Australian news, and some related international items

The Australian Parliament will have to pay attention to David Noonan’s detailed submission on ANSTO’s ill-advised nuclear waste storage plan.

Ed note. This is a long tough read. But it’s worth it!

The federal gov. must stop compromising safety and security in SA with their untenable nuclear
waste storage plan and accept Extended Storage of nuclear fuel waste and ILW at Lucas Heights.

The NSC advice states that dual handling in transport associated with interim storage “does not
represent international best practice”; and raises implications for both safety and security noting
that “ANSTO already has comprehensive security arrangements in place” at Lucas Heig


There is no technical reason why ANSTO can-not conduct Extended Storage of ILW on-site, at least
through-out the period of ongoing OPAL reactor licensed waste production operations to 2057.

There will be consequences if the federal Minister imposes a NRWMF onto unwilling community in
SA and declares a fancy shed at Napandee on Eyre Peninsula an indefinite nuclear waste stor

Submission No. 3 To: Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works Inquiry: “ANSTO Intermediate Level Solid Waste Storage Facility Lucas Heights, NSW” Public Submission by David J Noonan B.Sc., M.Env.St. RE: Extended storage of ANSTO’s ILW on-site at Lucas Heights is warranted until availability of a final disposal option. The indefinite Store for ANSTO nuclear fuel waste & ILW in SA is untenable. Dear Secretary Please consider this Submission with five Recommendations (see p.4), the Reports and further info sought from ANSTO, and my request to provide evidence as a Witness in a PWC Inquiry Hearing.

I raise public interest matters for the Public Works Committee (PWC) to consider and to report on to the Houses of Parliament (see Contents p.4). In accordance with requirements in the Public Works Committee Act 1969 Section 17 Functions of the Committee, and having regard to Sec.17(2) for “alterations to the proposals for the work that … are necessary or desirable to ensure the most effective use” of public works in this case. Recommendation 1: ANSTO’s proposed public works on Intermediate Level Waste (ILW) storage must be altered to provide for the necessary and proper Contingency to retain ILW on-site in safe and secure extended storage at Lucas Heights “until the availability of a final disposal option”. 

The proponent entity ANSTO’s proposed public works and Submission No.1 do not reflect the agency’s duty to provide for the necessary and proper Contingency in safe and secure on-site management of ILW at Lucas Heights up to the availability of a final (off-site) disposal option. The ARPANSA CEO stated in relevant evidence (June 2020) to a Senate Inquiry on the NRWMF Amendment Bill 2020, that: “Waste can be safely stored at Lucas Heights for decades to come.” ANSTO’s “Interim Waste Store” Operating Licence (2015) was approved by ARPANSA with a Contingency to store reprocessed nuclear fuel wastes “until the availability of a final disposal option” (see p.10-13). That key License “is not time limited” with an approval to operate for over 40 years. 

ARPANSA cite this long-standing required Contingency for “Retention of the returned residues at ANSTO until the availability of a final disposal option” in ARPANSA’s Submission No.86 (Sept 2020, p.4) to the Senate Standing Economics Legislation Committee of Inquiry on the NRWMF Bill 2020. ANSTO has a duty to manage ILW in accordance with the same standard of Contingency required by ARPANSA for the provision of safe and secure on-site storage of nuclear fuel waste at Lucas Heights. Both ANSTO’s ILW and the highly hazardous nuclear fuel wastes accrued at Lucas Heights operations are stated by the regulator ARPANSA to require radiation shielding, safe handling and security, and to require isolation from people and from the environment for over 10 000 years (see p.19). 

In contrast, the ANSTO proposed public works extend ILW storage capacity by a decade toward 2037 and are il-advisably premised on transfer of ANSTO’s ILW to an interim above ground Store in SA. These matters, and the questionable credibility of ANSTO’s premise. go to ANSTO’s duties and activities under Sec.17(4): “the Committee shall have regard to the functions, powers and duties of the authority … in relation to the activities of the authority concerned.” 

In accordance with Sec.17(3)(e) “the present and prospective public value of the work” will bemaximised by the PWC requiring that ANSTO public works are fully compatibility with the necessaryContingency to retain ILW on-site until availability of a final disposal option.Recommendation 2: ANSTO must not pre-empt ARPANSA Licensing decisions. ANSTO mustplan for the valid Contingency that an ARPANSA Approval for indefinite duration aboveground nuclear fuel waste and ILW storage in SA may not be granted. 

ANSTO’s overarching assumption to transfer ILW to an interim above ground Store in SA – an event
which may never occur – may compromise the stated purpose of works and the suitability of works.
This matter goes to Sec.17(3) “In considering and reporting on a public work, the Committee shall
have regard to: (a) the stated purpose of the work and its suitability for that purpose.”

Recommendation 3:
The PWC must require and confirm the suitability of any assented
ANSTO public works to provide for – and comply with – the necessary Contingency to retain
ILW on-site at Lucas Heights until a final disposal option is available.
The PWC should take note that ARPANSA have said they expect separate License Applications for the
proposed NRWM Low-Level Waste disposal facility in SA; AND for the proposed indefinite duration
above ground nuclear fuel waste and ILW storage in regional SA.

This PWC Inquiry must consider the fact that ARPANSA Approval may not be granted for proposed
indefinite duration above ground nuclear fuel waste and ILW storage in SA – irrespective of whetheror-not ARPANSA Approval is granted for proposed Low Level Waste disposal in SA.

Recommendation 4: Transparency requires ANSTO must release key ILW Reports and
further information to provide an adequate basis for informed decision making in
consideration by the PWC and to facilitate informed public interest input to this Inquiry.
Including: Two ANSTO Intermediate Level nuclear waste Reports required as part of
ARPANSA Licensing Conditions and due to the regulator by 30 June 2020, AND the formal
response(s) by ARPANSA.

These important Reports were requested to be released during the 2020 Senate Inquiry (see p.5).
I request Transparency from ANSTO and present Questions for the proponent to answer (see p.6).

Recommendation 5: The PWC Inquiry should consider proposed indefinite storage of ANSTO
nuclear fuel waste and ILW in SA is untenable and compromises safety and security in SA.
ANSTO’s premise to transfer ILW into indefinite storage in SA is contrary to International
Best Practice (IBP) and does not comply with ARPANSA Committee advice (see p.8-9).

The ARPANSA Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council (April 2010) provided advice to the CEO
which concluded that: “Australia’s current policy of indefinite storage for intermediate level waste
does not appear to be consistent with international best practice.”

ARPANSA stated in 2015 that the NRWMF plan “will have the provision for ILW storage above ground
for approximately 100 years” – effectively indefinitely – which is not consistent with IBP (see p.19).
ARPANSA’s Nuclear Safety Committee (NSC, Nov 2013) provided advise to the CEO that dual
handling transport for interim storage “does not represent International Best Practice”, and
importantly: “also has implications for security”.

The NSC (Nov 2016) advised the CEO that it was “essential” to engage communities along waste
transport routes (see p.20). In 5 years of targeting SA for required shipping of ANSTO nuclear fuel
waste through an SA Port and for trucking ILW across SA, this has not been done.

The fact that a pending UK shipment of reprocessed ANSTO nuclear fuel waste and associated ILW
due in 2022 is to go into ANSTO’s existing “Interim Waste Store” at Lucas Heights (see p.5), safety
rated by ARPANSA out to 2055, provides further evidence the proposed Store in SA in unnecessary.
Federal Labor question ARWA and why ILW should be moved from one temporary store to another

Imposition of a nuclear waste dump will be an issue in the March 2022 SA Election (see p.14-16).

Continue reading

July 26, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Submission: AZARK PROJECT says that Kimba nuclear waste plan is completely unnecessary, and irrelevant to nuclear medicine.

national nuclear waste facility at Kimba the existence or otherwise of which will have no effect whatsoever on the production of nuclear medicine by ANSTO

the importance and use of nuclear medicine locally is significantly
decreasing as there is a general reluctance and reduction by modern medicinein using nuclear isotopes for medical purposes in preference to much safer means to diagnose and treat medical conditions which were previously the
subject of nuclear medicine.

Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works Inquiry into the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Intermediate Level Solid Waste Storage Facility at Lucas Heights


A. The proposed increase in the nuclear waste storage capacity at Lucas Heights by constructing a new storage facility is a completely unnecessary and expensive exercise which is only perpetuating the government’s inappropriate plans for a waste management facility at Kimba.

B, Serious and urgent consideration should be given to the establishment of the underground nuclear waste facility at Leonora by Azark Project due to its international recognition and acceptance for its unsurpassed suitability and safety.

C. Several members of the Committee should be excluded from any participation in deciding the merits of establishing or funding of the facility for the additional storage since they have previously made ill-founded and unjustified statements praising the proposals for Kimba…….

Continue reading

July 26, 2021 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, politics | Leave a comment

Submission: Barry Wakelin – ”interim” storage of nuclear waste at Kimba is a poor plan, with no commitment to planning for a permanent solution

Despite assurances from responsible Ministers, that a permanent ILW site selection process decision is in train, there is no evidence that the Parliament is making any endeavour to fulfil that promise, particularly when it is recalled that the construction (in 2007) of the OPAL nuclear reactor was conditional upon that promise being kept ,which it is too apparent never happened.

Sumission No. 4 Public Works Submission – Barry Wakelin OAM, Kimba, S A, 23 Juy 21,
I present this submission as someone with 15 years of Federal Parliamentary Service: and as a former Public Works Committee member and citizen of Kimba observing the machinations of a proposed “temporary” site for ILW (Intermediate Level Waste at KImba.) Mainly, promoted as a Low Level Waste site by government representatives .

I was closely involved with the Woomera attempt at a nuclear waste site. The great thing about being free of party politics is the time to become better informed and to develop my own clearer, fairer and individual opinions.

Despite assurances from responsible Ministers, that a permanent ILW site selection process decision is in train, there is no evidence that the Parliament is making any endeavour to fulfil that promise, particularly when it is recalled that the construction (in 2007) of the OPAL nuclear reactor was conditional upon that promise being kept ,which it is too apparent never happened.

Small communities like Kimba and its 95% agricultural dependence, have no government guarantee against health and economic damage from a ILW nuclear waste facility.

The defacto international nuclear waste via the suggested sixfold increase in the ANSTO export of nuclear medicine is in conflict with South Australian government policy and should not be inflicted upon a small rural community which is ignored by policy enforcers.

The question must be asked: why should a community of 0.00004% of Australians be bribed or emotionally blackmailed by the government using taxpayers’ funds to bludgeon 400 people at $200,000 each, in to accepting a nuclear Dump on behalf of 25million Australians who predominantly say NO . Not least of all are
government organisations like the Department of Defence who say the nuclear waste is too dangerous to be placed on their land ,the size of Tasmania.

If it takes this much money from government to convince a small community to accept the government’s argument which only gives the country a”temporary” nuclear waste facility of very limited value it is a a sad waste of taxpayer’s funds.

A commitment to the search for a permanent disposal site for ILW has not occurred and considering
2037 is the timeline; it is reasonable to accept that a “temporary” storage will not be required due to the new facilities at Lucas Heights The nuclear reactor will always have some temporary ILW storage.

It is clear to me that there is a reasonable prospect over the next fifteen years to find a suitable site
for permanent disposal of ILW suitably geologically and seismologically.

It is a privilege to be able to offer from my long term involvement in this difficult issue a view on the
justice or otherwise, which has been inflicted upon my magnificent community for the past six years.
I offer my best wishes to the Committee for your considerations.


July 26, 2021 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, politics | Leave a comment

Resources Minister Keith Pitt and his bald-faced lies about the Leonora nuclear waste proposal

26 July Kazzi Jai on Whyalla Pitt lies

Federal Resources Minister Keith Pitt said the government did not receive detailed information to independently assess a site at Leonora, and couldn’t accept “unverified information” which could “cut short” the consultation and assessment process.”

This is the BIGGEST BALD FACED LIE Minister Keith Pitt has said yet!!

The current Leonora site proposal HAS been actively giving the Feds detailed information since 2017 I believe… EXACTLY the SAME TIME as Kimba was allowed to SUBMIT AGAIN into the mix after being taken COMPLETELY OFF the list in April 2016, after being deemed unsuitable!
Can’t have it both ways!

In fact ANOTHER site in Leonora Western Australia WAS in the mix back in 2015, as one of the SEVEN short listed sites deemed suitable by the Feds – by the then Josh Frydenberg as Minister at the time!
It was a different site in Leonora – but nevertheless, echoes the SAME SITUATION as Kimba in many ways!

July 26, 2021 Posted by | Federal nuclear waste dump, politics, secrets and lies | Leave a comment

Regional site in Western Australia geologically and geographically suited to nuclear waste repositary, unlike the Kimba site in S.A.

West Australia site could house nuclear waste, Whyalla News, Louis Mayfield  22 July 21,

A regional site in Western Australia regarded by experts as one of the best sites in the world for nuclear storage should be used instead of Napandee for the federal government’s nuclear waste dump.

This is according to Peter Remta, the Executive Director of the Azark Project, who are developing an underground facility for the disposal of nuclear waste near Leonora in Western Australia.

Mr Remta said the site is within the Bardu Aboriginal peoples tribal land and is considered the best in the world for an underground disposal facility due to its geological structure.

“The Azark site is geologically and geophysically set in granite hard rock going from near surface to many kilometres in depth being a natural structure that has not moved,” he said.

“It is a natural structure that has not moved for over two billion years which makes it ideal in every respect for the geological burial of nuclear waste.”

The proximity to necessary infrastructure and amenities, access to a competent workforce, and high degree of security are other factors which Mr Remta says make Leonora an ideal nuclear waste storage site………..

By contrast, Mr Remta said there were many issues with siting a Nuclear Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF) at Napandee, near Kimba.

“The Napandee farm is in the heart of prime agricultural land, so there’s a very real possibility of completely decimating the agricultural industry of the Kimba region and a large part of the Eyre Peninsula,” he said.

Should this occur, Mr Remnta said it would go against all safety codes and prescriptions of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA).

“Napandee is a completely unsuitable site to host the facility,” he said.

Federal Resources Minister Keith Pitt said the government did not receive detailed information to independently assess a site at Leonora, and couldn’t accept “unverified information” which could “cut short” the consultation and assessment process.

“Additionally, the communities around Leonora did not have the benefit of an in-depth consultation process, or the time to consider the details of the proposed facility,” he said.

“This stands in contrast to other communities who have had the benefit of extensive consultation to assist them make an informed decision on any proposed NRWMF.

“The selection of a suitable site will be the culmination of extensive technical work and consultation undertaken over a number of years.

“As the government has said previously, the site for the facility will be in a community that has demonstrated broad support.”………….

July 26, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Western Australian site far more suitable than Kimba, South Australia, for nuclear waste dump

Leonora site ‘ideal’ for N-dump, Andrew Probyn Kalgoorlie Miner, Tue, 3 November 2015   The man behind WA’s only short-listed site for a radioactive waste dump says the mulga scrub near Leonora would be an ideal home for the world’s spent nuclear fuel rods.

Glenn Baker, who owns 100ha submitted by the Shire of Leonora for a low and intermediate-level radioactive waste dump, said the area had the stable geology, environment and remoteness necessary for a world repository of nuclear waste…….

July 26, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Nuclear power is not feasible for Australia

Nuclear is not feasible

Your correspondent unfortunately ignores the time scale of any nuclear installation in eastern Australia (“Making the nuclear case”, Rod Cripps, Letters, The Sunday Age, 18/7).

Their massive water usage for cooling means a coastal installation (remember Japan’s Fukushima plant?). Where? It would take at least 15 years to get public approval of any site, by which time we will have burnt.

Nuclear can’t compete on price with even coal or gas, both of which are already becoming uncompetitive with renewables. To even consider it just gives our incompetent federal “denialista” more arguments for delaying critical action now.

July 26, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The nuclear industry determined to influence climate talks before COP26

Nuclear industry under fire for trying to influence climate talks ahead of COP26. The National By Rob Edwards  25 July 21, HE nuclear industry has come under fire for trying to influence international talks in the run-up to the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow in November.

Six people from the European Nuclear Society registered to attend UN negotiations in May and June. Two were from the UK Government’s Magnox Ltd, which is decommissioning nuclear plants, and one was from the US nuclear firm, Westinghouse.

There were also 12 representatives from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN body charged with both promoting and regulating nuclear power, plus one from the Canadian Nuclear Association.

The nuclear industry was accused by environmentalists of “jumping on the bandwagon” of climate change. “The latest wheeze is to tell us that nuclear is the answer,” said Dr Richard Dixon, director of Friends of the Earth Scotland.

“With renewables and energy efficiency cheaper, quicker and safer than nuclear, they have already lost this argument and should have no place at COP26. The nuclear industry’s disastrous history of cost and time over-runs show very clearly that what they offer would be too little, too expensive and far too late.”

Pete Roche, policy adviser to the Scottish Nuclear Free Local Authorities, said: “When you look at nuclear power you find it is hopelessly expensive, far too slow to be of any use and hugely problematic – producing dangerous waste and with a potential risk of a serious accident.”………..

July 26, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A strong convention on radioactive waste safety means that nuclear’s toxic by-products should be kept as close as possible to the point of production

Paul Waldon  Fight to Stop a Nuclear Waste Dump in South Australia   · 

Remember “Claytons Beer.A beer that’s not a beer.

Well, we have reached the 20 year anniversary of when “The Joint Convention,” came into force. The Joint Convention has been described as the first legal instrument to address used fuel rods and radioactive waste management safety across this earth.”So is it fair to say this a Claytons Convention?” Remember the beer didn’t have the alcohol content, only the taste.

This maybe nothing but a watered down “Basel Convention.” The Basel Convention was overlooking the safety of the populous by addressing the control of any transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal, which came into force in 1992, with over 170 members, and Australia becoming a member in 1992.

The Basel Convention’s charter makes mention that hazardous byproducts should be kept, managed and disposed of as close as possible to the point of production. However, radioactive products are exempt from the Basel Convention’s charter. I put it to you, to maintain the integrity of any legal instrument for handling radioactive products or by-products we should adopt the Basel Convention’s charter. That would install faith in the populous and any community that’s willing to embrace nuclear production will have to accept the product that’s produced there.

July 26, 2021 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

“No more yeah, buts”: Renewable ad campaign to combat myths and misinformation — RenewEconomy

Clean Energy Council launches new ad campaign to spur Australians to action, with the message that ‘renewables are here now’. The post “No more yeah, buts”: Renewable ad campaign to combat myths and misinformation appeared first on RenewEconomy.

“No more yeah, buts”: Renewable ad campaign to combat myths and misinformation — RenewEconomy

July 26, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Australia sets new wind output record, breaks through 6,000MW for first time — RenewEconomy

Updated: Relaxation of constraints in South Australia allows wind energy to set third output record in a week in Australia’s main grid. The post Australia sets new wind output record, breaks through 6,000MW for first time appeared first on RenewEconomy.

Australia sets new wind output record, breaks through 6,000MW for first time — RenewEconomy

July 26, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Investigation of uranium miners’health to be carried out by pro nuclear bodies

They want to show that it doesn’t cause cancer. I think they want to find that result.”

for years, the CNSC has served both as a regulator and promoter of the nuclear industry

“It is concerning that health standards are set by physicists and industries, based on financial and technological convenience, rather than by those educated in and committed to public health and safety.”

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to Investigate Lung Cancer Rates Among Uranium Workers,
Mother Jones

What’s happened to 80,000 people who have worked in Canada’s mines and processing facilities?CHARLES MANDEL, 25 July 21, The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) is leading a national study examining incidences of lung cancer in uranium workers from across the country.

The Canadian Uranium Workers Study (CANUWS) will examine health data from 80,000 past and present employees at Canada’s uranium mines, mills and processing and fabrication facilities. The study, which is now underway and set to end in 2023, is the largest examination of lung cancer in Canadian uranium workers to date.

Rachel Lane, one of the lead researchers on the new study, told Canada’s National Observer she believes it will reassure workers they face less risk than before from lung cancer arising from exposure to radon, ……..

The $800-million mining and milling uranium industry employs over 2,000 people—of whom more than half are residents of northern Saskatchewan—at mine sites. The researchers plan to examine causes of death in uranium workers from 1950 on and chart their cancer data from 1970 onwards, using research from previous studies.

The new study will build on the results of two historical studies: the Eldorado study and the Ontario Uranium Mine Workers Study, both of which found elevated risks of lung cancer in uranium workers. During numerous follow-ups ending in 2015, both studies found lung cancer among miners was still more prevalent than in the general population………….

deaths from lung cancer associated with radiation were historically higher for uranium workers than the general male population……….

In 2015, a follow-up to the 2007 Ontario Uranium Miner Cohort study was done. It examined approximately 28,546 male and 413 female uranium miners who had worked at least one week in the Elliot Lake and Bancroft regions or at the Agnew Lake Mine between 1954 and 1996.

The conclusion: “Significant elevations in lung cancer mortality and incidence, as well as silicosis and injury mortality were observed in comparison with the general Canadian population.”……….

Anne Leis, the department head of Community Health and Epidemiology at the University of Saskatchewan, will administer the project and analyze the data. Her colleague, Punam Pahwa, a professor of biostatistics, will lead the statistical analysis of the health data……….

Uranium mining companies Cameco, Orano, and BWXT are co-funding the study, contributing $60,000. The CNSC is providing $125,000, while the Saskatchewan government is kicking in $60,000, and the University of Saskatchewan is contributing $90,000 of in-kind funding.………… 

Concerns Over Possible Bias

While former employees and industry watchers applaud efforts to study the health of uranium workers, some are skeptical about the ability of CNSC to produce an unbiased report.

Jamie Kneen, communications and outreach coordinator at Mining Watch Canada, says it’s important to understand the longer-term impacts of radon on the miners. But he cautions that the peer review and oversight of the study must be carefully examined because it is being led by CNSC.Kneen contends that for years, the CNSC has served both as a regulator and promoter of the nuclear industry. “Their tendency has been to extend license periods and to give operators, whether it’s in the uranium industry or the nuclear power industry, more space, more time in terms of licensing and more leeway rather than the kind of tight supervision and oversight that the public probably would expect.”

Therefore, it’s a question of scrutinizing who’s doing the work and reviewing the study to ensure that it really is independent, according to Kneen. He notes that’s a difficult task given that the methodology around radiation is intricate and that not many people can decipher the technical details.

“So there’s a lot of potential for not necessarily deliberate manipulation, but for error to creep in and biases to creep in.”

Rod Gardiner, a former general foreman at the now-defunct Cluff Lake Mine in Saskatchewan, expresses his own concerns about the industry. Gardiner was at the mine for 33 years, working his way up to general foreman and acting mine manager.

He alleges management at Cluff Lake, which was owned by the multinational mining corporation Orano Group, consistently boasted that working in the mine was as safe as working in a supermarket and putting prices on soup cans. “That’s what they used to say, the company.”

He hopes a new study might answer questions about workers’ health. But others aren’t sure whether results will be trustworthy, primarily because the CNSC is partially funding and leading the study.

The CNSC’s work has been subject to just those kinds of complaints in the past.

Writing in the journal Canadian Family Physician in 2013, Dale Dewar and two other authors expressed concern over the CNSC’s ability to act independently of government and industry. The authors noted the former Conservative federal government fired the commission’s CEO when she applied safety guidelines to shut down the Chalk River reactor in Ontario.

The authors observed: “It is concerning that health standards are set by physicists and industries, based on financial and technological convenience, rather than by those educated in and committed to public health and safety.”

Dewar, a longtime general physician in northern Saskatchewan, recently told Canada’s National Observer: “They want to show that it doesn’t cause cancer. I think they want to find that result.”

Dewar expressed surprise that the CNSC has opted for a focused study when northerners have been asking for decades for a baseline health study to determine such things as whether or not there have been increases in autoimmune diseases or cancers that couldn’t be explained by diet, for example.

“I think not only is it virtually a sin that they’ve never done this, but I think it’s a really huge missed opportunity because if they had a study done like this, they would have researchers around the world trying to get information out of it.”…………

Compensation for Uranium Workers

Another, less discussed issue is compensation for uranium miners. In the United States, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) administered by the Department of Justice has awarded over US$2.4 billion in benefits to more than 37,000 claimants since its introduction in 1990.

July 26, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Radioactive cesium found in honey produced near Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant

Cesium exceeding the standard in honey produced near the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan

written by News Dir July 24, 2021 The Yomiuri Shimbun reported on the 23rd that cesium, a radioactive substance exceeding the standard, was detected in honey produced in Namie-machi, Fukushima Prefecture, Japan.

According to the report, Fukushima Prefecture announced on the previous day that 130 to 160 becquerels of cesium were detected in honey produced by the beekeeping department of the Sawakami Management and Cultivation Association in Namie-machi, which exceeds the government standard of 100 becquerels per kilogram (㏃).

Namie-machi is an area near the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, and there are still many ‘difficult-to-return areas’ where decontamination work of antiseptic materials has not been completed.

This is the first time that cesium exceeding the standard has been detected in honey in Fukushima Prefecture. The Sawakami Management and Cultivation Association is recovering honey that was sold at local stores and other stores, Yomiuri said.

By Kwon Jae-hee, staff reporter

July 26, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Climate change, extreme weather, is taking its toll on the nuclear industry

Nuclear power’s reliability is dropping as extreme weather increases

A comprehensive analysis shows that warmer temperatures aren’t the only threat. Ars Technica, K. E. D. COAN – 7/24/2021,With extreme weather causing power failures in California and Texas, it’s increasingly clear that the existing power infrastructure isn’t designed for these new conditions. Past research has shown that nuclear power plants are no exception, with rising temperatures creating cooling problems for them. Now, a comprehensive analysis looking at a broader range of climate events shows that it’s not just hot weather that puts these plants at risk—it’s the full range of climate disturbances.

Heat has been one of the most direct threats, as higher temperatures mean that the natural cooling sources (rivers, oceans, lakes) are becoming less efficient heat sinks. However, this new analysis shows that hurricanes and typhoons have become the leading causes of nuclear outages, at least in North America and South and East Asia. Precautionary shutdowns for storms are routine, and so this finding is perhaps not so surprising. But other factors—like the clogging of cooling intake pipes by unusually abundant jellyfish populations—are a bit less obvious.

Overall, this latest analysis calculates that the frequency of climate-related nuclear plant outages is almost eight times higher than it was in the 1990s. The analysis also estimates that the global nuclear fleet will lose up to 1.4 percent—about 36 TWh—of its energy production in the next 40 years and up to 2.4 percent, or 61 TWh, by 2081-2100.

Heat, storms, drought

The author analyzed publicly available databases from the International Atomic Energy Agency to identify all climate-linked shutdowns (partial and complete) of the world’s 408 operational reactors. Unplanned outages are generally very well documented, and available data made it possible to calculate trends in the frequency of outages that were linked to environmental causes over the past 30 years. The author also used more detailed data from the last decade (2010–2019) to provide one of the first analyses of which types of climate events have had the most impact on nuclear power.While the paper doesn’t directly link the reported events to climate change, the findings do show an overall increase in the number of outages due to a range of climate events.

The two main categories of climate disruptions broke down into thermal disruptions (heat, drought, and wildfire) and storms (including hurricanes,

typhoons, lightning, and flooding). In the case of heat and drought, the main problem is the lack of cool-enough water—or in the case of drought, enough water at all—to cool the reactor. However, there were also a number of outages due to ecological responses to warmer weather; for example, larger than usual jellyfish populations have blocked the intake pipes on some reactors.

Storms and wildfires, on the other hand, caused a range of problems, including structural damage, precautionary preemptive shutdowns, reduced operations, and employee evacuations. In the timeframe of 2010 to 2019, the leading causes of outages were hurricanes and typhoons in most parts of the world, although heat was still the leading factor in Western Europe (France in particular). While these represented the most frequent causes, the analysis also showed that droughts were the source of the longest disruptions and thus the largest power losses.

The author calculated that the average frequency of climate-linked outages went from 0.2 outages per year in the 1990s to 1.5 outages in the timeframe of 2010 to 2019. A retrospective analysis further showed that, for every 1° C rise in temperature (above the average temperature between 1951 and 1980), the energy output of the global fleet fell about 0.5 percent.

Retrofitting for extreme weather

This analysis also shows that climate-associated outages have become the leading cause of disruptions to nuclear power production—other causes of outages have only increased 50 percent in the same timeframe. Projecting into the future, the author calculates that, if no mitigation measures are put into place, the disruptions will continue to increase through the rest of this century.

“All energy technologies, including renewables, will be significantly affected by climate change,” writes Professor Jacapo Buongiorno, who was not involved in the study, in an email to Ars. Buongiorno is the Tepco Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute for Technology (MIT), and he co-chaired the MIT study on The Future of Nuclear Energy in a Carbon Constrained World. “The results are not surprising—nuclear plants can experience unplanned outages due to severe events (e.g., hurricanes, tornadoes) or heat waves, the frequency of which is increasing.”…………..

July 26, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

DN! “All We Can Save”: As Climate Disasters Wreck Our Planet, Women Leaders Are Key to Solving the Crisis — Rise Up Times

“We should care because this is the planet that we have to live on, right? Like, we can’t actually all leave the planet. And it is interesting that you opened this segment by talking about the balance of coverage. We are simply not seeing very much climate coverage at all in the mainstream media.”

DN! “All We Can Save”: As Climate Disasters Wreck Our Planet, Women Leaders Are Key to Solving the Crisis — Rise Up Times

July 26, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment