewables and associated technologies and infrastructures.

Nuclear reactors have also almost never been on time. An astonishing 89 percent of all reactors that were connected to the grid between 2020 and 2022 were delayed: just two reactors in China were on schedule. In the United States, the two AP1000 reactors that just started operating in the state of Georgia ended up costing nearly $35 billion. In 2011, when the utility company building the reactor sought permission from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, it projected a total cost of $14 billion, and “in-service dates of 2016 and 2017” for the two units. These cost escalations and delays are even more extreme than the historical pattern identified in an academic study that examined 180 nuclear power projects and found that 175 had exceeded their initial budgets, by an average of 117%, and took 64% longer than initially projected

That is not all. Around the world, 92 nuclear projects have been cancelled or suspended, usually after hundreds of millions, if not billions, have been spent. In the United States, the latest such cancellation was a project involving a small modular reactor from NuScale that the company advertised as “smaller, safer, and cheaper”. Cheaper, it certainly wasn’t, with a final cost estimate that was around 250% more than the initial per megawatt cost for the Vogtle project in Georgia. The earlier cancellation, of the V. C. Summer project involving two AP1000 reactors in South Carolina, was canceled after over $9 billion was spent—electricity consumers in the state will be paying for decades for this bad investment.

Necessary Conditions for Nuclear Power

It is not as though development banks have not considered nuclear energy. Back in 1959, the World Bank did invest in a nuclear project in Italy, based on a set of conditions, most importantly the unavailability of other cost-competitive alternatives. That project was not a success. More important for the present discussion is that with the reduced cost and increasing availability of solar and wind power, nuclear power no longer meets these conditions to be cost-effective.

The Asian Development Bank (ADB), too, undertook an analysis of various technologies and published an Energy Policy paper in 2009 that highlighted a number of barriers confronting nuclear power development, including “public concerns related to nuclear proliferation, waste management, safety issues, high investment costs, long lead times, and commercial acceptability of new technologies”. Thanks to these concerns, the paper declared that “ADB will maintain its current policy of non-involvement in the financing of nuclear power generation”. None of these barriers have disappeared.

The challenge of ensuring safety was reinforced just two years after the ADB’s paper when multiple reactors at the Fukushima Daichi nuclear plant melted down spreading radioactive materials widely, and posing difficult technical, socio-political and economical challenges: including an estimated future bill of 35 to 80 trillion yen (around $322 to $736 billion). Fukushima served as a reminder that the nature of nuclear technology ensures “the inevitability of accidents”.

The Unlearned Lessons of Zaporizhzhia

A different route to a severe nuclear accident is on display at the Zaporizhzhia power plant—and Grossi has been eloquent about how such an accident will “have ripples and reverberations all over the world”. But instead of considering Zaporizhzhia as a wake-up call to reflect on whether the world should continue to build more nuclear power plants, Grossi has taken recourse to advocating for five principles of nuclear safety and security. Unfortunately for him these rules are unlikely to be widely accepted—as evidenced by the many attacks on the Zaporizhzhia plant.

This is not for lack of precedence. Well before Russia occupied Zaporizhzhia, Israel bombed Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981 and, then in 2007, bombed the Al-Kibar nuclear facility where Syria was building a reactor. Iran and the United States have also attacked Iraq’s nuclear facilities. None of the attackers faced any consequences.

Grossi’s principles and calls for new regimes might also contradict other imperatives. In a recent paper published in The Nonproliferation Review, two scholars have examined the history of such attacks in detail and concluded that “attacks on nuclear facilities endure as a feature of the global nonproliferation regime because the international community—or at least some of the most influential members of the community—deem them a necessary option for the maintenance of that regime”. In other words, Zaporizhzhia is unlikely to be the last nuclear plant at risk of being attacked.

None of this information is new but they don’t appear to play any part in Grossi’s advocacy for nuclear energy. When advising the World Bank to invest in nuclear power, he doesn’t explain that the tens of billions of dollars the Bank might invest in a nuclear reactor could, within a matter of minutes, be converted into a cleanup project that would cost hundreds of billions. Or explaining to Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni that the small modular reactors he recommended that Italy build could be blown up and the result might, as with Zaporizhzhia, cause “enormous suffering”.

Grossi’s silence about this risk should be troubling at the best of times. But it is particularly inexcusable when he is, in parallel, emphasizing the risks of suffer a major accident at the Zaporizhzhia power plant. When he went to Iraq recently, he actively downplayed the legitimate concerns in that country thanks to its nuclear reactors being bombed by Israel and the United States. Grossi’s prescription is to simply call for “turning the page on this complex past”. Can he genuinely and credibly assure Iraq that such an attack will not happen again?

The deeper problem is a conflict of interest. As the head of the International Atomic Energy, Rafael Grossi, like his predecessors, tasked with two separate objectives: “to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world” and to “ensure, so far as it is able, that assistance provided by it or at its request or under its supervision or control is not used in such a way as to further any military purpose”. The case for promoting nuclear energy was never very strong and has completely collapsed in recent years. It is past time to simply abandon the first objective and focus on the second.

M. V. Ramana is the Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security and Professor at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, University of British Columbia. He is the author of The Power of Promise: Examining Nuclear Energy in India (Penguin Books, 2012) and “Nuclear is not the Solution: The Folly of Atomic Power in the Age of Climate Change” (Verso books, 2024). Jixiang Wang works at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, University of British Columbia, Vancouver and is a policy analyst at the BC Council for International Cooperation. She can be reached on LinkedIn.


The ADVANCE Act: a Bipartisan Surrender to the Nuclear Lobby


 

Facebook

Image by Viktor Kiryanov.

With the passing of the ADVANCE Act (S870, section B), or the Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy Act, the nuclear lobby has seized our democratic processes and co-opted the climate movement with pervasive lies and profit grabbing. The bipartisan support of the bill arose through widespread corruption, coupled with a nearsighted fantasy of innovation. The already-underregulated nuclear industry has now obtained the legislative means to sacrifice a survivable future for all living things.

Senate Bill 870 was passed “to authorize appropriations for the United States Fire Administration and Fire Fighter Assistance grant programs, [and] to advance the benefits of nuclear energy”. It is evident that the latter clause, and the 93 page ADVANCE Act, was included in the non-contentious 3 page Fire Grants and Safety bill because as a stand-alone bill, it did not garner widespread support. The ADVANCE Act irresponsibly changed the NRC’s regulatory emphasis of public health, safety and environmental protection to a promotional emphasis; “fast tracking” commercial reactors and “updating” reactor licensing regulations which “do NOT limit civilian use (of nuclear power).” With little debate and without public testimony, this nuclear energy legislation passed the Senate by a vote of 88-2 and passed the House by a vote of 393-13. The imprudent decision to pass this bill is unconscionable for reasons detailed here.

1. The decision to combine incompatible mission statements into one agency is bureaucratically and financially untenable. While the Advance Act purports to preserve the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) existing mission of protecting public health, safety and the environment, the act contradicts that mission by mandating the NRC to promote nuclear energy and to “fast track” nuclear licensing regulations. This double mission of protection and promotion is paradoxical and illogical. This conflict is why, in 1974 the U.S. dissolved the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and created the NRC as an independent agency to regulate commercial nuclear power, with oversight of public health, safety and the environment. Nuclear promotion and advancement was delegated to the Department of Energy (DoE). These conflicting missions were unacceptable in 1974 and are still unacceptable today.

2. The ADVANCE Act ignores the crisis of pervasive radioactive contamination impacting our country and the imminent threat of widespread catastrophe. It is indisputable that building more nuclear reactors correlates to higher contamination and nuclear disasters. The NRC ought to enforce stringent regulatory processes, but it does not enforce regulations to ensure that existing nuclear energy infrastructure can withstand the increase in natural hazards as a result of climate change. This gap in regulatory standards will be compounded with the consequences of changing the NRCs mission to “advance the benefits of nuclear energy” as the agency will face insufficient funding and infrastructure.

No entity in the United States has the resources to administer a response to a nuclear disaster. On July 1, 2024, the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) signed a Memorandum of Understanding that exonerates the NRC from responsibility to respond to a nuclear disaster. However, FEMA does not currently have a nuclear response division, and it has already faced budget cuts and staff shortages, all while natural disasters continue to increase at an alarming rateAdditionally, the recent 40 year extension to the Price-Anderson Act (PAA) does not hold the nuclear industry comprehensively liable for a nuclear disaster. According to Beyond Nuclear, “PAA renewal limits the nuclear industries collective cost to just over $16 billion per accident – leaving federal taxpayers liable for the remaining compensation costs.” For comparison, the cost of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster is estimated to exceed $200 billion. No insurance company has adequate fiscal reserves to offer coverage to homeowners for nuclear disasters. Thus, in addition to threatening the survival of all living things, the ADVANCE Act places the economic burden of a nuclear catastrophe onto the public.

Due to the entire life cycle of producing nuclear energy—including uranium mining, milling, conversion to HF6, centrifuge enrichment, deconversion, fuel fabrication, reactor operations, decommissioning, and spent fuel storage—there have been and continue to be widespread adverse health outcomes. The nuclear industry is an affront to our existing water crisis which will become worse if there is an increase in nuclear power facilities. Nuclear reactors are typically sited on lakes, rivers, and oceans. Water cooled reactors consume between 30 million to 3 billion gallons of water per day, and routinely discharge and release thermal pollution (hot water and hot radioactive particles) into these waterways, devastating marine and ocean ecosystemsTritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, is the most common element routinely released by nuclear power plants in the form of tritiated water and tritiated vapor (which can result in radioactive rainfall). Between 1990-2017, radioactive leaks were found at 70% of nuclear power plants in the United States. These leaks included cesium-137, which causes radiation sickness and cancer, strontium-90, (nicknamed “bone seeker”) which causes bone cancers, and tritium which causes cancers and birth defects. The impending bioaccumulation of tritium and other radioactive isotopes in U.S. waterways will also result in economic loss, in particular for fishing and agriculture dependent communities. Regardless of any reactor models, without the rigorous oversight of a federal regulatory entity, this industry will continue to harm our environment and livelihoods on a daily basis.

3. Research shows that radiation impacts are gender disproportionate. According to biologist Mary Olson, with equal exposure, girls between the ages of birth to five years suffer from cancer at a rate seven times higher than adult menFetuses, and pregnant people are also at heightened risk. When ingested as water, tritium can penetrate a placenta and cause miscarriages and birth defects. However, current NRC standards do not take into consideration non-cancer causing harms to a pregnant person and the fetus when determining regulatory standards. The NRC determines the threshold level of radiation exposure based on “Reference Man”, an adult Caucasian male whose height, weight, anatomy and physiology place “him” in the prime of life. This ideal excludes the majority of Americans, placing more vulnerable individuals and populations at risk and ignoring Tribal Sovereignty, racial and gender equity. Expanding the nuclear industry and accelerating deployment of new reactor technologies will necessarily release more radioactive effluents, create more waste, and worsen contamination burdens and health effects. Those who do not fit within the Reference Man category, in particular children and disadvantaged genders, will bear the brunt.

4. The ADVANCE Act undermines the self-determination of Tribal Nations and creates sacrifice zones in already underserved communities. Low-income, Hispanic, and Indigenous peoples have been disproportionately harmed for generations by private and federal nuclear activities. Author Traci Brynne Voyles writes, in her book Wastelanding, that “patterns of environmental racism tell us that race has become a primary way by which those landscapes of extraction and pollution… are excluded from or ignored by the regulatory protection of the state”. Facilities that constitute the entire nuclear fuel chain are commonly situated nearby communities that are already disadvantaged— the rendering of certain bodies and places as dispensable and pollutable will be amplified through the programs in the ADVANCE Act.

The nuclear industry has committed egregious infractions on the self-determination of Tribal Nations through the entire fuel chain. This criminal and genocidal behavior is evident in the staggering amounts of deaths and illnesses faced by the Native Peoples as a result of the federal and private uranium mining operations: according to Leona Morgan, co-founder of the Nuclear Issues Study Group, “on the Navajo Nation alone, there are over 1100 uranium waste sites associated with approximately 520 abandoned uranium mines”. The Pinyon Plain Mine, which is situated within Havasupai Tribal Lands, reopened in 2024 due to demand by the nuclear industry, despite the Tribe’s unequivocal opposition.

The beginning of the nuclear fuel chain precludes a future with clean water. It is especially egregious to mine uranium during a water crisis in the Southwest which impacts all living things. According to a study conducted by the University of New Mexico’s Native American Budget and Policy Institute, “uranium extraction in and of itself requires vast amounts of water, and even more concerning, no uranium mining operation has ever successfully protected nearby ground or surface water from contamination.” Uranium contamination has disproportionately impacted Tribal Nations; uranium has been found in 85% of homes in the Navajo Nation, and the same study found that the bodies of every single person, including babies, had traces of uranium in their blood. This legacy compounds with the 1979 Church Rock Uranium Mill Tailings Spill which released 94 million gallons of liquid waste and 1100 tons of solid waste into the Puerco River which is the primary source of water for Diné (Navajo) Tribal Members downstream.

The U.S. has had a shameful history of genocide of Indigenous peoples: for the past 700 years Indigenous Peoples have been denied land and water rights, and for the past 60 years many have been poisoned, exploited, and manipulated by the nuclear industry. The harmful consequences of the ADVANCE Act will undoubtedly fall on the Tribal Nations whose sovereignty, spiritual systems and health have already been decimated due to nuclear extraction, exploitation, and contamination. Funding experimentation with new SMR technologies undermines the responsibility of the federal government to remediate harms, particularly as it coincides with the recent expiration (2024) of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), the outcome of the 2023 Arizona vs Navajo Nation Supreme Court ruling which denied water rights to the Navajo Nation, along with the refusal by the United States to ratify the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The compounding outcomes of these legislative failures will continue to compromise the self-determination of Tribal Nations.

5. The ADVANCE Act commits the NRC to promote and sell a myth—Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and so-called “advanced” reactors are unproven and nonexistent. If these experimental SMR designs were developed, they would create high-level radioactive waste (in the form of spent fuel) that is more lethal than the waste already produced by conventional commercial reactors. There is no solution for the permanent isolation and disposal of high-level radioactive waste. SMR designs are proposed to run on high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) fuel which would be enriched to slightly less than 20 weight percent U-235 — just below the internationally recognized value for nuclear weapons potential. Experts have pointed out that enriching reactor fuel to this level overcomes the hardest technological barrier of transforming uranium into nuclear weapons capable material, thereby increasing the likelihood of nuclear proliferation and consequently threatening global security. According to a paper written by five nuclear proliferation experts, HALEU production would “[eliminate] the sharp distinction between peaceful and nonpeaceful nuclear programs,” and would therefore dismantle the entire legal framework for nonproliferation and disarmament. The mass-production of SMRs and HALEU fuel as a result of the ADVANCE Act would diminish the credibility of the United States to uphold nonproliferation standards, and would possibly inspire a Cold War-like race to develop this dangerous and untenable technology.

HALEU would also create more lethal spent fuel and pose serious nuclear proliferation and terrorism risks. Nuclear waste expert Lindsey Krall, in a study co-authored with former NRC Chair Allison MacFarlane, wrote, “our results show that most small modular reactor (SMR) designs will actually increase the volume of nuclear waste in need of management and disposal, by factors of 2 to 30 per unit of energy generated for the reactors in our case study.” SMR’s will necessarily increase environmental and health risks, burdens and impacts from radioactive waste which will build up across generations and threaten not only those of us alive now, but future generations of Americans.

6. The massive subsidies the ADVANCE Act and other recent policies bestowed on the nuclear industry put the financial burden for extension and expansion of the nuclear industry on US taxpayers and ratepayers. The nuclear industry is selling a fantasy of economic growth as a means to harvest subsidies, extracting enormous profits with no mercy, and no federal oversight. The cost overruns at Georgia’s new Vogtle plant reactors are resulting in a 10% increase in monthly electricity bill costs for ratepayers. The total spending on the Vogtle project has already exceeded $35 billion, an astounding increase from the initial $14 billion budget, and the excess in spending is falling on customers.

Ratepayer-financed Decommissioning Trust Funds (DTF) are intended to be used for the safe dismantling of closed nuclear power plants yet are routinely misused for non-decommissioning activities, including promotional spending, restarting shuttered reactors, and preparing decommissioned plant sites for re-nuclearization in particular by Holtec International, LLC. Holtec International has already faced charges of criminal conspiracy, extortion, and bribery, in addition to raiding DTFs. However, in response to the Office of Inspector General’s Audit of the NRC’s Oversight of the Adequacy of Decommissioning Trust Funds, the NRC claimed it is unable to hold the nuclear industry accountable (including Holtec International) for upholding agreements and investment restrictions in 10 CFR 50.75. This self-admitted refusal by the NRC to to develop and implement procedures for oversight into trustee compliance is evidence of existing infrastructural incompetence. The ADVANCE Act will enable the appropriation of what could be hundreds of billions of dollars from the public by means of accelerating the licensing of costly and unproven reactor designs (with expected cost overruns), and the inevitable weakening of oversight as a result of the NRC’s changed mission. The overhaul in the NRC’s commitment to protect public health, safety, and the environment will put Americans at risk while reaching into their pockets.

7. Nuclear energy is NOT clean energy— it is the dirtiest, most dangerous, and hottest energy source. The ADVANCE Act endorses a profound lie that climate change can be solved by expediting licensing to expand the nuclear industry, encourage re-nuclearization of decommissioned sites, and “fast track” unproven reactor designs (Title II, No.4 “accelerated review process to site and construct reactors at existing nuclear sites”). To the contrary, nuclear reactors accelerate climate change through the release of Carbon 14, a radioactive isotope that reacts with oxygen in the atmosphere to create CO2, a greenhouse gas. Nuclear power will also worsen climate disruption through diverting funds away from true clean energy solutions. The White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council has concurred that nuclear power should not be included in the green energy transition.

Conventional commercial nuclear reactors take between 10 and 20 years to bring on line. We are decades away from any possible commercialization of SMRs, SMR projects have already failed, and production will not materialize before 2030. Money the DoE awards to the nuclear industry to pursue unproven SMR designs would be better allocated to truly clean renewable energy sources as a more reliable means to respond to the already-here climate crisis. The passing of the ADVANCE Act reflects a deplorable habit of capitulating to nuclear lobbyists and misdirecting public funding to the nuclear industry. This is an egregious expropriation and will impede an urgent and legitimate clean energy transition.

8. There is no existing solution to the permanent storage and disposal of radioactive waste. The Yucca Mountain Deep Geological Waste Repository project was canceled in 2010 after widespread public opposition as it is located on the Western Shoshone Nation and is prone to seismic and volcanic activity. After the closure of Yucca, the NRC was forced into a moratorium on licensing of nuclear reactors as it could not confidently presume a solution to safely storing waste. Consequently, the NRC developed a revised Waste Confidence policy to streamline licensing and relicensing of nuclear reactors which alleges that irradiated spent nuclear fuel waste may be stored at nuclear reactor sites indefinitely, which contradicts its own admissions that existing on-site storage casks will leak. The NRC Waste Confidence policy ignores the distinct characteristics of individual reactor sites and analyzes environmental impacts through sweeping generalities. It also neglects to consider the aforementioned heightened risk of natural hazards due to climate change. Despite the NRC’s claims to the contrary, high-level radioactive waste cannot remain indefinitely on environmentally unsuitable reactor sites (on potable and ecologically-vulnerable surface water, and in areas prone to earthquakes, erosion, and unstable soil conditions). The ADVANCE Act will result in the production of more waste, and more lethal waste despite the unsolved issue of identifying a permanent, site-specific, scientifically sound, and safe solution to its storage.

The NRC continues to work towards licensing centralized interim storage (CIS) facilities (temporary radioactive waste dumps) sited in eastern New Mexico and West Texas, home to already disproportionately overburdened communities. The construction of CIS sites would be illegal under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which requires that the United States identifies a permanent solution for storing high-level waste prior to any construction of a temporary site. These proposed storage facilities are the subject of a current federal court challenge. Transporting spent nuclear fuel to the proposed CIS facilities would entail thousands of shipments through unfit transportation infrastructure. In 2022 alone, there were 952 Class I freight train derailments; a single derailment of radioactive waste could result in widespread catastrophe.

A proposed solution to the waste issue endorsed by the ADVANCE Act is to reprocess nuclear waste; a chemical process to extract plutonium from spent reactor fuel. The reprocessing of fuel does not decrease the total volume of waste, it actually increases the total amount of irradiated materials that will need to be isolated and disposed of. The cost of reprocessing is also exorbitant, both in terms of the price of separating usable fissile materials, and also in terms of the inherent public health and environmental hazards. Reprocessing of spent fuel results in the stockpiling of plutonium (the primary element used in nuclear weapons), thereby increasing the aforementioned threats of proliferation.

Leaving our future generations with the existing task of dealing with over 90,000 metric tons (and growing) of nuclear waste is unconscionable. The ADVANCE Act will exacerbate the impossible: the safe, environmentally just, and permanent storage of high-level radioactive waste which will be lethal for millions of years in the future.

9. The ADVANCE Act would allow foreign entities to buy, build and operate nuclear power reactors here in the United States, and would encourage the export of American nuclear technology. Title III, No 1. of the ADVANCE Act authorizes that “rules will be modernized to reduce restrictions on international investment and issuing reactor licenses to certain foreign corporations and entities.” This compromises our resilience to the climate crisis by empowering an industry that is sincerely committed to corruption to extract uranium, expand harmful technologies, and produce radioactive waste across the globe.

Foreign licensing of nuclear reactors is unacceptable on global security grounds and it increases risks of terrorism and proliferation inherent in SMR and HALEU production. Every nuclear facility can become a target of an attack—the planes that struck the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 flew directly above the Indian Point Nuclear Reactor, awakening fear that a nuclear disaster can be the result of intentional, politically fueled violence. The vulnerability of reactors—and their link to militarism—has been made evident more recently as threats of a full-scale attack on the Zaporizhzhia Power Plant in Ukraine linger. Israel’s near-miss of two nuclear facilities in Iran in April, 2024, laid bare how any site with radioactive materials is a military strike zone. Foreign licensing of reactors and sharing of nuclear materials will no doubt be perceived as expansionist and antagonistic. The provocative intent to achieve nuclear supremacy with coalition nuclear states is hardly different from the Cold War arms race with inevitable outcome: harm to human health and the environment, and an increased threat to national and global security.

What can we do?

The ADVANCE Act will undermine the climate movement, place humans and the environment at a heightened risk, and disproportionately impact overburdened communities. There are viable, sustainable, and more just ways for the United States to inaugurate a robust and earnest commitment to climate change. Survival is not political and is not optional. In the words of the Nuclear Energy Information Service; “nothing more needs to be invented; just implemented.” The only solution to preventing nuclear reactor accidents, unsolvable waste issues, and increased threat of proliferation is to rapidly phase out nuclear power and direct resources to legitimate clean energy resources like wind and solar, energy efficiency, energy storage; all of which are cheaper, reduce carbon emissions, produce no radioactive wastes, are not vulnerable to meltdowns, and do not threaten global and national security. We need to look critically at the hidden agenda behind the so-called “nuclear revival,” and collectively refute the normalization of legislative corruption, militarism, and greenwashing.

While the ADVANCE Act may look like the final nail in the coffin, we still have the opportunity to unearth a sense of collectivity, and foreground environmental justice in the climate movement. Every piece of legislation that sustains the vestiges of human liberties and environmental protection in the United States have been enacted as a result of popular movements. Increasing public awareness of nuclear issues is a key building block to inspiring a larger movement. Environmental organizations ought to hold themselves accountable for taking a strong position against extraction and pollution of all varieties, and call for a carbon-free AND nuclear-free future.

This article was drafted through the collaborative efforts of the National Radioactive Waste Coalition (NRWC). The NRWC is a campaign of over 45 member organizations working to build a collective voice for environmental justice in national radioactive waste policy that foregrounds the needs of affected communities, and emphasizes the self-determination of Indigenous Peoples.

Mays Smithwick is a PhD student of American Studies at Yale University, and a Graduate Fellow of Environmental Humanities at the Whitney Center for the Humanities. They work with the National Radioactive Waste Coalition and the New York Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. Mays’s research and practice is informed through methods for environmental justice. Their work aims towards the total abolition of nuclear technology and more broadly, the dismantling of imperialism.
Jacqui Drechsler has been involved in environmental and human activism for the past 40 years. Jacqui is a classical flutist (who has played with folk singers Susan Reed and Pete Seeger). When her parents moved to Rockland County on the shores of the mighty and beautiful Hudson River in 1958, they had no idea a nuclear power plant was being planned at Indian Point. They were involved in the fight against nuclear power (the bomb, military and commercial nuclear power) and Jacqui carries on their legacy.


Facebook

Naomi Zoka delivers ICAN statement to the NPT PrepCom. Photo: ICAN | Seth Shelden

“Nuclear risks are on the rise. The chance of nuclear weapons use [is] higher than at any time in my—and many others in this room’s—lifetime,” said Naomi Zoka at a meeting this week of the Preparatory Committee for the Eleventh Nuclear Non-Proliferation Review Conference.

“The path to a world without nuclear weapons lies through the TPNW [Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons],” said Zoka delivering to diplomats from around the world the statement of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).

“Nuclear-armed states are launching threats faster than they are test-launching delivery systems, resulting in a less stable, less secure and more dangerous world,” said Zoka at the meeting June 23rd in Geneva, Switzerland. She is a member of Belgium’s Pax Christi Flanders.

“With Russia’s stationing of weapons in Belarus, and the continued U.S. deployment of [nuclear] weapons in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Türkiye, the NPT [Nuclear Anti-Proliferation Treaty] is failing to meet its first principles,” the ICAN statement continued.

The TPNW was adopted in 2017 by the UN General Assembly with 122 nations in favor. It bans the development, testing, production, stockpiling, stationing, transfer, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons. Some 163 nations have now either formally signed or ratified the TPNW.

“Let’s eliminate these weapons before they eliminate us,” Secretary-General Guterres has said of the TPNW, a treaty “toward our shared goal of a world free of nuclear weapons.”

In 2017, ICAN received the Nobel Peace Prize with cited its major work leading to the passage of the TPNW.

ICAN declares on its website: “Nuclear weapons are the most inhumane and indiscriminate weapons ever created. They violate international law, cause severe environmental damage, undermine national and global security, and divert vast public resources away from meeting human needs. They must be eliminated urgently.”

The so-called nuclear-armed states, which include the United States, Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom, have, however, not signed on to the TPNW.

“The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty opened for signature in 1968….A total of 191 states have joined the treaty, including the five [then acknowledged] nuclear-weapon states,” notes the website of the UN’s Office for Disarmament Affairs. More countries have ratified the NPT than any other arms limitation and disarmament agreement, a testament to the treaty’s significance.”

The NPT declares: “Considering the devastation that would be visited upon all mankind by a nuclear war and the consequent need to make every effort to avert the danger of such a war and to take measures to safeguard the security of peoples, Believing that the proliferation of nuclear weapons would seriously enhance the danger of nuclear war, In conformity with resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly calling for the conclusion of an agreement on the prevention of wider dissemination of nuclear weapons.”

The ICAN statement delivered by Zoka at NPT review meeting continued: “Despite their commitments under NPT’s Article VI, the nuclear-armed states in the NPT spent $86 billion dollars on their [nuclear] arsenals in 2023. U.S. spending accounts for 54% of the global total, at $51.5 billion, while China and Russia also spent exorbitant amounts at $11.8 billion and $8.3 billion respectively. The UK increased spending by 17% from the previous year. Across the board, every nuclear-armed state increased the amount spent on their arsenals. Meanwhile the profit-seeking private industry hires powerful lobbyists to secure billion dollar contracts to develop these weapons of mass destruction.”

It went on: “Runaway nuclear spending is increasing the risks of nuclear weapons use—as are the applications of emerging technologies to nuclear weapons command, control, communications and delivery systems. We are entering an era of AI assisted information gathering to facilitate decision making.”

“That is not the world in which we want to live. We cannot abide by policies in which one—or nine [now the number of acknowledged nuclear-armed states]…are allowed to hold the rest of the world hostage through weapons of mass destruction, because the use of those weapons knows no borders. A conflict involving nuclear weapons thousands of miles from this conference room will still cause chaos and catastrophe to all of us, our families, and our future.”

“Yet, the nuclear-armed countries are recklessly embarking on a new nuclear arms race. Every year, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, ICAN, exposes the unacceptable nuclear weapons.”

What needs to be done? Indeed, as the ICAN statement said, the “the path to a world without nuclear weapons lies through the TPNW,” and added to that was: “we invite all states to join us as we move closer to it without delay.”

Can the atomic genie be put back in the bottle? Anything people have done other people can undo. And the prospect of massive loss of life from nuclear destruction is the best of reasons.

There’s a precedent: the outlawing of chemical warfare after World War I when its terrible impacts were horrifically demonstrated, killing 90,000. The Geneva Protocol of 1925 and the Chemicals Weapons Convention of 1933 outlawed chemical warfare and to a large degree the prohibition has held.

ICAN executive director Melissa Parke has said: “Despite sceptics saying nuclear-armed states will not eliminate their nuclear weapons, it has happened before so it can happen again. South Africa got rid of its nuclear arms and is now one of the leading TPNW countries. Other states, including Brazil, Sweden, and Switzerland, had programs to develop nuclear weapons that they decided would not bring them security and abandoned them.”

There are some in the U.S., in Russia, and elsewhere who think nuclear war is winnable.

Journalist Robert Scheer wrote a book published in 1982: With Enough Shovels: Reagan, Bush & Nuclear War. The title was from T.K. Jones, a deputy undersecretary of defense, who said that with a shovel, anyone could dig a fallout shelter—”a hole in the ground with a door over the top.”

Nuclear weaponry today—79 years after the atomic-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki—involves yet more gigantic destructive power.

Take the Ohio-class U.S. ballistic missile submarines. As The National Interest describes them: “If you do the math, the Ohio-class boats may be the most destructive weapon system created by humankind. Each of the 170-meter-long vessels can carry twenty-four Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missiles which can be fired from underwater to strike at targets more than seven thousand miles away…As a Trident II reenters the atmosphere at speeds of up to Mach 24, it splits into up to eight independent reentry vehicles, each with a 100- or 475-kiloton nuclear warhead. In short, a full salvo from an Ohio-class submarine—which can be launched in less than one minute-could unleash up to 192 nuclear warheads to wipe twenty-four cities off the map. This is a nightmarish weapon of the apocalypse.”

As CNN reported this May: “President Vladimir Putin has ordered Russian forces to rehearse deploying tactical nuclear weapons, as part of military drills to respond to what he called ‘threats’ by the West. Since invading Ukraine in 2022, Putin has repeatedly made veiled threats to use tactical nuclear weapons against the West.”

“UN Secretary-General Guterres also has said: “Today, the terrifying lessons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are fading from memory….In a world rife with geopolitical tensions and mistrust, this is a recipe for annihilation. We cannot allow the nuclear weapons wielded by a handful of states to jeopardize all life on our planet. We must stop knocking at doomsday’s door.”

Abolition of nuclear weapons globally has long been a top priority of the UN. Indeed, in 1946 its first resolution—Resolution 1—adopted by consensus, called for the creation of a commission to “make specific proposals…for the elimination from national armaments of nuclear weapons.”

Karl Grossman, professor of journalism at State University of New York/College at Old Westbury, and is the author of the book, The Wrong Stuff: The Space’s Program’s Nuclear Threat to Our Planet, and the Beyond Nuclear handbook, The U.S. Space Force and the dangers of nuclear power and nuclear war in space. Grossman is an associate of the media watch group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion.






NextEra eyes restart opportunity for shuttered Iowa plant


26 July 2024


Four years after it shut down, NextEra Energy is looking into restarting the Duane Arnold nuclear power plant, CEO John Ketchum has confirmed.

Duane Arnold pictured before its closure in 2020 (Image: NextEra Energy)

The single-unit 615 MWe boiling water reactor plant in Iowa was taken out of service in 2020 after over 45 years of operation. The plant was the only operating nuclear unit in Iowa and had been producing around 9.2% of the state's electric generation and 19% of its emission-free electricity, but the decision to close it was made in 2018 when utility Alliant Energy and owner NextEra Energy Resources agreed to shorten their existing power purchase agreement by five years, ending in 2020 rather than 2025. The plant had been scheduled to shut in October 2020, but did not return to service after a severe storm in August that year damaged its cooling towers. The reactor itself was not damaged.

"I think there would be opportunities and a lot of demand for the market if we were able to do something with Duane Arnold," CEO John Ketchum told investors in response to questions during the company's second quarter results announcement on 24 June, although bringing a nuclear plant back into service would need "a lot of thought" and assessment of risks, he added.

"So sure, we're looking at it," he said. "We would only do it if we could do it in a way that is essentially risk free with plenty of mitigants around the approach. There are a few things that we would have to work through, but yes, we are. We are looking at it."

The reactor has been defuelled - all of its fuel is now in an on-site dry storage facility - but the buildings are not scheduled to be demolished until 50 years have passed. This deferred approach to decommissioning, with the facility placed into a safe storage configuration with eventual dismantling and decontamination activities taking place after residual radioactivity has decayed, is sometimes referred to as SAFESTOR.

The threat of premature closure of US nuclear generating capacity - and the resulting loss of its carbon-free generation attributes - has led to policy reforms and support mechanisms at the state and federal level to ensure that plants that might otherwise shut down can continue to operate.

Of those plants that have already closed, one - Palisades, in Michigan - is being prepared for a restart by now-owner Holtec International, with support from federal loan guarantees. Palisades is set to be the first power reactor to be returned to commercial operation after its being declared shut down, but may not be the last: Constellation Energy CEO Joe Dominguez also did not rule out a restart of the shut-down unit 1 at the Three Mile Island, which closed in 2019 in comments to investors earlier this year.

Tailwinds


NextEra Energy owns Florida Power & Light Company, the USA's largest electric utility, and NextEra Energy Resources, which it describes as the world's largest generator of renewable energy from wind and solar. It also, through its subsidiaries, generates power from seven commercial nuclear power units in Florida, New Hampshire and Wisconsin.

NextEera Energy Resources' renewables and storage backlog increased by more than 3000 MW during what had been the company's second-best-ever quarter, including 860 MW from agreements with Google to meet its data centre power demand, Ketchum said.

Researched and written by World Nuclear News