TODAY. And the prize for HYPOCRISY goes to Rafael Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency
It’s hard to grasp the full level of the hypocrisy of the well-paid staff of this sham institution. They no doubt have swallowed their own propaganda.
The IAEA’s loyalty is to the nuclear industry – NOT to the world’s people.
And, the purpose of small nuclear reactors, the big new thing, is increasingly military.
“The IAEA was founded to promote the peaceful applications of nuclear and to ensure that these civilian applications were not used for military purposes.”
Barngarla people continue their fight against the proposed Kimba nuclear waste dump
Jason Bilney, Chairperson, Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation. 6 July 23
COURT
We have some news regarding the court; the judgement regarding the Kimba case will be delivered on July 18, 2023 at 10.30am at the Commonwealth Law Courts Building in Adelaide.
BARNGARLA ELDER AWARDED
This year’s NAIDOC Theme is a special one ‘For Our Elders’ Barngarla people have many elders who have led the way as leaders and teachers in our community. Enders who fought long and hard for our Native Title rights and also our ongoing battle with the Federal Government against a nuclear waste dump being built in Canberra. This week one of the BDAC Directors Harry Dare was awarded with the Port Augusta NAIDOC Male Elder of the Year, Uncle Harry was recognised for the role he has played in advocating for Barngarla rights, language and land –including his efforts to elevate the voice of Barngarla People over the nuclear waste dump at Kimba. Uncle Harry expressed his thanks to supporters.
PETITION
In other news, we have been blown away by the response to our online petition started by Mahalia Bilney in February. Today we have 13,349 signatures and we hope to see that grow.
The Petition calls on Minister King and Prime Minister Albanese to listen to the Barngarla people and scrap plans to advance the nuclear waste dump at Kimba.
We thank everyone for signing and sharing. Please continue to share the petition and encourage people to support us: https://chng.it/C2zzvDT56K.
Also we have heard that a group of local and EP residents has formed in Whyalla to actively oppose the Kimba plan and the transportation of nuclear waste through the Port of Whyalla.
Aunty Dawn Taylor attended the inaugural meeting to share Barngarla’s concerns.
This continues to be a David and Goliath battle and we will not give up the fight to protect our country.
Please take a minute to watch our message to Canberra here
Fukushima: Anxiety and anger over Japan’s nuclear waste water plan
By Tessa Wong, Asia Digital Reporter, BBC News, 6 July 23
A controversial plan by Japan to release treated waste water from the Fukushima nuclear plant has sparked anxiety and anger at home and abroad.
Since the 2011 tsunami which severely damaged the plant, more than a million tonnes of treated waste water has accumulated there. Japan now wants to start discharging it into the Pacific Ocean.
The UN nuclear watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has published a report endorsing Japan’s plan.
But since it was announced two years ago, the plan has been deeply controversial in Japan with local communities expressing concerns about contamination.
Fishing and seafood industry groups in Japan and the wider region have also voiced concerns about their livelihoods, as they fear consumers will avoid buying seafood.
And Tokyo’s neighbours are not happy either. China has been the most vocal, accusing Japan of treating the ocean as its “private sewer”. On Tuesday it criticised the IAEA report, saying its conclusions were “one-sided”.
So what is Japan’s plan and how exactly has it churned the waters?
What does Japan plan to do with the nuclear waste?
Since the disaster, power plant company Tepco has been pumping in water to cool down the Fukushima nuclear reactors’ fuel rods. This means every day the plant produces contaminated water, which is stored in massive tanks.
More than 1,000 tanks have been filled, and Japan says this is not a sustainable long-term solution. It wants to gradually release this water into the Pacific Ocean over the next 30 years, insisting it is safe to be discharged.
Releasing treated waste water into the ocean is a routine practice for nuclear plants – but given that this is the by-product of an accident, this is no ordinary nuclear waste.
Tepco filters the Fukushima water through its Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS), which reduces most radioactive substances to acceptable safety standards, apart from tritium and carbon-14……………………………………….
What do critics say?
UN-appointed human rights experts have opposed the plan, as have environmental activists. Greenpeace has released reports casting doubt on Tepco’s treatment process, alleging it does not go far enough in removing radioactive substances.
Critics say Japan should, for the time being, keep the treated water in the tanks. They argue this buys time to develop new processing technologies, and allow any remaining radioactivity to naturally reduce.
UN-appointed human rights experts have opposed the plan, as have environmental activists. Greenpeace has released reports casting doubt on Tepco’s treatment process, alleging it does not go far enough in removing radioactive substances.
Critics say Japan should, for the time being, keep the treated water in the tanks. They argue this buys time to develop new processing technologies, and allow any remaining radioactivity to naturally reduce.
There are also some scientists who are uncomfortable with the plan. They say it requires more studies on how it would affect the ocean bed and marine life.
“We’ve seen an inadequate radiological, ecological impact assessment that makes us very concerned that Japan would not only be unable to detect what’s getting into the water, sediment and organisms, but if it does, there is no recourse to remove it… there’s no way to get the genie back in the bottle,” marine biologist Robert Richmond, a professor with the University of Hawaii, told the BBC’s Newsday programme.
Tatsujiro Suzuki, a nuclear engineering professor from Nagasaki University’s Research Center for Nuclear Weapons Abolition, told the BBC the plan would “not necessarily lead to serious pollution or readily harm the public – if everything goes well”.
But given that Tepco failed to prevent the 2011 disaster, he remains concerned about a potential accidental release of contaminated water, he said.
What have Japan’s neighbours said?
China has demanded that Japan reaches an agreement with regional countries and international institutions before it releases the water.
Beijing has also accused Tokyo of violating “international moral and legal obligations”, and warned that if it proceeded with the plan, “it must bear all consequences”.
The two countries currently have a prickly relationship, with Japan’s recent military build-up and China’s provocative moves around Taiwan raising tensions.
Tokyo has engaged in talks with its neighbours, and hosted a South Korean team of experts on a tour of the Fukushima plant in May. But it is not certain how far it would commit to getting neighbouring countries’ approval before it goes ahead with the plan.
In contrast to China, Seoul – which has been keen to build ties with Japan – has soft-pedalled its concerns and on Tuesday it said it “respects” the IAEA’s findings.
But this approach has angered the South Korean public, 80% of whom are worried about the water release according to a recent poll.
“The government enforces a strong no-littering policy at sea… But now the government is not saying a word (to Japan) about the wastewater flowing into the ocean,” Park Hee-jun, a South Korean fisherman told BBC Korean.
“Some of the officials say we should remain quiet if we don’t want to make consumers even more anxious. I think that’s nonsense.”
Thousands have attended protests in Seoul calling for government action, as some shoppers fearing food supply disruptions have stockpiled salt and other necessities.
In response, South Korea’s parliament passed a resolution last week opposing the water release plan – though it is unclear what impact this would have on Japan’s decision. Officials are also launching “intense inspections” of seafood, and are sticking to an existing ban of Japanese seafood imports from regions around the Fukushima plant.
To assuage the public’s fears, prime minister Han Duck-soo said he would be willing to drink the Fukushima water to show it is safe, while one official said last week that only a small fraction of the discharge would end up in Korean waters.
Elsewhere in the region, several island nations have also expressed concerns with the Pacific Islands Forum regional group calling the plan another “major nuclear contamination disaster”.
How has Japan responded?
Japanese authorities and Tepco have sought to convince critics by explaining the science behind the treatment process, and they would continue to do so with “a high level of transparency”, promised prime minister Fumio Kishida on Tuesday.
In materials published on its foreign affairs ministry website, Japan also pointed out that other nuclear plants in the region – particularly those in China – discharge water with much higher levels of tritium. The BBC was able to verify some of these figures with publicly available data from Chinese nuclear plants.
But the biggest vindication may lie with the IAEA report, released by the agency’s chief Rafael Grossi while visiting Japan…………………………
On Tuesday, Mr Grossi said the plan would have a “negligible radiological impact on people and the environment”.
With the world’s nuclear watchdog giving its stamp of approval, Japan could start discharging the Fukushima water as early as August, according to some reports – setting the stage for an intensified showdown with its critics.
Additional reporting by Yuna Kim and Chika Nakayama. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-66106162
Report Shows How Military Industrial Complex Sets Media Narrative on Ukraine
by EDITOR, July 3, 2023, By Bryce Greene / Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) https://scheerpost.com/2023/07/03/report-shows-how-military-industrial-complex-sets-media-narrative-on-ukraine/
Wealthy donors have long funded think tanks with official-sounding names that produce research that reflects the interests of those funders (Extra!, 7/13). The weapons industry is a major contributor to these idea factories; a recent report from the Quincy Institute (6/1/23) demonstrates just how much influence war profiteers have on the national discourse.
The Quincy Institute—whose own start-up funding came mainly from George Soros and Charles Koch—looked at 11 months of Ukraine War coverage in the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, from March 1, 2022, through January 31, 2023, and counted each time one of 33 leading think tanks was mentioned. Of the 15 think tanks most often mentioned in the coverage, only one—Human Rights Watch—does not take funding from Pentagon contractors. Quincy’s analysis found that the media were seven times more likely to cite think tanks with war industry ties than they were to cite think tanks without war industry ties.
With 157 mentions each, the top two think tanks were the Atlantic Council and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Both of these think tanks receive millions from the war industry. The Atlantic Council has long been the brain trust of NATO, the military organization whose expansion towards Russia’s borders was a critical factor in Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine. (See FAIR.org, 3/4/22.) Both think tanks receive hundreds of thousands of dollars from Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, companies which have already been awarded billions of dollars in Pentagon contracts as a result of the war in Ukraine.
CSIS was revealed in a New York Times expose (8/7/16) to produce content that reflected the weapons industry priorities of its funders. It also “initiated meetings with Defense Department officials and congressional staff to push for the recommendations” of military funders.
Think tank media mentions related to US military support for Ukraine (Quincy Institute, 6/1/23).
In addition to showing think tanks’ enormous influence, the Quincy report highlights how difficult it is to trace just how much war industry funding these think tanks receive, and exactly whose interests they represent. “Think tanks are not required to disclose their funders,” study author Ben Freeman wrote, and “many think tanks list donors without indicating the amount of donations and others just list donors in ranges (e.g., $250,000 to $499,999).”
While the study was not aimed at establishing a causal connection between weapons industry funding and the think tanks’ positions, it acknowledges that funding typically plays a major role in shaping the institutions. “Funders,” Freeman wrote, “are able to influence think tank work through the mechanisms of censorship, self-censorship, and perspective filtering.” In other words, people with points of view antithetical to the funders likely would not last long in these think tanks.
Causal or not, there is a marked correlation between war industry funding and hawkish positions. “Think tanks with financial ties to the arms industry often support policies that would benefit the arms industry,” the report noted. For example, one Atlantic Council article (2/6/23) advocated against “any compromise with the Kremlin,” while another, titled “Equity for Ukraine” (1/16/23), argued that Ukraine has a “right to destroy critical infrastructure in Russia and plunge Moscow and other cities into darkness.”
Earlier this year, the president of the American Enterprise Institute—fifth on the list, with 101 mentions—was cited numerous times in the Wall Street Journal (e.g., 1/20/23, 1/25/23) arguing that “tanks and armored personnel carriers are essential,” and agreeing to provide them will “let Ukraine know that it can afford to risk and expend more of its current arsenal of tanks in counteroffensive operations because it can count on getting replacements for them.” AEI (6/9/23) has gone so far as to suggest that the US give tactical nuclear weapons to Ukraine, something that could easily escalate to all-out nuclear war.
The Quincy Institute did not find a single instance in which a media organization disclosed the fact that its source received funding from the war industry, obscuring how interested parties may be shaping coverage or promoting policy recommendations that directly benefit their funders.
The study found that for the few think tanks that receive little or no Pentagon contractor funding, positions on the war are dramatically different. With less influence from the war industry, the study found, these organizations emphasize “expository rather than prescriptive analysis, support for diplomatic solutions, and a focus on the impact of the war on different parts of society and the region.”
Human Rights Watch, which takes no war industry money, “was agnostic on the issue of providing US military assistance to Ukraine,” and instead “focused on human rights abuses in the conflict.” The Carnegie Endowment, which receives less than 1% of its funding from that industry, was never quoted advocating an increase in military spending or weapons sales during the Ukraine War.
One critical way that corporate news media manufactures consent for US foreign policy is by carefully selecting the sources and voices that they present, and narrowing the spectrum of debate. While this can take the form of uncritically repeating pronouncements from government officials, this research demonstrates that there are more subtle ways in which media outlets can push a corporate/state agenda under the guise of independent journalism.
Germany’s power mix boasts more renewables, lower spot market prices – despite nuclear exit
Germany’s shutdown of nuclear power plants in April did not result in a
ramp-up of lignite-fired power plants, despite concerns. Instead, there has
been a significant increase in the share of renewables in the electricity
mix, and the proportion of coal-generated electricity has fallen by more
than 20%.
Electricity in Germany has become cheaper and cleaner since its
last three nuclear power plants were shut down, according to new data from
the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems ISE. Net electricity
production from lignite and hard coal has decreased by more than 20%, while
natural gas has experienced a minor decline.
In contrast, renewables have
reached a record share of 57.7% of net electricity generation. According to
Fraunhofer ISE, the German energy system successfully managed the nuclear
phase-out. The decommissioned reactors’ reduced output was offset by lower
consumption, decreased exports, and increased imports.
PV Magazine 4th July 2023 https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/07/04/germanys-nuclear-exit-leads-to-more-renewables-lower-spot-market-prices/
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 