Daniel Kovalik: Why Russia’s intervention in Ukraine is legal under international law
One must begin this discussion by accepting the fact that there was already a war happening in Ukraine for the eight years preceding the Russian military incursion in February 2022. And, this war by the government in Kiev against the Russian-speaking peoples of the Donbass – a war which claimed the lives of around 14,000 people, many of them children, and displaced around 1.5 million more even before Russia’s military operation – has been arguably genocidal. That is, the government in Kiev, and especially its neo-Nazi battalions, carried out attacks against these peoples with the intention of destroying, at least in part, the ethnic Russians precisely because of their ethnicity.
The argument can be made that Russia exercised its right for self-defense
10 July 23 https://www.rt.com/russia/554166-international-law-military-operation-ukraine/
Daniel Kovalik teaches International Human Rights at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, and is author of the recently-released book Nicaragua: A History of US Intervention & Resistance.
For many years, I have studied and given much thought to the UN Charter’s prohibition against aggressive war. No one can seriously doubt that the primary purpose of the document – drafted and agreed to on the heels of the horrors of WWII – was and is to prevent war and “to maintain international peace and security,” a phrase repeated throughout.
As the Justices at Nuremberg correctly concluded, “To initiate a war of aggression … is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” That is, war is the paramount crime because all of the evils we so abhor – genocide, crimes against humanity, etc. – are the terrible fruits of the tree of war.
In light of the above, I have spent my entire adult life opposing war and foreign intervention. Of course, as an American, I have had ample occasion to do so given that the US is, as Martin Luther King stated, “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world.” Similarly, Jimmy Carter recently stated that the US is “the most war-like nation in the history of the world.” This is demonstrably true, of course. In my lifetime alone, the US has waged aggressive and unprovoked wars against countries such as Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, the former Yugoslavia, Iraq (twice), Afghanistan, Libya, and Somalia. And this doesn’t even count the numerous proxy wars the US has fought via surrogates (e.g., through the Contras in Nicaragua, various jihadist groups in Syria, and through Saudi Arabia and the UAE in the ongoing war against Yemen).
Indeed, through such wars, the US has done more, and intentionally so, than any nation on earth to undermine the legal pillars prohibiting war. It is in reaction to this, and with the express desire to try to salvage what is left of the UN Charter’s legal prohibitions against aggressive war, that a number of nations, including Russia and China, founded the Group of Friends in Defense of the UN Charter.
In short, for the US to complain about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a violation of international law is, at best, the pot calling the kettle black. Still, the fact that the US is so obviously hypocritical in this regard does not necessarily mean Washington is automatically wrong. In the end, we must analyze Russia’s conduct on its own merits.
One must begin this discussion by accepting the fact that there was already a war happening in Ukraine for the eight years preceding the Russian military incursion in February 2022. And, this war by the government in Kiev against the Russian-speaking peoples of the Donbass – a war which claimed the lives of around 14,000 people, many of them children, and displaced around 1.5 million more even before Russia’s military operation – has been arguably genocidal. That is, the government in Kiev, and especially its neo-Nazi battalions, carried out attacks against these peoples with the intention of destroying, at least in part, the ethnic Russians precisely because of their ethnicity.
While the US government and media are trying hard to obscure these facts, they are undeniable, and were indeed reported by the mainstream Western press before it became inconvenient to do so. Thus, a commentary run by Reuters in 2018 clearly sets out how the neo-Nazis battalions have been integrated into the official Ukrainian military and police forces, and are thus state, or at least quasi-state, actors for which the Ukrainian government bears legal responsibility. As the piece relates, there are 30-some right-wing extremist groups operating in Ukraine, that “have been formally integrated into Ukraine’s armed forces,” and that “the more extreme among these groups promote an intolerant and illiberal ideology… ”
That is, they possess and promote hatred towards ethnic Russians, the Roma peoples, and members of the LGBT community as well, and they act out this hatred by attacking, killing, and displacing these peoples. The piece cites the Western human rights group Freedom House for the proposition that “an increase in patriotic discourse supporting Ukraine in its conflict with Russia has coincided with an apparent increase in both public hate speech, sometimes by public officials and magnified by the media, as well as violence towards vulnerable groups such as the LGBT community.” And this has been accompanied by actual violence. For example, “Azov and other militias have attacked anti-fascist demonstrations, city council meetings, media outlets, art exhibitions, foreign students and Roma.”
As reported in Newsweek, Amnesty International had been reporting on these very same extremist hate groups and their accompanying violent activities as far back as 2014.
It is this very type of evidence – public hate speech combined with large-scale, systemic attacks on the targets of the speech – that has been used to convict individuals of genocide, for example in the Rwandan genocide case against Jean-Paul Akayesu.
To add to this, there are well over 500,000 residents of the Donbass region of Ukraine who are also Russian citizens. While that estimate was made in April 2021, after Vladimir Putin’s 2019 decree simplified the process of obtaining Russian citizenship for residents of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, this means that Russian citizens were being subjected to racialized attack by neo-Nazi groups integrated into the government of Ukraine, and right on the border of Russia.
And lest Russia was uncertain about the Ukrainian government’s intentions regarding the Russian ethnics in the Donbass, the government in Kiev passed new language laws in 2019 which made it clear that Russian speakers were at best second-class citizens. Indeed, the usually pro-West Human Rights Watch (HRW) expressed alarm about these laws. As the HRW explained in an early-2022 report which received nearly no coverage in the Western media, the government in Kiev passed legislation which “requires print media outlets registered in Ukraine to publish in Ukrainian. Publications in other languages must also be accompanied by a Ukrainian version, equivalent in content, volume, and method of printing. Additionally, places of distribution such as newsstands must have at least half their content in Ukrainian.”
And, according to the HRW, “Article 25, regarding print media outlets, makes exceptions for certain minority languages, English, and official EU languages, but not for Russian” (emphasis added), the justification for that being “the century of oppression of … Ukrainian in favor of Russian.” As the HRW explained, “[t]here are concerns about whether guarantees for minority languages are sufficient. The Venice Commission, the Council of Europe’s top advisory body on constitutional matters, said that several of the law’s articles, including article 25, ‘failed to strike a fair balance’ between promoting the Ukrainian language and safeguarding minorities’ linguistic rights.” Such legislation only underscored the Ukrainian government’s desire to destroy the culture, if not the very existence, of the ethnic Russians in Ukraine.
Moreover, as the Organization of World Peace reported in 2021, “according to Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council Decree no. 117/2021, Ukraine has committed to putting all options on the table to taking back control over the Russian annexed Crimea region. Signed on March 24th, President Zelensky has committed the country to pursue strategies that . . . ‘will prepare and implement measures to ensure the de-occupation and reintegration of the peninsula.’” Given that the residents of Crimea, most of whom are ethnic Russians, are quite happy with the current state of affairs under Russian governance – this, according to a 2020 Washington Post report – Zelensky’s threat in this regard was not only a threat against Russia itself but was also a threat of potentially massive bloodshed against a people who do not want to go back to Ukraine.
Without more, this situation represents a much more compelling case for justifying Russian intervention under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine which has been advocated by such Western ‘humanitarians’ as Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power, and Susan Rice, and which was relied upon to justify the NATO interventions in countries like the former Yugoslavia and Libya. And moreover, none of the states involved in these interventions could possibly make any claims of self-defense. This is especially the case for the United States, which has been sending forces thousands of miles away to drop bombs on far-flung lands.
Indeed, this recalls to mind the words of the great Palestinian intellectual, Edward Said, who opined years ago in his influential work, ‘Culture and Imperialism’, that it is simply unfair to try to compare the empire-building of Russia with that of the West. As Dr. Said explained, “Russia … acquired its imperial territories almost exclusively by adjacence. Unlike Britain and France, which jumped thousands of miles beyond their own borders to other continents, Russia moved to swallow whatever land or peoples stood next to its borders … but in the English and French cases, the sheer distance of attractive territories summoned the projection of far-flung interest …” This observation is doubly applicable to the United States.
Still, there is more to consider regarding Russia’s claimed justifications for intervention. Thus, not only are there radical groups on its border attacking ethnic Russians, including Russian citizens, but also, these groups have reportedly been funded and trained by the United States with the very intention of destabilizing and undermining the territorial integrity of Russia itself.
As Yahoo News! explained in a January 2022 article:
“The CIA is overseeing a secret intensive training program in the U.S. for elite Ukrainian special operations forces and other intelligence personnel, according to five former intelligence and national security officials familiar with the initiative. The program, which started in 2015, is based at an undisclosed facility in the Southern U.S., according to some of those officials.
The program has involved ‘very specific training on skills that would enhance’ the Ukrainians’ ‘ability to push back against the Russians,’ said the former senior intelligence official.
The training, which has included ‘tactical stuff,’ is ‘going to start looking pretty offensive if Russians invade Ukraine,’ said the former official.
One person familiar with the program put it more bluntly. ‘The United States is training an insurgency,’ said a former CIA official, adding that the program has taught the Ukrainians how ‘to kill Russians.’”
(emphasis added).
To remove any doubt that the destabilization of Russia itself has been the goal of the US in these efforts, one should examine the very telling 2019 report of the Rand Corporation – a long-time defense contractor called upon to advise the US on how to carry out its policy goals. In this report, entitled, ‘Overextending and Unbalancing Russia, Assessing the Impact of Cost-Imposing Options’, one of the many tactics listed is “Providing lethal aid to Ukraine” in order to “exploit Russia’s greatest point of external vulnerability.”
In short, there is no doubt that Russia has been threatened, and in a quite profound way, with concrete destabilizing efforts by the US, NATO and their extremist surrogates in Ukraine. Russia has been so threatened for a full eight years. And Russia has witnessed what such destabilizing efforts have meant for other countries, from Iraq to Afghanistan to Syria to Libya – that is, nearly a total annihilation of the country as a functioning nation-state.
It is hard to conceive of a more pressing case for the need to act in defense of the nation. While the UN Charter prohibits unilateral acts of war, it also provides, in Article 51, that “[n]othing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense… ” And this right of self-defense has been interpreted to permit countries to respond, not only to actual armed attacks, but also to the threat of imminent attack.
In light of the above, it is my assessment that this right has been triggered in the instant case, and that Russia had a right to act in its own self-defense by intervening in Ukraine, which had become a proxy of the US and NATO for an assault – not only on Russian ethnics within Ukraine – but also upon Russia itself. A contrary conclusion would simply ignore the dire realities facing Russia.
New Book -The Path to a Sustainable Civilisation
In this radical new book Prof. Mark Diesendorf and Rod Taylor, who are
based in Australia, say that major changes have to be made in order the
move to a sustainable future.
They claim that we have allowed large
corporations, the military and other vested interests to capture
governments and influence public opinion and markets excessively. The
result will be social, economic and environmental disaster.
They argue that the way forward is to build social movements to apply overwhelming pressure on government and big business, weaken the power of vested interests and
strengthen democratic decision-making.
This, they say, must be done simultaneously with action on the specific issues of climate, energy, natural resources & social justice, so as to transition to a truly
sustainable civilisation. That may sound Utopia, but the book takes us
through the practical technology options and explores how the transition to
their use might come about globally. However, it goes well beyond just
offering technical and social fixes, challenging the idea that
technological changes alone will be sufficient to transition to ecological
sustainability. It says that a sustainable civilisation needs ‘an
economic system that fosters ecological sustainability and social
justice’, whereas ‘the current dominant system, neoclassical economic
theory together neoliberalism practice, is based on numerous myths. Its
practitioners claim it’s a science although it does not stand up to
scientific scrutiny’.
Renew Extra 8th July 2023
https://renewextraweekly.blogspot.com/2023/07/the-path-to-sustainable-civilisation.html
Nuclear: Coalition remains trapped by climate and technology denial
RenewEconomy, Giles Parkinson 7 July 2023 ………………… make no mistake, in Australia, it is a war – a political one raging between science, engineering and economics on one hand, and single minded ideology on the other.
The nuclear push by the federal Coalition and its industry backers has been brewing for some time, and has now reached a crescendo with Opposition leader Peter Dutton calling for nuclear to be included in Australia’s mix, and accusing Labor of being “mesmerised” by renewables and storage.
Dutton’s position is sadly inevitable, and entirely predictable.
Having been the author of the Aukus deal which has committed Australia to spending up to $360 billion on half a dozen nuclear submarines – none of which would be delivered within 20 years – it follows that the Coalition should be signing up to another technology that could cost just as much and be just as delayed.
Dutton’s comments on Friday – in a speech to the rabid anti-renewables and climate “think tank”, the IPA – is yet more confirmation that the Coalition has no interest in doing anything about climate change.
This week the planet experienced its two hottest days on record, likely its hottest week, and is facing its hottest year in 2023 or 2024 as the El Nino strengthens its influence.
The need to accelerate emissions cuts, and finally deliver policies consistent with a 1.5°C scenario, has never been clearer. But the Coalition – after 10 years in power doing absolutely nothing – is still running in the opposite direction.
The Coalition denies the science. “Climate change has always been a scam,” LNP Senator Gerard Rennick tweeted last month, not for the first time echoing the thoughts of a majority of his Coalition colleagues.
The Coalition hates renewables: “It’s a trifecta of idiocy,” said former and still aspiring Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce on Labor’s 82 per cent renewable target, before putting a call out to groups to join a mass protest against wind and solar on the steps of Parliament House.
Nuclear: Coalition remains trapped by climate and technology denial
Giles Parkinson 7 July 2023 29
The nuclear war drums are beating again: Not just in the Ukraine, which now has to fact up to the threats from Vladimir Putin and the chest-beating of his Belorussian puppet Alexander Lukashenko, but also in Australia’s energy debate.
And make no mistake, in Australia, it is a war – a political one raging between science, engineering and economics on one hand, and single minded ideology on the other.
The nuclear push by the federal Coalition and its industry backers has been brewing for some time, and has now reached a crescendo with Opposition leader Peter Dutton calling for nuclear to be included in Australia’s mix, and accusing Labor of being “mesmerised” by renewables and storage.
Dutton’s position is sadly inevitable, and entirely predictable.
Having been the author of the Aukus deal which has committed Australia to spending up to $360 billion on half a dozen nuclear submarines – none of which would be delivered within 20 years – it follows that the Coalition should be signing up to another technology that could cost just as much and be just as delayed.
Dutton’s comments on Friday – in a speech to the rabid anti-renewables and climate “think tank”, the IPA – is yet more confirmation that the Coalition has no interest in doing anything about climate change.
This week the planet experienced its two hottest days on record, likely its hottest week, and is facing its hottest year in 2023 or 2024 as the El Nino strengthens its influence.
The need to accelerate emissions cuts, and finally deliver policies consistent with a 1.5°C scenario, has never been clearer. But the Coalition – after 10 years in power doing absolutely nothing – is still running in the opposite direction.
The Coalition denies the science. “Climate change has always been a scam,” LNP Senator Gerard Rennick tweeted last month, not for the first time echoing the thoughts of a majority of his Coalition colleagues.
The Coalition hates renewables: “It’s a trifecta of idiocy,” said former and still aspiring Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce on Labor’s 82 per cent renewable target, before putting a call out to groups to join a mass protest against wind and solar on the steps of Parliament House.
Now the Coalition is is hoisting its petard to a plan to fritter away tens of billions, if not hundreds of billions, on a technology that – as former chief scientist Alan Finkel pointed out in a recent episode of the Energy Insiders podcast – would be impossible to deploy in Australia within 20 years………………..
“There’s a big one under construction at the moment, a 3.2 gigawatt gigawatt system under construction in England called Hinkley, C, and the price per gigawatt is north of $15 billion,” Finkel said. “It’s just the most expensive capital expenditure that you could imagine.” (Apart, maybe, from Australia’s submarine order).
Nuclear: Coalition remains trapped by climate and technology denial
Giles Parkinson 7 July 2023 29
The nuclear war drums are beating again: Not just in the Ukraine, which now has to fact up to the threats from Vladimir Putin and the chest-beating of his Belorussian puppet Alexander Lukashenko, but also in Australia’s energy debate.
And make no mistake, in Australia, it is a war – a political one raging between science, engineering and economics on one hand, and single minded ideology on the other.
The nuclear push by the federal Coalition and its industry backers has been brewing for some time, and has now reached a crescendo with Opposition leader Peter Dutton calling for nuclear to be included in Australia’s mix, and accusing Labor of being “mesmerised” by renewables and storage.
Dutton’s position is sadly inevitable, and entirely predictable.
Having been the author of the Aukus deal which has committed Australia to spending up to $360 billion on half a dozen nuclear submarines – none of which would be delivered within 20 years – it follows that the Coalition should be signing up to another technology that could cost just as much and be just as delayed.
Dutton’s comments on Friday – in a speech to the rabid anti-renewables and climate “think tank”, the IPA – is yet more confirmation that the Coalition has no interest in doing anything about climate change.
This week the planet experienced its two hottest days on record, likely its hottest week, and is facing its hottest year in 2023 or 2024 as the El Nino strengthens its influence.
The need to accelerate emissions cuts, and finally deliver policies consistent with a 1.5°C scenario, has never been clearer. But the Coalition – after 10 years in power doing absolutely nothing – is still running in the opposite direction.
The Coalition denies the science. “Climate change has always been a scam,” LNP Senator Gerard Rennick tweeted last month, not for the first time echoing the thoughts of a majority of his Coalition colleagues.
The Coalition hates renewables: “It’s a trifecta of idiocy,” said former and still aspiring Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce on Labor’s 82 per cent renewable target, before putting a call out to groups to join a mass protest against wind and solar on the steps of Parliament House.
Now the Coalition is is hoisting its petard to a plan to fritter away tens of billions, if not hundreds of billions, on a technology that – as former chief scientist Alan Finkel pointed out in a recent episode of the Energy Insiders podcast – would be impossible to deploy in Australia within 20 years.
Make no mistake, Finkel is a fan of the technology. “From a purely engineering point of view, nuclear is fantastic,” he told the podcast.
But he says while the technology works, and he believes the safety issues can be managed, building big nuclear is “insanely slow to do”, and “very, very expensive.”
“There’s a big one under construction at the moment, a 3.2 gigawatt gigawatt system under construction in England called Hinkley, C, and the price per gigawatt is north of $15 billion,” Finkel said. “It’s just the most expensive capital expenditure that you could imagine.” (Apart, maybe, from Australia’s submarine order).
As for SMRs, or small modular reactosr, Finkel notes that the most advanced company is called NuScale in the US. Approvals for its technology are being fast-tracked by nuclear regulators, but it’s already taken seven years.
At best, its first pilot plant will be operating by the end of the decade. And Australia will have to wait and see how that plant operates, and hope for cost reductions and production to be achieved, before it could commit to going down the same path.
“I cannot see any possibility of Australia, even if we went at full speed ahead, having small modular reactors before 2040,” Finkel said.
And by then, Finkel says, Australia will have a zero emissions or a near zero emissions and reliable, affordable electricity system based around wind, solar and storage. And expensive nuclear would then have to compete with cheaper, reliable renewables power.
Just to reinforce that assessment, IEEFA reported earlier this year the eyewatering cost blowouts of NuScale’s proposed SMRs, now more than doubled the estimated price flagged in 2021.
“No one should fool themselves into believing this will be the last cost increase for the NuScale/UAMPS SMR,” IEEFA wrote.……………………………
It would be insanity to do what the Coalition wants Australia to do – keep coal burning, and slow down the rollout of renewables and other technologies such as EVs, and wait for nuclear, just to keep the mining lobby and other powerful interests onside.
But of course that’s exactly what the Coalition intends to do. It is keenly aware of one important part of the path to net zero: it can be done, and it can be done at low cost, but it’s biggest hurdle is the lack of political will. And the LNP intends to make that hurdle as big as they can.
Labor has, of course, rejected the nuclear push. Jason Clare said the government does not support nuclear power.
“They cost about $400 billion bucks and take years and years to build,” Clare told Nine’s Today Show, which the Coalition might argue didn’t seem to be a problem when it came to nuclear submarines……………………………. https://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-coalition-remains-trapped-by-climate-and-technology-denial/
” The future of nuclear as an alternative energy source relies on the success of the Fukushima release” – Rafael Grossi.
“more broadly, the future of nuclear as an alternative energy source relies on the success of the Fukushima release,” he said. Though there has been heightened public alarm toward nuclear plants recently – for instance, regarding the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia plant in Ukraine – “the problem there is war, the problem is not nuclear energy,” Grossi said.
AEA chief ‘completely convinced’ it’s safe to release treated Fukushima nuclear wastewater .
By Jessie Yeung, Marc Stewart and Emiko Jozuka, Tokyo CNN, 7 July 23
Japan’s plan to release treated radioactive water into the ocean is safe and there is no better option to deal with the massive buildup of wastewater collected since the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, the head of the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog told CNN.
Japan will release the wastewater sometime this summer, a controversial move 12 years after the Fukushima nuclear plant meltdown. Japanese authorities and the IAEA have insisted the plan follows international safety standards – the water will first be treated to remove the most harmful pollutants, and be released gradually over many years in highly diluted quantities.
But public anxiety remains high, including in nearby countries like South Korea, China and the Pacific Islands, which have voiced concern about potential harm to the environment or people’s health. On Friday, Chinese customs officials announced they would maintain a ban on food imports from 10 Japanese prefectures including Fukushima, and strengthen inspections to monitor for “radioactive substances, to ensure the safety of Japanese food imports to China.”……………………..
On Tuesday, Grossi formally presented the IAEA’s safety review to Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida. The report found the wastewater release plan will have a “negligible” impact on people and the environment, adding that it was an “independent and transparent review,” not a recommendation or endorsement……………………….
The 2011 disaster caused the plant’s reactor cores to overheat and contaminate water within the facility with highly radioactive material. Since then, new water has been pumped in to cool fuel debris in the reactors. At the same time, ground and rainwater have leaked in, creating more radioactive wastewater that now needs to be stored and treated.
That wastewater now measures 1.32 million metric tons – enough to fill more than 500 Olympic-sized swimming pools.
Japan has previously said there were “no other options” as space runs out – a sentiment Grossi echoed on Friday. When asked whether there were better alternatives to dispose of the wastewater, the IAEA chief answered succinctly: “No.”
It’s not that there are no other methods, he added – Japan had considered five total options, including hydrogen release, underground burial and vapor release, which would have seen wastewater boiled and released into the atmosphere………………………………………
International skepticism
But some critics have cast doubt on the IAEA’s findings, with China recently arguing that the group’s assessment “is not proof of the legality and legitimacy” of the wastewater release.
Many countries have openly opposed the plan; Chinese officials have warned that it could cause “unpredictable harm,” and accused Japan of treating the ocean as a “sewer.” The Secretary General of the Pacific Islands Forum, an inter-governmental group of Pacific island nations that includes Australia and New Zealand, also published an op-ed in January voicing “grave concerns,” saying more data was needed.
And in South Korea, residents have taken to the streets to protest the plan. Many shoppers have stockpiled salt and seafood for fear these products will be contaminated once the wastewater is released – even though Seoul has already banned imports of seafood and food items from the Fukushima region.
International scientists have also expressed concern to CNN that there is insufficient evidence of long-term safety, arguing that the release could cause tritium – a radioactive hydrogen isotope that cannot be removed from the wastewater – to gradually build up in marine ecosystems and food chains, a process called bioaccumulation…………………………………
more broadly, the future of nuclear as an alternative energy source relies on the success of the Fukushima release, he said. Though there has been heightened public alarm toward nuclear plants recently – for instance, regarding the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia plant in Ukraine – “the problem there is war, the problem is not nuclear energy,” Grossi said……….. https://edition.cnn.com/2023/07/06/asia/japan-fukushima-water-iaea-chief-interview-intl-hnk/index.html
Ukraine great ‘testing ground’ for Western weapons: Kiev
Thursday, 06 July 2023, https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2023/07/06/706584/Ukraine-Russia-western-weapons-Reznikov-US-cluster-munitions-
Kiev says Ukraine is a great “testing ground” for the military industry of the West, which is constantly pouring advanced arms and military equipment in the ex-Soviet republic despite repeated warnings by Russia that such a flow of arms will only prolong the war.
In a an interview with Financial Times published on Wednesday, Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov said his country is an ideal “testing ground” for Western weaponry so that Kiev’s allies can see how their weapons work in real war and to see whether they are efficient or need upgrades.
“For the military industry of the world, you can’t invent a better testing ground,” he said, claiming that American officials became very happy when Ukraine’s military reported that a US Patriot missile system managed to down a Kinzhal, a Russian hypersonic missile.
An American official called the news “fantastic,” Reznikov said.
“The Russians come up with a countermeasure, we inform our partners and they make a new countermeasure against this countermeasure,” the Ukrainian defense minister said.
Reznikov claimed many countries are closely watching the developments in the Ukraine-Russia war, including those that are already armed with Russian weapons.
“Everyone is watching closely. And not only India. China too … Everyone, even those who bought weapons from [Russia], will watch carefully,” he said.
In July 2022, Reznikov made similar comments when he was asking for the United States and NATO to send more weapons to Ukraine.
“We are interested in testing modern systems in the fight against the enemy and we are inviting arms manufacturers to test the new products here,” he said at the time.
The US may reportedly decide later this week to send such internationally-banned cluster munitions to Ukraine.
Cluster bombs are banned under the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM), an international treaty that addresses the humanitarian consequences and unacceptable harm caused to civilians by cluster munitions through a categorical prohibition and a framework for action.
The weapons can contain dozens of smaller bomblets, dispersing over vast areas, often killing and maiming civilians. The CCMs are banned because unexploded bomblets can pose a risk to civilians for years after the fighting is over.
Cluster munitions generally eject submunitions that can cover five times as much area as conventional bombs.
The CCM, which took effect in 2010, bans all use, production, transfer and stockpiling of cluster bombs. More than 100 countries have signed the treaty, but the United States, Russia and Ukraine have not.
Russia sees the flooding of Ukraine with weapons from the West as a futile effort to change the outcome of the war. Moscow says supplying Kiev with more weapons will only add to the death and destruction and prolong the conflict.
UN report on Japan’s Fukushima water plans fails to placate opponents
“The concern is not over external exposure,” Burnie said. “It is internal exposure to organically bound tritium that is the problem – when it gets inside fish, seafood, and then humans. When tritium gets inside cells, it can do damage.
“Tepco and the Japanese government are making a conscious decision to increase marine pollution with radioactivity, and they have no idea where that will lead.”
While South Korea offers official support, China and other voices in region continue to express concerns over discharge from nuclear plant
Justin McCurry in Tokyo, 7 July 23 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/07/un-report-on-japans-fukushima-water-plans-fails-to-placate-opponents
The publication this week of the UN nuclear watchdog’s positive assessment of Japanese plans to pump more than 1m tonnes of water from the wrecked Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the ocean has failed to placate opponents.
China is fiercely opposed to the plans, despite a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) backing the scheme, while the support of the government of South Korea has failed to quell widespread public opposition to the idea in the country.
The government in Seoul said on Friday that it “respected the IAEA’s review of plans by Japan and the plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco), to pump water from the plant into the Pacific over the next 30 to 40 years”.
The discharge would have “negligible consequences” for South Korea, it said in an attempt to win over a deeply sceptical public. The country’s ban on food and seafood products from the Fukushima region will remain in place, however.
But South Korea, whose conservative president, Yoon Suk Yeol, is attempting to mend diplomatic fences with Japan over the countries’ wartime legacy, is a lone voice of support in the region.
On the same day, China announced a ban on food imports from 10 of Japan’s prefectures over “safety concerns”, and said it would conduct stringent radiation tests on food from the rest of the country.
“The Japanese side still has many problems in the legitimacy of sea discharge, the reliability of purification equipment and the perfection of monitoring programmes,” Chinese customs said.
Japan’s top government spokesperson, Hirokazu Matsuno, responded to criticism of the plan by saying that Fukushima Daiichi would pump far less tritium into the ocean than Chinese and South Korean nuclear facilities.
Japan’s standard for the release of tritium, at below 22tn becquerels a year, is far stricter than that of its neighbours, Matsuno said.
According to Japan’s trade and industry ministry, the Yangjiang nuclear plant in China discharged about 112tn becquerels of tritium in 2021, while the Kori power station in South Korea released about 49tn becquerels.
That is unlikely to placate opponents in Fukushima, where fishing communities have warned the water discharge will undo more than a decade of work to repair the damage the meltdown inflicted on the reputation of the region’s seafood, which is subject to one of the world’s strictest radiation testing regimes.
“We here in Fukushima have done absolutely nothing wrong, so why do they have to mess up our ocean?” said Haruo Ono, a fisher in Shinchimachi, 34 miles north of Fukushima Daiichi. “The ocean doesn’t belong to only us humans – and it isn’t a rubbish tip.
“It’s been 12 years [since the meltdown] and fish prices are rising, so we were finally hoping to really get down to business. Now they’re talking about releasing the water and we’re going to have to go back to square one again. It’s unbearable.”
Fisheries cooperatives in three prefectures were due to submit a petition with 33,000 signatures on Friday expressing their opposition to the water discharge.
While their government has given Japan breathing room, many South Koreans remain sceptical of Tokyo’s safety assurances. Some are panic-buying salt amid contamination fears, while a Gallup poll conducted in June found 78% of South Koreans were either “very worried” or “somewhat worried” about potential harm to the marine environment.
“It’s much more difficult to make sales now, as customers are asking more questions as they worry a lot,” said Jin Wol-sun, a stallholder at Seoul’s Noryangjin market, where market officials carried out random radiation tests on seafood in an attempt to reassure shoppers.
Rafael Grossi, the head of the IAEA, conceded there had been a lack of unanimity among the IAEA scientists, who come from 11 countries, including China, involved in the safety review. One or two “may have expressed concerns” over the plan, he said in an interview with Reuters. “I heard that being said … but again, what we have published is scientifically impeccable.”
China’s state-run Global Times newspaper on Thursday said Liu Senlin, a Chinese expert in the IAEA’s technical working group, was disappointed with the “hasty” report and had said the input from experts was limited and only used for reference.
Other experts openly voiced concerns about the impact the discharge could have on marine and human life, and accused Tepco and the IAEA of cutting corners.
“We have repeatedly pointed out to Tepco and IAEA substantive concerns we have with Japan’s approach and flaws in their methodology,” said Ferenc Dalnoki-Veress, an adjunct professor at Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey in the US.
Dalnoki-Veress, a member of a panel of scientists that advised the Pacific Islands Forum, cited Tepco’s controlled tritium-exposure experiments on fish, which he said included only three species that were being fed on commercial fish pellets rather than exposed smaller fish, which would normally be their food source.
“We have repeatedly offered to help advise on how to conduct these experiments, but each time Tepco rejected them,” he said. “We take as proof that they are not truly interested in collecting relevant data that may demonstrate and confirm concerns regarding their present plans.”
The “dumping” of treated water into the ocean, he said, would cause potentially irreversible damage to the local fishing industry.
“When we think about the effect of radiation we can’t just think about the effect on the environment, we have to consider the effect on cultures, societies and peoples who suffer psychological effects, a sense of fear, and reputational damage. Trust has been broken, and it will be difficult to repair.”
Shaun Burnie, a senior nuclear specialist with Greenpeace who regularly visits Fukushima, said claims that tritium posed no risk to human health were “scientifically bankrupt”.
“The concern is not over external exposure,” Burnie said. “It is internal exposure to organically bound tritium that is the problem – when it gets inside fish, seafood, and then humans. When tritium gets inside cells, it can do damage.
“Tepco and the Japanese government are making a conscious decision to increase marine pollution with radioactivity, and they have no idea where that will lead.”
Huge protest against Rafael Grossi at Gimpo airport, Seoul, South Korea
Sung-Hee Choi , 7 July 23
Most western mainstream media says that the [right wing] South Korea government agrees with the IAEA draft that the Japanese government’s decision to discharge nuclear contaminated water into the ocean fits to standard.
However, it does seldom say that just last night(July 7/8), Grossi, the director-general of the IAEA was hugely unwelcomed, stranded for hours in the Gimpo airport, Seoul, thanks to protestors with the signs including the one which read, “Did you leak the draft for 1 million euroes?” Around 280 policemen were mobilized to fence Grossi from the righteously angry South Korean protesters.
See the photos
https://www.kukinews.com/newsView/kuk202307080001?skin=news
Please watch the videos
https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20230708_04/. (English)
https://www.ytn.co.kr/_ln/0101_202307080504347351
“More than 80 percent of respondents in 11 countries in the Asia-Pacific region except for Japan said Japan’s plan of dumping nuclear-contaminated water into the sea is “irresponsible” and nearly 90 percent of respondents showed negative sentiments such as worries and shock toward the plan, and 94 percent of them deemed such move will have a negative effect not only on Japan and Pacific Rim countries but also the whole world, a survey conducted by the Global Times Research Center found.”
https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20230630_20/?fbclid=IwAR3CNvbsTp_
The ultimate technocratic fantasy: “a winnable nuclear war.”
The Era of Nukes and No Diplomacy: ‘Crossing a Rubicon to Armageddon’ byEDITORJuly 7, 2023, https://scheerpost.com/2023/07/07/the-era-of-nukes-and-no-diplomacy-crossing-a-rubicon-to-armageddon/
Professor Jackson Lears warns the Ukraine war has wrought “the ultimate technocratic fantasy: a winnable nuclear war.”
he Doomsday Clock continues to tick toward nuclear war, but at its fastest pace ever. Professor Jackson Lears, a former naval officer serving on a U.S cruiser carrying tactical nuclear weapons, considers the current moment more frightening than at any time during the Cold War. Then, there was intense alarm for the fate of the earth and the survival of the human race. Today, rather than diplomacy or negotiation, talk revolves around new weapons shipments, disappointment in Ukraine’s counteroffensive failures, and even drone strikes in Moscow. But far less attention has been paid to the prospect of nuclear war between Russia and the U.S that threatens to end all life on this planet as we know it. That is the alarm sounded by cultural historian and author Jackson Lears who joins host Robert Scheer to discuss Lears’s essay for Harper’s Magazine, “Behind the Veil of Indifference.”
Lears’s piece warns that despite the public indifference, a “winnable nuclear war” has entered the minds of American strategists and politicians once again, undermining years of work towards nuclear disarmament. Lears tells Scheer that it is similar to the attitudes from the Cold War, yet this time, there is an eerie disinterest from the American side about even talking to someone like Vladimir Putin. “[T]his is, in a sense, a return to the worst kind of confrontations of the early 1960s but there’s a big difference because even Kennedy and even Reagan, cold warriors that they were, were eager to create common ground ultimately between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. And that common ground no longer exists between the U.S. and Russia, and there is no interest in diplomacy at all,” Lears said.
Scheer and Lears highlight a critical factor in shaping public perception: the Russiagate controversy and the media’s role in complying with government demands for secrecy, beginning in the late 1970s, while also promoting narratives that fostered consent for war with Russia. Scheer said, “if you even dare suggest there’s some complexity to this issue, or that the other side might have a point of view, or there’s something even worth negotiating about, you’re now considered unpatriotic.” Lears agreed: “We have former directors of the CIA who have perjured themselves before Congress, now posing as professional wise men and professional truth tellers on MSNBC and CNN.”
Wrapping up the discussion, Lears gives an insight into his latest book, Animal Spirits: The American Pursuit of Vitality from Camp Meeting to Wall Street. In it, Lears explores the history behind thinkers in America who honed in on vitalism rather than the restrictive nature of traditional cultures involving religion, science and commercialization.
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
1 This month.
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/235274195556
19 May – Webinar- Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-05-19 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-05-19 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
20 May – Webinar – The dangerous world of AUKUS, US, military occupation and suppression of dissent
National Webinar, 20th May, 2026, 6.30pm AEST. Confronting laws restricting/suppressing protest speech and action
Speakers: Former Sen. Rex Patrick, Lawyer Nick Hanna ,Arthur Rorris ,Jorgen Doyle, Sen David Shoebbridge,
Facilitator Kelley Tranter.
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 