Rex Patrick demolishes Richard Marles’ slick lies about AUKUS and the nuclear submarines.
Michael West Media, by Rex Patrick | Aug 19, 2023 (the original shows Rex Patrick’s Freedom of Information request for documents on 6 aspects of the nuclear submarine arrangement, and the 6 responses from the Defence Deapatment – in each case “Deny Access”.)
At this week’s Labor Conference Defence Minister Richard Marles distributed a 32 paragraph statement for insertion into the ALP National Platform to explain the Albanese’s Government’s rationale for an incredible $368B of public expenditure on submarines. At $11.5B per paragraph, one can be left very disappointed in his words. Rex Patrick provides readers with a hard hitting paragraph-by-paragraph analysis that reveals a massive swindle.
A peaceful and secure region
- Labor believes that Australia’s interests lie in shaping a region that is peaceful, stable and prosperous. A predictable region, operating by agreed rules, standards and laws. Where no country dominates, and no country is dominated. A region where sovereignty is respected, and all countries benefit from a strategic equilibrium.
Labor is no stranger to hypocrisy when it comes to international affairs. To take but one example, West Papua is neither “peaceful, stable or prosperous”. Slow motion genocide is taking place there. Indonesia has engaged in shocking abuses of indigenous Papuans, including child killings, disappearances, torture and mass displacement of people. Hundreds of thousands of West Papuans have died in a struggle to be free of Indonesian rule.
Since becoming Defence Minister, Marles has sat down and met with his Indonesia counterpart, Prabowo Subianto on three occasions.
In the early 1990s, as the commander of Kopassus Group 3, Prabowo commanded Indonesian special forces and militias that were responsible for murder, torture and other human rights abuses in East Timor. In 1996 he led Indonesian forces in bloody reprisal actions against West Papua separatists.
In 1998 troops under Prabowo’s command kidnapped and tortured democracy activists and the General was implicated orchestrating mob violence in Jakarta against Indonesians of Chinese descent. He was banned from entry into the United States on account of his human rights abuses.
It appears some breaches of “agreed rules, standards and laws” that Marles talks about are subject to ‘looking the other way’, as is convenient.
Labor is using all elements of our national power to shape the world in our interests and to shape it for the better. We will always use diplomacy as our primary effort to reduce tensions and create conditions for peace. Labor will continue to build on our strong diplomatic efforts in our region and will rebuild Australia’s international development program.
The truth is that Australia’s international development program is a drop in the budget bucket when compared to the $368B being spent on AUKUS submarines, and which goes to UK and US defence contractors.
Labor is committed to maintaining peace, regional development, positive relationships and stability across our region. Labor is committed to a peaceful and nuclear weapons free Pacific.
In 1984 New Zealand’s Labour Prime Minister David Lange banned nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed ships from using New Zealand ports or entering New Zealand waters. Lange’s decision was widely seen as marking a milestone in New Zealand’s development as a nation and an important act of sovereignty and self-determination.
Australian Labor wasn’t quite so inclined. Labor Leader Bill Hayden’s declaration that nuclear-powered and nuclear armed ships would not be welcome in Australian ports never came to fruition. Instead, the Hawke Labor Government ensured that the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone was watered down and that US nuclear-armed ships could continue to visit Australian ports. Labor’s leadership has now moved to ownership of nuclear-powered ships.
Securing Australia’s Sovereignty
- Labor’s defence policy is founded on the principles of Australian sovereignty and self-reliance.
All six Collins Class submarines were built in Australia. We own the intellectual property for the Collins submarines and we conduct 92% of the sustainment work here in Australia.
With AUKUS, we abandon that sovereign capability and self-reliance, buying out first three submarines from the US. We go from being builders and sustainers, to buyers and roadside assistance.
Building Australia’s military defence capability sits alongside our diplomatic efforts, as we play our part in collective deterrence of aggression. By having strong defence capabilities of our own, and by working with partners investing in their own capabilities, we change the calculus for any potential aggressor.
We are putting all of our Defence capability eggs in one basket, with a long term, bank breaking, monolithic program to get to the point where, at some stage in the late 2050’s, we’ll be able to keep just three submarines available for use at any time – in the context of China, Paul Keating describes this as “throwing toothpicks at the mountain”.
Defence cooperation partnerships, including with our ally the United States, are managed through robust policy frameworks and principles that maintain and protect our sovereignty. These frameworks govern the activities of foreign governments in, from or through Australia – and how we partner with other nations to acquire capabilities in line with our national interests. Australia’s Defence partnerships are anchored in Australian sovereignty.
We have gone from hosting the Pine Gap intelligence collecting facility near Alice Springs, the submarine communication station at North West Cape and participation in the Five Eye intelligence network to hosting US Marines and their helicopters in Darwin, B-52s from Katherine, US and UK submarines from Perth, U.S. Navy Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance Aircraft from Australian air bases, pre-positioning of US Army stores and material in Victoria with a plan to establish a US Logistics Support Area in Queensland.
We’re seeing more US capability turning up on our shores. When the US engages in a conflict in the regions, we’ll have no choice but to be involved. Even if we were to refuse direct involvement, we’ll have capabilities and facilities here that will be involved in supporting US operations and they will be of (targeting) interest to the opposing side. The Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap will be intimately involved in providing intelligence to support US operations across the Pacific and Asia, including operations which will be staged from Australia.
But our forces will be directly involved, anyway. The integration and interchange marriage that’s being aggressively pursued will demand it.
Australia’s Defence partnerships isn’t anchored in Australian sovereignty, as Marles claims, it’s anchored to the US.
- Labor commits that our cooperation with these partners strengthens, rather than detracts from, our sovereignty by affording us access to capability, technology, and intelligence we could not acquire on our own and provides us with an opportunity to export our defence products.
Instead of focussing on ensuring Australia has the sovereign capabilities to defend ourselves and ensure we can make our own decisions about war and peace, our Government and the ADF leadership have chosen to go ‘all the way’ with the USA.
Instead of ensuring our equipment can communicate and work alongside the US’s and other’s equipment, we’ve embarked on a course of total integration into the US Armed Forces. We’ve surrendered interoperability choice to integration and interchangeability (identical equipment) in the context of US controlled operations.
Making our contribution to the collective security of our region and to the maintenance of the global rules-based order – so fundamental to Australia’s prosperity – is at the heart of Australia’s strategic intent behind acquiring a conventionally-armed, modern and fit for purpose nuclear-powered submarine capability.
The AUKUS submarine project is not about the long standing national security bedrock strategy of ‘Defence of Australia’. It’s about dovetailing the ADF into US strategy to fight a war against China in North Asia. It isn’t about defending Australian trade, it’s about acquiring the ability to strike at targets in the South China Sea, the East China Sea, the Yellow Sea and along China’s coast.
Labor will ensure that irrespective of whether our defence assets are developed indigenously, acquired from abroad, or developed in partnership – Australia will always make sovereign, independent decisions as to how they are employed.
Australia will make our sovereign decisions within an alliance framework in which we are the minor dependent partner. When it comes to decisions about war and peace in the Pacific, Washington will act according to its global interests and its increasingly erratic and confused domestic political situation. AUKUS has handcuffed Australia to US strategy at a time when the US is less reliable as a partner than it has been at any time over the past eight decades.
- Labor will ensure that all Australian warships, including submarines, are Australian sovereign assets, commanded by Australian officers and under the sovereign control of the Australian Government.
Each and every pawn on a chess board sits alone and acts singularly, but always under the direction of the chess player. Australia’s pawns will ultimately be directed by US decision-makers.
Labor believes that Australia’s acquisition of submarines does not involve any ante facto commitment to participate in, or be directed in accordance with, the military operations of any other country.
The idea that an Australian Government would be neutral in a conflict between the US and China over Taiwan won’t be given any serious consideration. Kim Beazley made that clear in confidential talks with the US years ago. In 2006 the then Labor leader privately told the US Embassy that “In the event of a war between the United States and China, Australia would have absolutely no alternative but to line up militarily beside the U.S. … Otherwise, the alliance would be effectively dead and buried, something Australia could never afford to see happen.”
The private thinking of Labor’s leadership is no different today, and through their embrace of AUKUS they have tightened the ties that bind immeasurably. If war comes, the only question will be how much of our still very small Defence Force will we directly commit to a high intensity conflict
“Opportunities for Australian workers“……………………….There’s been a big pitch on this to get Labor’s union base onside with AUKUS. However, while Marles talks big, the Government has given very few details. The Department of Defence is refusing to release its workplace study under FOI……….Past experience shows that Defence Department projections of Australian industry/jobs benefits are always over promised and under delivered. …. The US and the UK will be experiencing the benefits of Australian AUKUS funding well before any job creation at Osborne in South Australia. …………..
“Nuclear Safety and Stewardship”………………
Labor will redouble its efforts to strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament regime, including the NPT. Labor will ensure Australian remains fully committed to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, known as the Treaty of Rarotonga. Labor will uphold its proud history of championing practical disarmament efforts, its commitment to high non-proliferation standards and its enduring dedication to a world without nuclear weapons.
This is at best disingenuous. Labor has no forward disarmament or non-proliferation agenda. Labor’s national conference commitment to sign the Nuclear Weapons Prohibition Treaty was written with so many caveats as to always be a dead letter and it’s well and truly moribund now in the context of AUKUS. And there’s nothing else – there are no multilateral disarmament or non-proliferation negotiations underway, and Australia isn’t doing anything to advance the cause. ………………………………….
Labor will maintain the prohibition on the establishment of nuclear power plants. This prohibition does not apply to a naval nuclear propulsion plant related to use in a conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarine.
There is a bit of Animal Farm playing out here; nuclear plants on land – bad, nuclear plants on water – good.
- Labor will ensure Australia is a responsible nuclear steward and maintains the highest level of nuclear safety in respect of nuclear-powered submarines. This includes the establishment of an independent statutory regulator, the Australian Nuclear-Powered Submarine Safety Regulator, that will be responsible for providing independent oversight and regulation of the nuclear-powered submarine program. Labor will continue to support the important work of Australia’s Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) in nuclear research and medicines as a priority.
The “independent” safety regulator sits within the Defence Department and will operate with a high degree of secrecy. It will never be truly independent. This was against the advice of Australian nuclear safety experts who emphasised the need for true independence and transparency, but it appears to be a compromise to accommodate US/UK security requirements.
Labor is committed to ensuring the management of radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel responsibly, including through an appropriately independent regulatory system. A rigorous process will determine the site of the nuclear waste facility, on the current or future Defence estate, with appropriate public consultation and agreement with First Nations communities to respect and protect cultural heritage. Australia will not be responsible for disposing spent nuclear fuel or accept other high-level radioactive waste from any other country.
Despite four decades of effort, Australia still hasn’t selected a site for a national low level radioactive waste repository. A high level waste repository is an even more difficult project – technically and politically. Albanese, Marles and other current decision makers will likely be long retired before this aspect of AUKUS is sorted out.
Even if the issue is solved, AUKUS radioactive legacy will linger for thousands of years.
Labor will ensure that regular updates are provided to Parliament, including relevant Parliamentary committees, and the relevant stakeholders, including defence industry, unions, and the ALP National Conference on the progress of Australia’s acquisition of conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarines.
The words in this paragraph are completely divorced from the reality of questions that have not been answered in the Senate and FOI’s which have been refused in full……………………………………………………more https://michaelwest.com.au/marles-mauled-rex-patrick-demolishes-defence-sophistry-on-aukus-submarines-nuclear/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=2023-08-24&utm_campaign=Michael+West+Media+Weekly+Update
French Winter Power Twice as Pricey as Germany’s on Nuclear Woes
By Todd Gillespie, April 19, 2023 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-19/french-winter-power-twice-as-pricey-as-germany-s-on-nuclear-woes?leadSource=uverify%20wall#xj4y7vzkg
France’s weakened nuclear power output means the cost of its electricity for next winter is more than twice as expensive as Germany’s, as concerns over the health of the country’s reactors persist.
The “massive” gap of nearly €250 ($273) per megawatt-hour between French and German prices is because traders are pricing in more risk as they await updates on Electricite de France SA’s struggles with its aging atomic fleet, according to analysts at Engie SA’s EnergyScan. “No participants want to risk being short next winter,” they wrote.
French power for the first quarter of 2024 is trading at €416 per megawatt-hour, more than double Germany’s rate of €169. Normally a power exporter, France’s atomic generation has been gradually returning to service but still remains below historical averages.
France, which relies on nuclear energy for most of its electricity, is expected to remain heavily dependent on power imports during the winter months to meet its demand. Meanwhile, Germany closed its last nuclear plants Saturday after years of political tension over phasing out the technology, but is still very reliant on polluting coal-fired power.
French nuclear availability was at 62% on Wednesday, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Nuclear output on Wednesday was above its level for this time last year after weeks of historic lows.
— With assistance by Josefine Fokuhl and Francois De Beaupuy
The Fukushima nuclear plant will start releasing treated wastewater. Here’s what you need to know.
The Canadian Press, Mari Yamaguchi, The Associated Press 23 Aug 23,
TOKYO (AP) — Japanese officials plan to start discharging treated radioactive wastewater from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the Pacific Ocean on Thursday, a contentious step more than 12 years after a massive earthquake and tsunami set off a battle against ever-increasing amounts of radioactive water at the plant.
The government and plant operator say the release is an unavoidable part of its decommissioning and will be safely carried out, but the plan faces opposition in and outside Japan. Here is a look at the controversy.
WHY IS THERE SO MUCH WASTEWATER?
The March 2011 earthquake and tsunami destroyed the plant’s cooling systems, causing three reactors to melt. Highly contaminated cooling water applied to the damaged reactors has leaked continuously to building basements and mixed with groundwater.
The plant operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings (TEPCO), has taken steps to limit the amount of groundwater and rainwater entering the reactor area, and has reduced the increase in contaminated water to about 100 tons a day, 1/5 of the initial amount. The water is collected and partly recycled as cooling water after treatment, with the rest stored in around 1,000 tanks, which are already filled to 98% of their 1.37 million-ton capacity.
WHY IS TEPCO RELEASING THE WATER NOW?
The government and TEPCO say they need to make room for the plant’s decommissioning and prevent accidental leaks from the tanks.
Japan has obtained support from the International Atomic Energy Agency to improve the transparency and credibility of the release and ensure it meets international safety standards. The government has also stepped up a campaign promoting the plan’s safety at home and through diplomatic channels.
WHAT’S IN THE TREATED WATER’?
The water is being treated by what’s called an Advanced Liquid Processing System, which can reduce the amounts of more than 60 selected radionuclides to government-set releasable levels, except for tritium, which officials say is safe for humans if consumed in small amounts.
About 70% of the water held in the tanks still contains cesium, strontium, carbon-14 and other radionuclides exceeding government-set levels. It will be retreated until the concentrations meet those limits, then diluted by more than 100 times its volume of seawater before it is released. That will bring it way below international safety limits, but its radioactivity won’t be zero.
HOW SAFE IS IT?
IAEA concluded in a report that the plan, if conducted as designed, will have negligible impact on the environment and human health. IAEA chief Rafael Grossi visited the plant and said he was satisfied with preparations.
Japan’s government says the release of tritium into the sea is a routine practice by nuclear plants around the world and that the amount will be several times lower than from plants in China and South Korea.
Scientists generally support the IAEA’s conclusion, while some call for more attention to dozens of low-dose radionuclides that remain in the water, saying data on their long-term effects on the environment and marine life are insufficient.
HOW WILL IT BE RELEASED?
TEPCO executive Junichi Matsumoto says the release will begin with the least radioactive water to ensure safety. After samples are analyzed in final testing, the water will be transported through a thin black pipe to a coastal area where it will be diluted with hundreds of times its volume of seawater.
The diluted water will enter an undersea tunnel and be released a few minutes later from a point 1 kilometer (0.6 mile) off the coast. The release will be gradual and will continue for decades until the decommissioning of the plant is finished, TEPCO officials say. Matsumoto said the slow release will further reduce the environmental impact.
Final preparation for the release began Tuesday when just 1 ton of water was sent for dilution with 1,200 tons of seawater, and the mixture was to be kept in the primary pool for two days for final sampling to ensure safety, Matsumoto said. A batch of 460 tons will be sent to the mixing pool Thursday for the actual discharge.
The company plans to release 31,200 tons of treated water by the end of March 2024, which would empty only 10 tanks because of the continued production of wastewater at the plant. The pace will later pick up.
WHY ARE PEOPLE WORRIED?
Fukushima’s badly hit fisheries, tourism and economy are still recovering from the disaster. Fisheries groups worry about a further damage to the reputation of their seafood. Fukushima’s current catch is only about one-fifth its pre-disaster level due to a decline in the fishing population and smaller catch sizes.
The head of the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives, Masanobu Sakamoto, said on Monday that “scientific safety and the sense of safety are different.”
Groups in South Korea and China have also raised concerns, turning the release into a political and diplomatic issue. China has stepped up radiation testing of fishery and agricultural products from Fukushima and nine other prefectures, halting exports at customs for weeks, Fisheries Agency officials say.
WHAT IF SOMETHING GOES WRONG?
The Japanese government says potential risks from the release of treated water are limited to reputational damage resulting from rumors, rather than scientific study. It has allocated 80 billion yen ($550 million) to support fisheries and seafood processing and combat potential reputation damage. TEPCO has also promised to deal with reputational damage claims.
The ageing nuclear reactors. How to keep them going for decades, (best to forget coming climate extremes)
plant-specific climate simulations do not exist for lower river levels, increased wildfires, or extreme weather events like tornadoes and heavy wind and rain.
Then there’s the issue of what to do with radioactive spent fuel.
Europe’s atomic reactors are getting old. Can they bridge the gap to an emissions-free future?
Reuters, By America Hernandez, Forrest Crellin, Prasanta Kumar Dutta, Anurag Rao and Aditi Bhandari, Aug. 22, 2023
Shaken by the loss of Russian natural gas since the invasion of Ukraine, European countries are questioning whether they can extend the lives of their ageing nuclear reactors to maintain the supply of affordable, carbon-free electricity — but national regulators, companies and governments disagree on how long the atomic plants can be safely kept running………………………………………………
Taken together, the UK and EU have 109 nuclear reactors running, most of which were built in the 1970s and 1980s and were commissioned to last about 30 years.
That means 95 of those reactors — nearly 90% of the fleet — have passed or are nearing the end of their original lifespan, igniting debates over how long they can safely continue to be granted operating extensions.
Extension talk: Bridging the gap or a new lease of life?
Regulations differ across borders, but life extension discussions are usually a once-a-decade affair involving physical inspections, cost/benefit estimates for replacing major worn-out parts, legislative amendments, and approval from the national nuclear safety authority.
In some countries — especially for those that planned to exit atomic power entirely after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan — discussion is focused on the short term: eking out a few years to get through any shortages before new wind, solar and gas installations can be built to take over.
Anti-nuclear Germany had planned to switch off its last three plants by the end of 2022, only to grant the sites an emergency extension to April 2023 to make it through winter without Russian gas — which previously made up 40% of EU gas supply……………………………………….
So far, Finland, Sweden, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, the Netherlands and Hungary have all taken steps to allow reactors to run for at least 60 years, subject to regular safety checks.
France, with the largest fleet, is carrying out a major 40-year inspection and refurbishment programme for its 32 oldest reactors.
ASN, the national safety authority, has said France’s pressurised water reactor (PWR) design in principle can be safely operated for 50 years — meaning the ageing plants can run through 2030 — but the regulator will not take a stance on extending to 60 years until the end of 2026……………………………………..
Some companies are pushing the limits further.
In February, Finland’s Fortum obtained permission to operate two reactors until 2050, when they will reach 70 years of age.
In Sweden, where licences are unlimited in time subject to regular safety checks, Vattenfall is considering 80 years of operation for its five reactors……………… More than scientific one-upmanship is at play.
…………………. The cost of pulling the plug
Politicians are also under pressure to keep energy prices low, especially as movements characterising climate action as costly and elitist gain ground.
That means ensuring steady, abundant supply — any swift, unexpected loss of a major source means market spikes and painful household bills.
Energy prices in Europe jumped exponentially in 2022 after many French reactors went offline. The impact was compounded by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
…………………………………..The biggest challenge is maintaining the reactor vessel, where uranium atoms are split to release neutrons inside the core. Those flying neutrons also hit the vessel’s steel walls, altering the lattice structure of the metal, making it hard and brittle.
Vattenfall and EDF try to slow down that embrittlement process by layering in special rods of hafnium metal or all……………………………….
Reactor vessels are generally seen as non-replaceable — though it has never been tried.
The same goes for the airtight containment building, which houses the reactor and all associated radiation-emitting parts, to keep it from being released into the atmosphere.
………………………… The French government, which this year nationalised EDF, has estimated it needs to hire and train at least 100,000 workers by 2033 if it hopes to run its fleet long term and build at least six new reactors.
That includes automation engineers, boilermakers, draughtsmen, electricians, maintenance technicians, blacksmiths, pipe fitters and welders.
Europe’s new pro-nuclear alliance would require some 450,000 skilled workers if it hopes to build an additional 50 GW of new nuclear by 2050, according to industry lobby Nucleareurope.
2050 and beyond: Hotter, drier, more radioactive trash
Industry cheerleaders point to Dubai’s new Barakah nuclear plant as proof reactors can be successfully designed to withstand desert heat and warmer water temperatures.
But few plants have room to be retrofitted with new safety systems, such as a dyke wall to protect against rising water levels, regulators warn.
“It’s a real headache to find [physical] space on a site that’s currently operating — we have reached certain limits in the feasible modifications of existing reactors,” said Karine Herviou, deputy director-general of France’s Institute for Radioprotection and Nuclear Safety, at the industry event on lifetime extensions.
The French fleet’s temperature margin to withstand heatwaves is constantly questioned, she added, while plant-specific climate simulations do not exist for lower river levels, increased wildfires, or extreme weather events like tornadoes and heavy wind and rain.
As a result, Herviou said in France: “There’s a general agreement that what we’ll do at the 50-year, 60-year mark will essentially be replacements for modernisation but very certainly not adding in any new safety systems … and checking for conformity and respect of already-applicable requirements, without further hiking the safety requirements.”
That rings alarm bells for third-party watchdogs like Mycle Schneider, who compiles the annual World Nuclear Industry Status Report and said ageing reactors need tighter scrutiny.
“You have a car, 30-to-40 years old, and your generator breaks down. You open the hood, the mechanic takes out the generator and then says, ‘Ooh, everything underneath is rotten’ — a 40-year-old nuclear plant is not all that different, you basically find on the go all kinds of things you didn’t expect to find,” Schneider said.
EDF wants the government to relax biodiversity rules which forbid plants from dumping used cooling water into nearby rivers on days they are deemed already too warm, limiting power production — which risks becoming more frequent.
Then there’s the issue of what to do with radioactive spent fuel.
Used uranium pellets, which are solid, are stored in special refrigerated swimming pools designed to cool the radioactive heat down for five-to-10 years. French company Orano then separates out the material into non-recyclable leftovers that are vitrified into glass (4% of the material), plutonium (1%) to create a new nuclear fuel called Mox, on which some 40% of France’s reactors can run; and reprocessed uranium (95%) which for now can only be re-enriched and “recycled” at one plant in Russia.
Non-recyclable waste can be safely stored in dry casks, but its ultimate destination is deep underground, where it will fully degrade over hundreds of thousands of years.
Sweden, Finland and France have plans to build such long-term underground sites……………………………………………………………………………… https://www.reuters.com/graphics/EUROPE-ENERGY/NUCLEARPOWER/gdvzwweqkpw/
Global Campaign Against Ocean Dumping of Nuclear Wastewater Worldwide Urgent Actions against Japan’s ocean dumping of nuclear wastewater on Aug 24th.
1. The USA
- Los Angeles, Aug 23rd, 12 – 1 PM @ Japanese Consulate
- New York, Aug 23rd, 12 – 1 PM @ Japanese Consulate (E 49th St & Park Ave.)
- Washington DC, Aug 25th, 11am @ Japanese Embassy
- Seattle, Washington, Aug 26th, 2pm @ Seattle Downtown ‘West Lake Park’
Organized by Global Candlelight Action
2. UK
- North Wales, Aug 25th, 5pm @ Bangor pier
Organized by PAWB ( People Against Wylfa B) and CADNO
3. Germany
- Berlin, Aug25th, 5 pm @ Brandenburg Gate
- Frankfurt, Aug 26th, 3 pm @ Rathenauplatz (Goetheplatz)
- Hamburk, September 9th
Organized by Global Candlelight Action
4. Fiji
- Suva, Aug 25th, 10am @ Japanese Embassy
Organized by PANG, Alliance for Future Generations, Pacific Conference of Churches; FWRM, DIVA for Equality and others joining the March including the largest Indigenous women’s network.
5. Japan
- Tokyo, Aug 22nd @ Japanese PM house
- Tokyo, Aug 23rd @ TEPCO
- Fukushima Iwaki, Aug 27th
Organized by Japanese CSOs alliances
6. Switzerland
- Zurich, September 16th
Organized by Global Candlelight Action
7. Canada
- Civil Zoom rally, on August 24, 5 pm
Organized by civil society in Canada
8. Australia
- Melbourne, Aug 26th (Sat), 5 pm @ Korea Society of Victoria
Organized by Global Candlelight Action
9. Korea
- Seoul, Aug 23rd, 7pm @ Japanese Embassy
- Seoul, Aug 24th, 7pm @ Japanese Embassy
- Seoul, Aug 26th, 6pm @ Korea Press Center
- 17 local cities nationwide in Korea hold a press conference and rallies from Aug 22nd~31st
Organized by Korean civil society alliances / Korean Peoples’ Action to Stop Dumping of Fukushima Daiichi Radioactive Water(KPA-SDFDRW)
1 This month
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
– go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com/
Antinuclear 