Some people ask me how they can help the Fukushima victims, and especially the children not evacuated and condemned to live in highly contaminated environment.
You may help with a donation the Fukushima Children’s Fund.
Fukushima Children’s Fund has promoted the movement of collecting donations and of donating food radiation measuring instruments and whole-body radiation detectors (whole-body counters).
F.C.F. has also undertaken a recuperation project for the children living in radioactive contamination areas. We hope this recuperation in a radiation-free place will help the children to decrease their internal radiation exposure and strengthen their immune system.
Any amount will be greatly appreciated.
About Fukushima Children’s Fund
F.C.F. was established in June in 2011 about three months after the outset of the Fukushima nuclear incident.
For the Fukushima nuclear incident victims, F.C.F. as a sister group of the Chernobyl Children’s Fund, Japan is now trying to make the most of…
View original post 1,567 more words
The Japanese government is moving toward decommissioning the Monju prototype fast-breeder nuclear reactor in Tsuruga, Fukui Prefecture. The Mainichi answers common questions readers may have about what kind of reactor Monju is, and the state of international research on other fast-breeder reactors.
Question: The Monju reactor is supposedly a power generating device, but how does it work?
Answer: The reactor uses one of three high-speed neutrons that are released when plutonium-239 undergoes nuclear fission, causing more plutonium-239 to undergo nuclear fission and creating heat. The other two neutrons are collided with uranium-238 — which is not usable by normal nuclear reactors — to create more plutonium-239. The reactor is called a “fast-breeder” because it uses “fast” neutrons to “breed” more nuclear fuel.
Q: What were the original research objectives at Monju?
A: Generally, the development process of fast-breeder reactors is to create an experimental reactor followed by a prototype reactor…
View original post 320 more words
Dr Goebbels would be delighted with the nuclear lobby’s lie that nuclear power is zero carbon and will fix climate change. He would be even more delighted with the current success of this lie.
“Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.”
The failing nuclear industry is fighting for its life. It now pitches its salvation on its claim to halt climate change.
Even if that were true (which it isn’t) the world would have to construct several thousand ‘conventional’ reactors, or several millions of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) very quickly, within a decade or two.
How is it that politicians , media, academics have swallowed this lie?
Once again, I have to admit, that however terrible the nuclear industry is, the climate threat is the currently urgent global danger. That’s because the “window of opportunity” to contain it is near to closing. Global warming will accelerate as oceans reach limits of remediation. Climate change action can be stopped by Trans Pacific Partnership.
South Australia. Premier Jay Weatherill wrote a deceptive pro nuclear article. (I’ll be writing more about this at a later stage). However, the comments below his article showed that not all registered Advertiser readers were taken in. Weatherill has gone to Finland accompanied by pro nuclear advocates. Jay Weatherill’s plan is not only ridiculously long term, but also political dynamite. Meanwhile, Finland companies keen to market their nuclear waste technology to South Australia. In that same article Weatherill mentions the next step in his campaign – to change South Australia’s law against nuclear waste storage
The SA government runs a nuclear “Your Say” site. People must register to comment. And they do. Some critical comments are posted. 80 % of ABC North and West listeners oppose South Australia’s nuclear waste import plan.
The SA government continues its nuclear roadshow. Very little media information. Facebook can be a source of news, e.g. Nuclear Fuel Cycle Watch South Australia and Fight to Stop Nuclear Waste Dump in Flinders Ranges SA
CLIMATE. Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) lodges appeal against Federal Court’s approval of giant Adani coal mine.
Renewable Energy. Business Investment in Renewable Energy hit by government cuts to Australian Renewable Energy Agency.
No site has been selected to house the world’s high-level international waste for profit, should the state choose to build one, nor any explanation of how one would be picked. The State Government is yet to overturn laws that ban public money being spent on investigating the establishment of a nuclear dump or even to pick up the phone to ask places like Japan what they would pay…….
Mr Weatherill is likely to confirm before Christmas that the Government will begin the serious work of developing a robust business case…….
Expect the Government to seek money from overseas to undertake a major geological survey that rules out places too unsafe for disposal to occur. At a cost of up to $1 billion, this is too expensive for SA to fund itself, but could have the benefit of doubling as a discovery tool for new mining deposits.
From there, it is likely the offer will be thrown open to communities to show an interest, and estimates made of what they could receive. Even on the most extremely rapid timeline, that point is unlikely to have been reached by the time voters head to the polls in March 2018.
This project is multi-generational, with a point of no return years away. But it is a doubtful and open question as to whether our politics are up to the job…….Mr Weatherill has framed this as a great test of our democracy’s ability to consider difficult questions and come to wise solutions. … http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/opinion/lack-of-trust-more-toxic-than-nuclear-dump-notion-daniel-wills/news-story/e927e455e6f244f35a8b6743bc791adb
We shouldn’t be the world’s nuclear dump, Adelaide Hills Herald News. By Councillor Lynton Vomow, Lobethal 23 Sep 16, You may have recently had a say at one of the Nuclear Waste Dump forums being held around the state. My biggest concern, however, being the prevention of an accident at sea and the loss of highly radioactive nuclear waste into the ocean, was not satisfactorily explained .
Indeed the attendant basically said that we could not guarantee against such a disastrous event, it could be impossible to retrieve every container of waste and modelling is showing it wouldn’t actually be that bad! Fish and all creatures of the ocean for hundreds of miles around the lost radioactive waste material would be devastatingly affected.
Did you know that medium or high level (depending on whether it’s France or Australia describing it) nuclear rubbish was brought to Australia, in December just last year, in a rust bucket that had failed three safety inspections in five years?
Can you imagine what could happen if we were to receive dozens of shipments? Can we be guaranteed the waste will make it here safely, every single time?
Some are saying that low level waste is non hazardous, so then why not store it near its source i.e Sydney, and save the fuel costs of transporting it?
Basically a low level waste dump would be coming here to soften us up for a high level dump.
There is a need to have safe repositories for the waste, somewhere, but it will have to be near its usage location.
Countries ought to be looking at phasing out nuclear power so that there is as little waste as possible.
How long does nuclear waste last anyway? Can you imagine two hundred years? Ten times that then takes us back to the birth of Christ. Ten times all of that now takes us back to just before the last ice age, 20,000 years ago. Then ten times 20,000 years? 200,000 years. That’s when only about half of the atoms in high level nuclear waste will have decayed to less harmful atoms. It is going to be a long wait for this deadly waste to become harmless, to care for our generation’s nuclear waste.
Are we going to be beggars or choosers? We are not so desperate that we have to take the world’s most toxic waste and prevent it from damaging anything for hundreds of thousands of years.
South Australia continues to have huge potential for growing the renewable energy industry instead.
The risk to the world’s environment of transporting high level nuclear waste across the oceans to to the furthest point on the planet, ie, South Australia, just doesn’t make sense.
And people, (including of course the Adnyamathanha Indigenous people of the Flinders Ranges) do not want it.
Pine Gap: Secretive spy base’s role in drone strikes putting Australia in danger, expert warns http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-23/pine-gaps-actions-could-endanger-australian-security/7872190?section=environment The World Today By Brendan Trembath An expert on Pine Gap has raised concerns about the spy base’s role in supporting drone attacks on suspected terrorists overseas.
Officially called The Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap, the site is jointly run by the Australian and United States governments and is one of Australia’s most secret sites. The facility has been in operation since 1970 and is located half-an-hour’s drive south-west of Alice Springs.
Professor Richard Tanter, from the University of Melbourne, says Pine Gap contributes targeting data to American drone operations, including assassinations. “One of Pine Gap’s two key functions is as a control station and a downlink station for signal intelligence satellites 36,000 kilometres up in space,” he said. “They are picking up a very wide array of radio transmissions, including cell phones, satellite phones and so forth. “And that provides the data, both the contents and the geolocation data for targets of interest through the United States military.”
He said Pine Gap was also used for counter-terrorism and wider intelligence programs, as the site was able to contribute data “pretty directly — for example into drone targeting operations.”
Professor Tanter acknowledged that those type of programs were part of the alliance between the US and Australia, and Australia’s interest in the global fight against terrorism
But he said the question was whether it could be considered a good idea on a political level, seeing the potential for creating “further terrorism” if a strike were to go wrong.
“At a legal and moral level do we really want to be involved in operations which are frankly illegal under international law. In countries where we’re not at war, such as Pakistan or Somalia or Yemen, these are simply assassinations.”
“We won’t like it very much when it’s done back to us I suspect.”
Base also a likely target for nuclear missiles Professor Tanter said the site continued to be a “pretty high priority nuclear missile target” in the event of a major conflict between the United States and Russia or China.
“It would be, as they say in the military, a lucrative target of many benefits,” Professor Tanter said . “Secondly it is itself involved in nuclear war planning. I think that’s a totally awful thing for us to contemplate — you can’t use nuclear weapons except in a fairly genocidal way.”The Defence Department said that “the facility makes an important contribution to national security.”
A spokesperson said: “It provides intelligence on priorities such as terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and foreign military capability and weapons developments. “It also supports monitoring of compliance with arms control and disarmament agreements, and provides ballistic missile early warning information.”
U.S. intelligence community warns climate change is already destabilizing communities worldwide, Mashable, 23 Sept 16 The U.S. intelligence community on Wednesday released a new report finding that global warming is already acting as a destabilizing force worldwide, with more serious ramifications to come in the next two decades.
The report also states that during the next five years, which will largely fall within the timeframe of the next presidential administration, climate change will cause growing security risks for the U.S. that “will arise primarily from distinct extreme weather events and from the exacerbation of currently strained conditions, like water shortages.” Continue reading
This is part of a very important article, in which Dr Baverstock thoroughly refutes the claims of Professor Geraldine Thomas’ made in a BBC interview, about Fukushima ionising radiation not being much to worry about. The BBC has since withdrawn her statements.
But that hasn’t stopped the South Australian government bringing Thomas out here to spin her stuff, in support of Weatherill’s push for SA as the global nuclear waste dump.
Thomas’ comments in the video were insulting to the intelligence of the Japanese authorities and their advisors, and extremely ill-judged from a professional radiological point of view. The BBC was right to withdraw her comments as incorrect
‘This was quite clearly scientific misconduct’ by Dr Keith Baverstock, Fissiononline 23 Sept 16 . I will take the BBC interview first. In this interview Thomas questions the whole basis of the Japanese response to the Fukushima accident in terms of its evacuation policy. Is one to imagine that those authorities and the Japanese scientific establishment are so stupid as not to recognise that there is no risk entailing living in those areas?
The internationally agreed public dose limit is 1 mSv per year in addition to approximately 2 mSv per year from natural background radiation. The single measurement made in that television interview indicate 2.8 microsieverts per hour, which is close to 25 mSv per year. That includes the natural background doses o at that point the dose rate is at least 20 times the public dose limit.
Surely Thomas can recognise that this must demand serious consideration by the appropriate authorities as to the safety of those who would live there? Continue reading
Climate change could cross key threshold in a decade: scientists By Laurie Goering 23 Sept 16, OXFORD, England (Thomson Reuters Foundation) – The planet could pass a key target on world temperature rise in about a decade, prompting accelerating loss of glaciers, steep declines in water availability, worsening land conflicts and deepening poverty, scientists said this week.
Last December, 195 nations agreed to try to hold world temperature rise to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius, with an aim of 1.5 degrees Celsius.
But the planet is already two-thirds of the way to that lower and safer goal, and could begin to pass it in about a decade, according to Richard Betts, head of climate impacts research at the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre.
With world emissions unlikely to slow quickly enough to hit that target, it will probably be necessary to remove some carbon pollution from the atmosphere to stabilize the planet, scientists said at a University of Oxford conference on how to achieve the 1.5 degree goal.
That could happen by planting forests or by capturing and then pumping underground emissions from power plants. Or countries could turn to controversial “geoengineering” techniques, such as blocking some of the sunlight arriving on the planet, to hold down temperatures, they said.
“Negative emission technologies are likely to be needed, whether we like them or not,” said Pete Smith, a plant and soil scientist at the University of Aberdeen.
But other changes – such as reducing food waste and creating more sustainable diets, with less beef and fewer imported greenhouse vegetables – could also play a big role in meeting the goal, without so many risks, he said.
“There are lots of behavioral changes required, not just by the government … but by us,” Smith said……..http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-impacts-conference-idUSKCN11S1FE
As a result of the measurement of radioactivity from the town of Hirono to the town of Okuma.
Measurements and vido from Tarachine Medical Center, a citizen organized radiation measuring center located in Iwaki city, Fukushima Prefecture.
Credit to tarachine Medical Center
Based on the data released by everyone to the Minna-san data website, a map of the soil contamination of Tokyo by radioactivity was put together.
This data is the result of measurements from 2013 to now 2016.
You can see that the radioactive contamination spread over a wide range of Tokyo.
Particularly, Katsushika district, Edogawa district, Shinjuku district, Setagaya district and Bunkyō district.
Radioactive contamination of both radioactive cesium 134 and 137 exceeding 500Bq / kg has been confirmed.
Among other locations: Inagi city/ Katsushi district / Edogawa district / Eto district / Arakawa district / Kokubunji city / Kokuritsu City / Komae City / Mitaka City / Kodaira city/ Shinjuku district / Suginami district/ Setagaya district / Nishitama gun / Ome city / Chiyoda district / Ota District/ Oshima-cho / Machida city / Chofu city / Higashi Kurume City / Higashimurayama city / Hachioji city / Fuchu city…
View original post 22 more words
Reassessing the 3.11 Disaster and the Future of Nuclear Power in Japan: An Interview with Former Prime Minister Kan Naoto
Interview by Vincenzo Capodici, Introduction by Shaun Burnie, Translation by Richard Minear
For more than two decades, the global nuclear industry has attempted to frame the debate on nuclear power within the context of climate change: nuclear power is better than any of the alternatives. So the argument went. Ambitious nuclear expansion plans inthe United States and Japan, two of the largest existing markets, and the growth of nuclear power in China appeared to show—superficially at least—that the technology had a future. At least in terms of political rhetoric and media perception, it appeared to be a winning argument. Then came March 11, 2011. Those most determined to promote nuclear power even cited the Fukushima Daiichi accident as a reason for expanding nuclear power: impacts were low, no one died, radiation levels are not a risk. So claimeda handful of commentators in the international (particularly English-language) media.
View original post 1,852 more words