TODAY. No real research into the effects of releasing nuclear waste-water into rivers and seas. Oh goody! That means its OK, (doesn’t it?
it has become clear that regulation of tritium in the United States is grossly insufficient to the current risk from tritium contamination, not to mention future risks that could arise if tritium production, use, and associated leakage rise
tritium “easily can cross the placenta and irradiate developing fetuses in utero, thereby raising the risk of birth defects, miscarriages, and other problems.”
the dangers this pernicious contaminant will pose in the future, absent more effective regulation that includes lower limits for human tritium exposure. https://thebulletin.org/2023/06/exploring-tritiums-danger-a-book-review/
There is no way to separate tritium from contaminated water. Tritium, a soft beta emitter, is a potent carcinogen which remains radioactive for over 100 years. It concentrates in aquatic organisms including algae, seaweed, crustaceans and fish. Because it is tasteless, odorless and invisible, it will inevitably be ingested in food, including seafood, over many decades. It combines in the DNA molecule – the gene – where it can induce mutations that later lead to cancer. It causes brain tumors, birth deformities, and cancers of many organs. The situation is dire because there is no way to contain this radioactive water permanently and it will inevitable leak into the Pacific Ocean for over 50 years or longer along with many other very dangerous isotopes including cesium 137 which lasts for 300 years and causes very malignant muscle cancers –rhabdomyosarcomas, strontium 90 which also is radioactive for 300 years and causes bone cancers and leukemia, amongst many other radioactive elements. http://akiomatsumura.com/2013/06/experts-explain-effects-of-radioactive-water-at-fukushima.htm
Peter Dutton ramps up nuclear power push and claims Labor down ‘renewable rabbit hole’
Opposition leader to tell Institute of Public Affairs that domestic reactors are natural next step from Aukus pact
Daniel Hurst, 8 July 23
The opposition leader, Peter Dutton, has ramped up calls for nuclear power in Australia, casting the move as a way to avoid dependence on wind and solar technology from China and a natural next step from the Aukus pact.
Dutton will make the comments on Friday at an event organised by the Institute of Public Affairs, a Liberal-aligned thinktank that has publicly opposed curbs on coal-fired power and has lobbied against the net zero by 2050 policy.
He will use the speech in Sydney to call for a debate about removing the legislative ban on nuclear power in Australia, a step that was not taken during the nine years of Coalition government, in which he was a senior member.
Dutton’s pitch comes just days before the Liberal National party in Queensland holds its state conference, where delegates are expected to propose several pro-nuclear resolutions.
He is likely to find a receptive audience for the message at the IPA, given that the thinktank’s executive director, Scott Hargreaves, has publicly called for the scrapping of all subsidies for renewable energy and also urged political leaders to “hit the pause button on our headlong rush towards reliance on greater renewable energy”.
In the speech, Dutton will argue that most of the leading solar panel manufacturers and wind turbine companies are based in China………………………
By contrast, Dutton will say that Australia could source Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) or Micro Modular Reactors (MMRs) from the US, UK, France “and other trusted partners”.
Dutton will point to the bipartisan commitment to building nuclear-powered submarines in Australia under the Aukus deal.
“The submarines are essentially floating SMRs,” he will say.
The sheer amount of money being invested in research and development in the next generation nuclear-powered submarines will surely see military advancements complement the development of civil nuclear power industries around the world.”………………………………..
A report by the Australian Conservation Foundation in October said the next generation of nuclear reactors being advocated by the Coalition would raise electricity prices, slow the uptake of renewables and introduce new risks from nuclear waste.
Last year Bowen ruled out consideration of nuclear power because he said “it is by far the most expensive form of energy”.
The prime minister, Anthony Albanese, has also mocked the push, saying that after “22 failed plans” the Coalition now wants “to go towards nuclear energy”. He has said in question time that Liberals must nominate “where the plants are going to be”.
But the idea appears popular within parts of the Coalition’s base. Three pro-nuclear resolutions are set to be debated at the Queensland LNP conference this weekend, including one urging a Dutton-led government to provide “baseload energy, such as nuclear as an adjunct to coal”.
Another proposed resolution wants the next LNP state government to “review the education curriculum to ensure that energy supply, including nuclear energy, and impacts of renewable energy are taught factually https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jul/07/peter-dutton-ramps-up-nuclear-power-push-and-claims-labor-down-renewable-rabbit-hole
Inside ‘nuke school’, the elite US training ground preparing Australian submariners for an AUKUS future
(Looking forward to? Life for months on end in a cramped space, no sunlight or fresh air, very little private space, closed atmosphere – all smells recirculated. Limited news, limited communication with family. Water supplies rationed. Stress and boredom. And it’s dangerous.)
The sale of Virginia-class submarines to Australia requires the approval of the US Congress, and significant changes are needed to a complex set of export controls restricting how sensitive technology is transferred.
By North America bureau chief Jade Macmillan and Bradley McLennan in Charleston
“………………. Three members of the Royal Australian Navy have graduated from the Nuclear Power School in South Carolina, more commonly known as ‘nuke school’.
Three members of the Royal Australian Navy have graduated from the Nuclear Power School in South Carolina, more commonly known as ‘nuke school’…………
Years out from Australia’s acquisition of nuclear-powered subs, the graduation is an early step towards making AUKUS a reality.
But there are still major hurdles ahead when it comes to the broader workforce challenges presented by the plan……………………….
The Australians will now have to complete another set of practical learning, which will include spending time on retired nuclear-powered subs known as moored training ships.
After that, they’ll receive further training in Connecticut before being assigned to a Virginia-class sub…………………..
AUKUS presents major workforce challenges for Australia
The AUKUS plan, announced in San Diego earlier this year, will see Australia acquire a total of eight nuclear-powered submarines at a cost of up to $368 billion.
US submarines are increasing their visits to Australian ports from this year, and from 2027 HMAS Stirling naval base in Western Australia will host rotations of American and British subs under what’s known as ‘Submarine Rotational Force-West’.
Australia is expected to buy at least three Virginia-class submarines from the US from the early 2030s, before building its own nuclear-powered boats in Adelaide to be known as SSN-AUKUS.
They will be based on a British design using US technology, with the first scheduled to be delivered in the early 2040s…………….
“It’s going to require a massive amount of infrastructure, incredible workforce demand, both in terms of technical skills and numbers.
“It just seems like that’s going to be a pretty heavy lift on the part of Australia to do nuclear ship construction.”…………………………….
Virginia-class submarines carry around 132 people, nearly three times the size of the crew onboard the Collins-class boats Australia has now.
And unlike the Collins, nuclear-powered subs do not need to surface regularly to recharge, meaning they can stay submerged for months at a time…………………………………………
The new subs will be built in South Australia, while Western Australia’s HMAS Stirling is undergoing an $8 billion expansion.
…………………………………………….. Challenges lie ahead to bring AUKUS to fruition
Aside from skills and workforce issues, there are other major challenges that still need to be overcome to bring AUKUS to fruition.
The sale of Virginia-class submarines to Australia requires the approval of the US Congress, and significant changes are needed to a complex set of export controls restricting how sensitive technology is transferred.
Questions also remain over how the US will deliver the promised Virginia-class submarines, given the pressure its own shipyards are under to meet local demand.
The US Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Michael Gilday, last month said it was “too early” to provide an answer on exactly where the subs would come from…………… https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-08/aukus-nuke-school-training-australian-navy-submariners/102572156
An Attack on the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Plant Could Still be Catastrophic (- nuclear promoters minimise the risk)
Ed Lyman, July 7, 2023 https://blog.ucsusa.org/edwin-lyman/an-attack-on-the-zaporizhzhia-nuclear-plant-could-still-be-catastrophic/
Ukraine has accused Russia of planning to carry out a sabotage attack at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant that it has controlled since it seized it by force in March 2022. Although it reports this morning that this current threat is decreasing, the situation is fluid and the plant remains vulnerable to both accidents and attacks. While this ongoing crisis should not lead to panic, there is no cause for complacency either.
Unfortunately, the American Nuclear Society (ANS) and other commenters have been busy attempting to dismiss the risks that either an accident or a deliberate attack could lead to a significant radiological release with far-reaching consequences. Simply put, the ANS is dead wrong here, and by minimizing the potential risk it is endangering Ukrainians and others who may be affected by lulling them into a false sense of security and undermining any motivation to prepare for the worst. Effective emergency preparedness requires a clear-eyed understanding of the actual threat.
As I have pointed out previously, the fact that the six reactors have been in shutdown mode for many months (with one in “hot”, as opposed to “cold,” shutdown) does reduce the risk somewhat compared to a situation where reactors are operating or have only recently shut down. The decay heat in the reactors’ cores decreases significantly over time, although the rate of decrease slows down quite a bit after a few months. However, this does not mean, as ANS misleadingly implies, that there is no risk of a major radiological release that could disperse over a wide area. What it does mean is that if cooling were disrupted to one or more of the reactors, then there would be a longer period of time—days instead of hours—for operators to fix the problem before the cooling water in the reactor cores would start to boil away and drop below the tops of the fuel assemblies, causing the fuel to overheat and degrade.
Timely operator actions are even more critical for reactors that are shut down than for reactors that are operating, since some automatic safety systems are not functional during shutdown. Indeed, in a 1997 report, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) points out that “acceptable results for most of events during shutdown modes cannot be achieved without operator intervention.” The IAEA report states that both “preventive and mitigatory capabilities are somewhat degraded” in shutdown conditions, and lists a number of shutdown accident initiators for VVER-1000s.
One class of events of particular concern are “boron dilution” accidents, in which the concentration of boron in cooling water necessary to maintain reactors in a subcritical state becomes reduced and nuclear fission inadvertently begins in the core. This would not only increase the reactor temperature and the amount of heat that would have to be removed, but would also generate new quantities of troublesome short-lived fission products, such as iodine isotopes, which have previously decayed away in the months since shutdown. (This is why it remains important that potassium iodide—a drug that can block uptake of radioactive iodine in the thyroid—continue to be available to communities who may be in the path of any plume.)
It is also important to note that it is very unusual for reactors to be maintained for any length of time in either hot or cold shutdown modes with fuel remaining in the core, as is the case at Zaporizhzhia. Whenever nuclear reactors operate in unusual conditions that have not been thoroughly analyzed, risks increase.
Unfortunately, because of the incredible stress that the greatly reduced staff at Zaporizhzhia are under, and the unclear lines of command under Russian occupation, their ability to efficiently execute all the actions necessary to mitigate any accident or sabotage attack is in grave doubt. And if timely operator intervention does not occur, and the fuel assemblies are exposed, then a core melt accident similar to what was experienced in three of the reactors at Fukushima Daiichi is certainly possible.
Once the water level has dropped below the tops of the fuel assemblies, the original decay heat in the reactor core is no longer a relevant factor because when the zirconium cladding surrounding the fuel rods overheats and reacts with steam or air, it produces additional heat through a so-called exothermic reaction. The heat released in this way would soon become far greater than the original decay heat load and would accelerate the heat-up and degradation of the reactor core. At that point, it would be much harder for operators to arrest the progression of the core melt. Eventually, the molten core would drop to the floor of the steel reactor vessel and melt through it onto the floor of the containment building, where it would react with concrete to generate hot gases. Then, there are multiple ways in which the radioactive gases and aerosols generated during the core melt could be released into the environment, including a containment melt-through mode that is possible in VVER-1000 reactors such as Zaporizhzhia.
There is no technical reason why any resulting radioactive releases could not disperse at least as far as occurred at Fukushima, depending on the meteorological conditions. The heat of the radioactive plumes, which determines how high they will rise in the atmosphere and hence how far they can travel, largely come from the heat released by zirconium oxidation. The magnitude and extent of the resulting environmental contamination would depend on the “source term,” or the inventory and characteristics of the radioactive materials released from the site. Since up to six reactors and six spent fuel pools could be involved—especially if the site is deliberately sabotaged—the source term could ultimately be larger than that of Fukushima, where only three reactors were involved and containments remained largely intact.
Thus it is imperative that the international community take Ukraine’s warnings seriously and provide all the assistance it needs for emergency preparedness. Unjustified complacency could lead to a lack of resolve for addressing the danger, only increasing the potential for a long-lasting disaster that will compound the misery of the Ukrainian people.
Better, safer, alternatives for managing Fukushima’s radioactively polluted wastewater
independent marine biologists and, ecosystem specialists have been opposed across the planet, to dumping this partially treated water since the ALPS system was exposed as an inadequate treatment program. All nuclear advocates do is parrot, the limited, legal liability mantra all corporations do.
When did, anyone, read, any BURNING FUEL FOR ENERGY FIRM EVER ADMIT LEGAL LIABILITY over, its production or waste they dump into the ecosystems on a global scale?
Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS) largely chosen because it was cheaper than treating it with the more expensive systems offered outside of TEPCO, on the international market.
REVERSE OSMOSIS-RO
TEPCO considered implementing a reverse osmosis system to remove radioactive contaminants from the water. RO is a widely used technology for desalination and purification. But the process was far too expensive given the volumes of water that needed processing, completely removing various radionuclides, including cesium, strontium, and cobalt, from the contaminated water.
CONCRETE ENCAPSULATION
Solidifying the wastewater in concrete has multiple benefits over ocean dumping, would allow all the water to be processed and removed from the tanks in as little as 5 years, considerably faster than the 30+ year timeframe for ocean disposal.
The tritium (which along with carbon-14 is not removed from the water) would remain trapped inside the concrete with negligible dose outside or on its surface since tritium betas cannot penetrate the skin.
Japan consumes approximately 40 million tons of cement annually, according to the Japanese Cement Association. If cement usage patterns in Japan are comparable to those in the United States, roughly one third of that amount, or 13 million tons, is likely used for making concrete for applications with minimal human contact or exposure.
Given this, a significant portion of the ALPS-treated wastewater could potentially be utilized for concrete required for various purposes at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant site itself.
This could include concrete for barrier walls, storage containers, stabilizing radioactive soil piles, and other similar applications.
Therefore, using concrete for low human contact is not without precedent as Japan plans to recycle far more radioactive soil for civil works projects which is another controversial topic domestically.
In addition, fresh water would be conserved since it is not used for manufacturing providing environmental benefits.
As a non-transboundary alternative, concrete encapsulation would likely be advantageous for Japan in its relations with other countries and domestically especially its fishing industry which would likely be severely affected.
UNDERGROUND INJECTION
Another option that was suggested involved injecting the treated water deep underground, into a geological layer that could safely contain the contaminants. This method would require careful consideration of the geology and hydrology of the area to ensure long-term safety.
ADVANCED LIQUID PROCESSING SYSTEM-ALPS
Was developed, in-house, by TEPCO, ALPS and designed to be a more cost-effective system, than on offer by outside developers, claimed to remove various radionuclides, including caesium, strontium, and cobalt, from the contaminated water.
The hope was the treated water, would meet the revised regulatory standards for safe discharge. TEPCO admitted publicaly, not all the caesium, strontium, and cobalt, were removed from the contaminated water.
Tritium was reduced, there is no doubt, even though the testing was reported as flawed and demonstrated in press releases by TEPCO themselves.
World’s 30 major banks are NOT investing in so-called “green” “sustainable” nuclear energy
None of the world’s 30 major banks have explicitly included nuclear energy
in their criteria for issuing green or sustainability-linked bonds,
researchers said on Thursday, despite an EU decision last year to label it
as sustainable.
The European Union decided last year to include nuclear
power plants in its list of investments that can be labelled and marketed
as green. The move aimed to guide investors towards climate-friendly
technologies, but split EU countries who disagree on atomic energy’s green
credentials.
So far, banks have not followed the EU’s lead in their own
green bond rules, according to an analysis by Columbia University’s Center
on Global Energy Policy. The study looked at the 30 banks deemed
systemically important by the Financial Stability Board. Of those banks, 17
had explicitly excluded nuclear energy from their green financing
frameworks, while 12 had frameworks that were silent on nuclear, and one
had no such framework, the researchers said.
Reuters 6th July 2023
Despite Zelensky’s claims, there’s no evidence that Russia has rigged Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhya plant with explosives, nuclear watchdog says
Business Insider, Charles R. Davis , Jul 8, 2023
- The IAEA said Friday there’s no sign Russia plans to destroy the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant.
- Inspectors “have not seen any mines or explosives,” according to the head of the nuclear watchdog.
- However, the IAEA said its experts have not been provided full access to the facility.
The United Nations’ nuclear watchdog said Friday that it has seen no evidence that Russia intends to blow up the largest nuclear power plant in Europe, a finding that comes after the head of Ukraine’s military intelligence walked back an earlier warning of impending disaster.
In a status report on the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant, which Russian forces occupied soon after last year’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Rafael Mariano Grossi, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said inspectors were recently provided “some additional access” to the facility after Ukraine claimed it had been rigged with bombs……………………………………..
Russia has repeatedly denied it has any intention of causing a nuclear disaster. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov this week argued that the real threat is Ukrainian “sabotage.”…. https://www.businessinsider.com/no-sign-russia-has-mined-zaporizhzhya-plant-nuclear-watchdog-says-2023-7
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 