Russian-Norwegian nuclear safety commission ceases work over war in Ukraine
Russia has announced its withdrawal from a high-level joint commission it runs with Norway to ensure nuclear safety in the Arctic region, ceasing more than two decades of bilateral progress in cleaning up the radioactive legacy of the Cold War. June 1, 2022 by Charles Digges
Russia has announced its withdrawal from a high-level joint commission it runs with Norway to ensure nuclear safety in the Arctic region, ceasing more than two decades of bilateral progress in cleaning up the radioactive legacy of the Cold War.
The announcement, reported by Norway’s NRK broadcaster, comes weeks after Norway itself froze funding to the commission over Moscow’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine.
The news casts a shadow of uncertainty over the future of several major radiation safety projects – from the removal of radioactive spent nuclear fuel from the derelict Soviet submarine base at Andreyeva Bay near the Norwegian border, to raising sunken nuclear submarines off Russia’s Kola Peninsula – that Norway and other European partners have spent millions of dollars to fund.
“It is sad that Norway will no longer be involved in financing the projects,” said Oleg Kryukov, who heads spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste policy for Rosatom, Russia’s state nuclear corporation, NRK reported.
Removing thousands more spent nuclear fuel assemblies from Andreyeva Bay would not be abandoned but would now take longer as Moscow continues the cleanup unilaterally, said Kryukov.
Norwegian technicians were to oversee some of the most technically demanding fuel removal procedures that were scheduled to begin this year. They will now become Russia’s responsibility.
Kryukov told an online meeting of the commission that freezing the cooperative program “is not good – neither for [Russia and Norway] nor for neighboring countries.”
Norwegian-Russian Commission on nuclear and radiation safety was one of the first and most enduring cooperative programs launched to address the dangers left behind by the Soviet Northern Nuclear Fleet.
Established in the turbulent years following the Soviet Union’s collapse, the commission weathered 25 years of political tremors and mutual suspicion between East and West, often becoming the rare forum where Moscow and its European counterparts could reach agreement.
During the commission’s existence, Norway, Russia, and other European contributors disposed of nearly 200 rusted-out Soviet nuclear submarines that had laid neglected at bases throughout Northwest Russia, still dangerously laden with their spent nuclear fuel.
Later, at Bellona’s urging, the commission worked to fund the removal of 22,000 spent nuclear fuel assemblies, many of them damaged, from the site of Andreyeva Bay – a colossal and highly technical project that is still several years from completion.
Though Kryukov has said this work will continue, it is unclear how it will proceed, especially at a time when Moscow’s entire foreign policy has been sidelined by Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
The most immediate casualty to come of freezing the program will likely be transparency on how these projects are progressing. The joint nature of the commission ensured that Norwegian observers had access to the sites where western money helped fund cleanup. It also accommodated the participation of non-governmental organization like Bellona and many others.
Now, the fate of these projects is uncertain and the pause on cooperation rolls back the clock on the Russian and Norwegian governments, leaving them in the same precarious position they were in during the early 1990s, before the commission’s work began.
UK government urged to end its obsession with nuclear power
THE UK Government has been urged to end its “obsession” with nuclear
power and focus on renewable energy. The SNP have said it is “abundantly
clear” nuclear will cost more and will send energy bills soaring even
further, while people in Scotland “can see clean energy being produced in
their own backyards”.
It comes as a written response to a parliamentary
question confirms further delays to the UK’s Hinkley Point C nuclear
power station, which reports suggest could cost the taxpayer up to £26
billion – opening four years later than scheduled. MP Alan Brown, the party’s Shadow Minister for Energy and Climate change, said the delays added “insult to injury” for consumers, after UK
Government Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng admitted recently the
construction of new nuclear plants would initially raise household energy
bills.
Based on the contract awarded by the Westminster government to
Hinkley Point C, the electricity that will be generated by that existing
nuclear station will be priced at £92.50 per megawatt hour, for a 35-year
contract, whereas the electricity being generated from offshore wind is
currently priced at £39.65 per megawatt hour on a 15-year concession. This
means Hinkley Point C alone could add up to £40 a year to consumer bills,
compared to wind power, which could reduce bills by £8 a year. Brown said:
“This latest admission shows the Westminster government’s obsession
with nuclear power will do absolutely nothing to help people cope with the
spiralling Tory-made cost of living crisis. “For months we’ve heard
endless lectures and bleatings from the Tories on their nuclear obsession,
yet every week we’re treated to new reports and estimates of the true
cost of prioritising a massive shift towards nuclear.
“The latest reports simply add insult to injury for the consumers whose energy bills have
skyrocketed in recent months and who were promised a great reprieve when
the UK shifts its reliance to nuclear.
The Scottish Greens have also branded the UK Government’s drive towards nuclear as nonsensical. The
party’s climate change spokesperson, Mark Ruskell, said: “Both the Tory
Government and Labour Party’s ideological obsession with nuclear power
doesn’t make sense either economically or environmentally. “Nuclear is
hugely expensive and leaves a toxic waste legacy for generations. Instead
of investing in toxic white elephants, investment should be focused in
Scotland’s massive renewable potential.”
Lynn Jamieson, chair of the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), said she rejected the UK
Government’s claims nuclear was good for the planet, and insisted we
should be transitioning away from it. She said: “The UK Government’s
claims that nuclear is good for the environment ignores the harms of
uranium mining, the radioactive waste, the risks of cancers and
catastrophic accident – irrationally favouring nuclear industries over
cheaper, safer and more quickly available renewables.
The National 1st June 2022
Dr. Jane Goodall on climate change, planting trees, and nurturing hope
Dr. Jane Goodall on climate change, planting trees, and nurturing hope
We need to bring nature and shade into our cities for the mental and physical wellbeing of people.
Another earthquake could topple Fukushima nuclear reactor
Richard Lloyd Parry, Tokyo, The Times, May 29 2022, One of the melted-down reactors in the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power station is resting precariously on a fragile frame of corroded supports and is vulnerable to being toppled over by the next strong earthquake, photographs taken by a robot have revealed.
The interior of the stricken reactors is too radioactive for humans to enter safely, but a remote-controlled robotic camera has sent back pictures from reactor No 1, one of three which melted down in 2011 when a tsunami caused by an earthquake knocked out the cooling systems at the plant……………….. (Subscribers only) https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/another-could-topple-fukushima-nuclear-reactor-80h083fgk
New opposition leader Peter Dutton says that nuclear energy is not Liberal Party policy
Nuclear energy ‘not on the table’: Dutton, 31 May 22,
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton says nuclear energy is currently ‘not on the table’ for Liberal Party policy consideration. ”If that’s to change then that would be the decision of the shadow cabinet and the party room,” Mr Dutton told Sky News Australia. https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/nuclear-energy-not-on-the-table-dutton/video/66c6a997343fa7c41b7a2e5fb54c0605
Barnaby Joyce removed as leader of the National Party, goes out spruiking for the nuclear industry
Barnaby Joyce says he will accept frontbench position from David Littleproud, calls for nuclear energy, Canberra Times, Finn McHugh, May 31 2022 Barnaby Joyce has declared he’s not going anywhere before the next election, and would accept a frontbench position from the man who deposed him……….
Speaking for the first time since Monday’s leadership spill, Mr Joyce also backed David Littleproud’s calls to shift to nuclear energy.
“Let’s be brave enough and start saying things like nuclear energy……….
Within hours of becoming Nationals leader, Mr Littleproud declared it was time for Australia to hold a “mature” conversation on nuclear energy – the subject of a bipartisan moratorium…………….. https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7760371/im-going-nowhere-lets-talk-nuclear-joyce/
New National Party leader pushes for small nuclear reactors
New Nationals leader David Littleproud lays down challenge to Anthony Albanese, Canberra Times, 30 May 22, ”………………………………………. Mr Littleproud will push for a debate on lifting the moratorium on nuclear energy in Australia, revealing he’s already planning to raise the issue with the new Prime Minister.
“Unfortunately, in the past, there has been this demonisation … without even putting the lens over new nuclear technology like small-scale modular,” he said.
| “Our party room will come to a position on that and it’s one [issue] that obviously we’re very passionate about.”We should back ourselves as Australians to do it better and safer than anyone else. But we need to educate before we legislate.” One of a small number of federal parliamentarians who doesn’t hold a university degree, Mr Littleproud hoped his rise to the Nationals leadership would inspire young people to pursue their dreams.”This reaffirms we live in the greatest country in the planet,” he said. https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7760371/im-going-nowhere-lets-talk-nuclear-joyce/ |
Small nuclear reactors may produce more, and more toxic, wastes than large ones do – new research
Mini nuclear power stations may produce more waste than large ones. Small modular nuclear reactors may produce higher volumes and greater complexity of radioactive waste because they are naturally less efficient, researchers find, New Scientist, 30 May 2022, By Adam Vaughan, A much-vaunted first wave of mini nuclear power stations may produce more radioactive waste than traditional large-scale ones when generating the same amount of power.
Small modular reactors (SMRs) have been mooted by their developers and proponents as a cheaper and faster way to build new nuclear power capacity, with UK prime minister Boris Johnson claiming they could be generating electricity by 2030. The US government has provided financial support to the firm NuScale Power to develop its version of the technology.
But to date there has been little independent assessment of how the radioactive waste produced by SMRs would compare with that from their large-scale peers.
Lindsay Krall at Stanford University in California and her colleagues used data NuScale Power has shared publicly with US authorities to assess the technology, and extrapolated to model the waste from three different SMR technologies. They compared the SMR technology with a conventional 1.1 gigawatt nuclear reactor, roughly a third of the capacity of a new nuclear plant being built in south-west England.
They have found that SMRs could increase the volume of short-lived low and intermediate level waste – the two lowest of three categories – by up to 35 times compared to a large conventional reactor, when looking at waste produced per unit of electricity generated. For the long-lived equivalent waste, SMRs would produce up to 30 times more and for spent nuclear fuel, up to 5 times more. The variation in these figures reflects expected variation in the SMR designs now being developed.
“The information right now being put out by reactor developers can be seen as promotional,” says Krall. “SMR performed worse on nearly all of our metrics compared to standard commercial reactors.” Those metrics included the heat from radioactive decay and the radiochemistry of the spent fuel.
The study suggests that SMRs produce higher volumes and greater complexity of waste because they are naturally less efficient. Nuclear power generation involves a nuclear chain reaction, in which one single nuclear reaction in the reactor core creates neutrons that then go on to cause an average of one or more subsequent nuclear reactions. However, according to Krall’s team, SMRs leak more neutrons out of their core than a larger reactor, meaning they cannot maintain the self-sustaining reaction for as long. Even a small difference in neutron leakage results in a substantial impact on the composition of the waste, says Krall………………………https://www.newscientist.com/article/2322252-mini-nuclear-power-stations-may-produce-more-waste-than-large-ones/
Australia’s nuclear submarines and nuclear proliferation obligations – how many angels can dance on a periscope?
Ensuring the right safeguards are in place for Australia’s nuclear-powered submarines The Strategist, 30 May 2022, Anastasia Kapetas ”……………………………….. can the submarines be safeguarded? And do they actually need to be under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)?
As AUKUS was being negotiated, the Biden administration reportedly had serious concerns about the non-proliferation impacts of the deal, given that this would be the first time that a nuclear-weapon state has undertaken to transfer highly enriched uranium (HEU) to a non-nuclear-weapon state.
But experts on the NPT assured the US administration that everyone would meet their obligations under the treaty if Australia were barred from accessing the reactors inside its submarines.
So, the naval reactors would have to be sealed by the US or UK inside the submarine hulls before they came to Australia, remain sealed throughout the 30-year life of the submarine and be removed by the US or UK at the end of that life. That means if the submarines are to be built here, a section of the hull and reactor would need to be built in the US or UK and then moved to Australia. Or, if that is not feasible, then a reactor could possibly be imported into Australia, but with no Australian personnel having access to it at any time, something which would presumably need to be verified by the IAEA in some way that would also not give inspectors access to the reactor.
This means that, in theory, Australia’s naval reactors would not have to be safeguarded because the HEU contained in them would never be accessed by any country that is not a nuclear-weapon state.
Under the NPT, the five accredited nuclear-weapon states, China, Russia, the US, the UK and France, do not have to put their nuclear-weapons-related material under IAEA safeguards, although they all have voluntary safeguards agreements with the IAEA covering their civil nuclear programs.
The NPT doesn’t cover naval reactors. But because the deal involves the transfer of HEU to a non-nuclear-weapon state, Australia is not off the safeguards hook. Not safeguarding this would create a precedent for HEU transfer through naval reactors. So Australia needs not an exemption, as has sometimes been reported, but a new type of safeguard.
John Carlson, former director general of the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office (ASNO), who currently advises non-proliferation bodies internationally, and has written extensively on the issue, says standard safeguards can’t apply here.
He gives two reasons. The first is that nuclear-weapon states like the US and UK don’t want to reveal secret information on fuel and rector design to IAEA inspectors.
The other issue is that under a standard IAEA safeguard, inspections must take place regularly. For the irradiated HEU in Australia’s submarines, that would require inspections every three months. But given the nature of submarine deployments, Australia wouldn’t be able to ensure that they would be in port to be inspected at the proper time.
But, says Carlson, ‘Australia has an obligation to demonstrate to the international community that we haven’t simply diverted the fuel, and used it to produce nuclear weapons. This is why we need to develop a verification arrangement with the supplier and the IAEA.’
While it wouldn’t be a standard safeguard, it must be ‘sufficient to demonstrate to the international community, in a credible way, that the fuel is still in the submarines at any point in time’.
But what might some kind of alternative verification mechanism look like?
Given that the naval rectors will be built into the hulls of Australia’s submarines, they could not be accessed without cutting into the hull…………….
| there’s one other scenario that an Australia-specific safeguard would have to cover. And that is in the event of an accident where Australia would need to gain access to the reactor.‘We could claim that that the reactor needed urgent attention, and this would actually be a way to get our hands on the fuel.’This would be a major undertaking. It would require Australia to be equipped with all the equipment necessary to handle the fuel safely, as well as help from the US or UK…………………. The final piece of the safeguard puzzle is the politics. The member states of the IAEA would need to be comfortable with creating a special safeguard for Australia…………….. Carlson thinks IAEA approval is likely, but it will need careful, steady diplomacy. https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/ensuring-the-right-safeguards-are-in-place-for-australias-nuclear-powered-submarines/ |
Japan Court Bars Hokkaido Nuclear Reactors From Operating
Japan Court Bars Hokkaido Nuclear Reactors From Operating https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-31/japan-court-bars-hokkaido-nuclear-reactors-from-operating-nhk
- Sapporo court rules in favor of anti-nuclear citizens group
- Tomari reactors have been offline for more than a decade
By Shoko Oda, 31 May 22,
A Japanese court ruled in favor of an anti-nuclear citizens group in Hokkaido, saying that a nuclear power plant cannot operate.
The Sapporo District Court said in a ruling on Tuesday that Hokkaido Electric Power Co.’s Tomari nuclear plant isn’t safe to operate due to the earthquake and tsunami risk. A separate request to permanently decommission the plant was rejected by the court, according to court documents. The Tomari facility, which houses three reactors, has been fully offline since 2012.
By
A Japanese court ruled in favor of an anti-nuclear citizens group in Hokkaido, saying that a nuclear power plant cannot operate.
The Sapporo District Court said in a ruling on Tuesday that Hokkaido Electric Power Co.’s Tomari nuclear plant isn’t safe to operate due to the earthquake and tsunami risk. A separate request to permanently decommission the plant was rejected by the court, according to court documents. The Tomari facility, which houses three reactors, has been fully offline since 2012.
The ruling comes amid calls by some Japanese politicians to quickly restart its fleet of shuttered nuclear reactors, as the nation faces a power supply crunch this summer and the upcoming winter. The country closed its nuclear power plants following the 2011 Fukushima disaster, and only a handful have restarted under new safety rules.
While Hokkaido Electric applied to restart the Tomari reactors nearly a decade ago, the arduous review process has dragged on and it isn’t clear when the regulator will approve the facility to resume operations.
The court ruled that the Tomari nuclear reactors don’t have a safeguard facility against tsunamis, and that the utility hasn’t shown adequate safety measures for its spent atomic fuel.
The ruling means that Hokkaido Electric won’t be able to immediately restart the facility. The company said that it will file an appeal on today’s decision.
Members of European Parliament and experts condemn plan to label nuclear as ”green”
MEPs, experts criticise green label for gas and nuclear https://euobserver.com/green-economy/155087
By WESTER VAN GAAL BRUSSELS, 30. MAY,
European lawmakers are gearing up for a July vote which could scupper EU Commission plans to classify gas and nuclear energy projects as sustainable investments until 2030.
On Monday (30 May), MEPs from the environmental (ENVI) and economy (ECON) committees held a public hearing with experts, with some calling on the lawmakers to block the inclusion of gas and nuclear as a green investment.
“This act will heavily damage the credibility of the taxonomy, and I recommend MEPs to reject it,” Sebastian Godinot, an economist at the World Wildlife Fund and a member of the commission’s scientific advisory body, said. “The current EU taxonomy will do worse than current [private sector] green bond standards.”
He also said the labelling of gas as a green energy source would “increase energy insecurity” and boost gas use when the EU is trying to quit Russian gas.
Representatives from the European Investment Bank (EIB), the Joint Research Centre (JRC) and the Dutch Pension Fund (DPF) also attended the meeting.
In January, the commission controversially included nuclear and gas in the so-called EU Taxonomy for green investment, against the explicit advice of its own science experts.
Hartwig Liesch, chief investment officer at DPF, said on Monday that including gas and nuclear in the green taxonomy is “not helpful” as it makes sustainable investment more complex.
Likewise, EIB director Werner Hoyer said at the bank’s annual media conference in Brussels in January this year that the complexity of proposed rules left investors feeling “drowsy.”
Undemocratic
The inclusion of gas and nuclear has been widely seen as a compromise pushed through by an alliance of French pro-nuclear forces and mainly eastern European countries wanting to incentivise EU investments in gas infrastructure.
“This proposal is not science-based but political,” Godinot said.
Another point of contention among MEPs and many experts was the commission’s use of the delegated act, a non-legislative procedure that excluded parliament.
“The parliament has been sidelined. The process is at best sloppy, if not undemocratic,” ECON chair Paul Tang (S&D) said on Monday.
In a comment to Reuters, green MEP Bas Eickhout said the inclusion of gas and nuclear “violated the spirit and letter of the [taxonomy”].
Simple majority
A simple majority vote in parliament — at least 353 MEPs — can still block the current proposal, which is set for early July.
So far the Socialists & Democrats, the Left and the Greens, which together hold 256 seats, have committed to blocking the proposal.
In May, a group of 16 MEPs from groups representing a majority of the European Parliament drafted a motion to block the inclusion of gas and nuclear, but the overall level of support is still unclear.
If the proposal gets blocked, it would end the commission’s efforts to include gas in the taxonomy.
“It simply won’t exist anymore and therefore won’t apply,” said Daniel Ferrie, a spokesperson for the commission, told EUobserver.
Environment report ‘hidden’ by Coalition should be released immediately: Greens
Environment report ‘hidden’ by Coalition should be released immediately: Greens
The new Labor government is facing pressure to immediately release a major environment report which the Coalition was accused of hiding from voters before the federal election.
Weapons designed to mass murder civilians, terrorize the world, and enable impunity for war crimes can no longer be relied on to “prevent war.”
Ban Nuclear Weapons Now
Project Syndicate,May 30, 2022, ANNE-MARIE SLAUGHTER, SUSI SNYDER
Weapons designed to mass murder civilians, terrorize the world, and enable impunity for war crimes can no longer be relied on to “prevent war.” Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression in Ukraine and his willingness to brandish the threat of nuclear weapons will spur a renewed drive to rid the world of them.
WASHINGTON, DC – The events of the past three months in Ukraine – like Russia’s annexation of Crimea and incursion into eastern Ukraine in 2014, the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the long proxy war in Syria – have given the lie to the claim that nuclear weapons prevent war. Nuclear deterrence might stop nuclear-armed countries from directly engaging in war with each other, just as it might stop proxy wars from escalating and spreading to the North Atlantic or the Pacific. But it is equally possible that nuclear eterrence has caused war and enabled national leaders to act with impunity.
Nuclear weapons have certainly not stopped Russia from waging aggressive war against Ukraine. On the contrary, President Vladimir Putin is using nuclear threats as a shield behind which to commit flagrant, grave, and systematic war crimes – and possibly crimes against humanity.
States that possess nuclear weapons have frequently gone to war with states that lack them. The erroneous belief that Iraq had developed nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons led the United States and its allies to invade the country against the will of the United Nations Security Council, triggering a humanitarian catastrophe and two decades of insecurity in the region and beyond. The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), by suggesting that the status quo of nuclear haves and have-nots should be maintained at all costs, has provided some cover for these actions, as well as for attacks on suspected nuclear facilities in Iraq, Iran, and Syria…………………………………………………………
Nuclear weapons, like all weapons of mass destruction, can never be used within the bounds of the laws of war. Fortunately, the same determined efforts that almost completely ended the deployment of landmines and cluster munitions resulted in the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons entering into effect in January 2021.
The TPNW – the only treaty that makes the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons illegal – was brought about by all those countries whose security was shattered through decades of proxy wars between nuclear-armed powers. Adopted by 122 countries, it constitutes a recognition that the laws of war apply equally to all states, no matter what is in their national arsenal.
Weapons designed to mass murder civilians, terrorize the world, and enable impunity for war crimes can no longer be relied on to “prevent war.” Another legacy of Putin’s aggression in Ukraine and his willingness to brandish the threat of nuclear weapons will be a renewed drive to rid the world of them. https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/ban-nuclear-weapons-now-by-anne-marie-slaughter-and-susi-snyder-2022-05
May 30 Energy News — geoharvey
Opinion: ¶ “Faster, Cleaner, Greener: What Lies Ahead For The World’s Railways” • Faster, cleaner, greener and packed with advanced technology, rail is the only transport mode currently well placed to provide the backbone of our future mobility needs. Ridership may be down due to the pandemic, but rail transportation may be headed to a […]
May 30 Energy News — geoharvey
Nuclear news as May ends – the problems keep getting worse
Some bits of good news – INDIGENOUS INSIGHTS ON HEALING LAND AND SKY. Cuban Farmers Fight Land Degradation with Sustainable Management.
It’s a worrying thought that everyone might just get ”Ukraine fatigue” and let this cruel war grind on. In the meantime, the global nuclear industry is suffering all sorts of upsets, while Elon Musk and the rest of the space war enthusiasts are carrying on, as if there were no problems at all. Hard to single out the most significant nuclear failure, but I think that it would have to be France, where the financial and safety problems just keep getting worse.
AUSTRALIA.
Julian Assange’s family says Australia’s election result brings renewed hope for WikiLeaks founder’s release. Labor urged to act to prevent Julian Assange extradition.
Nuclear. Sydney University radiation case shows the need for stronger environmental laws, with wider scope. Stop Deep Yellow: No uranium mining on Upurli Upurli Nguratja country. Australia’s new Prime Minister backs the UN Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty. Australia’s weapons-buying binge from USA continues .
Climate. Albanese commits Australia to stronger 2030 target, starts climate reset . The political and media establishment ignored climate – but voters didn’t. The 2022 climate election: unpacking how climate concerned Australians voted Months of more rain likely as BOM report links global warming to flood disasters.
‘I’m so angry, I’m wild’: the never-ending wait to clean up asbestos town Wittenoom
INTERNATIONAL.
What to do about humanity entering “a spiral of self-destruction” – a UN Summit now on in Indonesia. The U.N. “Sustainable Development Goals”- just ”greenwashing” – claim experts. Why nuclear power can’t solve climate crisis – in fact makes it worse- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7rG7-P7E5M&t=306s
When Henry Kissinger gives advice on ending the Ukraine conflict, the West should listen. Ukraine, Taiwan: Biden trip designed to recruit S. Korea, Japan into global anti-Russia/China bloc. They’re Just Outright Telling Us That Peace In Ukraine Is Not An Option.
Book Review: ”Atoms and Ashes’‘ – A Timely History of Nuclear Catastrophes.
Asianization of NATO: China, Russia react to Biden visit War for Taiwan, nuclear war for Japan: Biden pushes two-front campaign against China, Russia. Like the rest of Europe’s few remaining non-members, Ireland being prepped for NATO . Expanding NATO – it’s a $quillion bonanza for the U.S. weapons industries!! Why environmentalists are pushing back against nuclear energy .
Nuclear is already well past its sell-by date. After the meltdown.
Billionaires from USA and Denmark have inordinate influence on public opinion about molten salt nuclear reactors’. Caitlin Johnson, rogue journalist, on corporate control of the media.
“Don’t work for climate wreckers:” UN chief warns young people off fossil fuels.
Curbing other climate pollutants, not just CO2, gives Earth a chance.
Experts call on governments to start including animal welfare in sustainable development governance.
UKRAINE. For the first time in history, nuclear sites have been caught up in the middle of warfare. Ukrainian negotiator rules out deal with Russia.
1 This month.
20 September –National Day of Action in Melbourne on the International Day of Peace
Help Aunty Sue Protect Her Land and Sacred Sites From Destructive Rocket Testing.
.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 