“It will be a nightmare for anything living there — humans, animals, or plants,” a geologist familiar with ionic clay rare earth mining told Mongabay. “It will be a huge disaster. It will destroy the whole peninsula,” added the geologist, who asked not to be named due to the sensitive nature of the situation.
Water contamination could spell trouble not just for public health but for the local economy.
Another blow to troubled Madagascar rare earth mine, Monga Bay by Edward Carver on 22 November 2017
German and Singaporean business interests have been attempting to start a rare earth mine on northwestern Madagascar’s Ampasindava peninsula.
According to some scientists, going forward with the project would pose grave long-term threats to local people and the surrounding rainforest, including a protected area home to endangered lemurs and other unique wildlife.
The project has been beset by ownership uncertainty, an ongoing investigation into one of its owners for financial misconduct, and permit delays.
Now its concession, previously valued at over $1 billion, has been reappraised at just $48 million.
A rare earth mining project in Madagascar that has been in turmoil for the last two years took another blow in September, when its concession, previously valued at over $1 billion, was reappraised at just $48 million. Tantalum Rare Earth Malagasy (TREM), a company owned by firms in Germany and Singapore, holds the rights to the 92-square mile (238-square kilometer) concession, located on the Ampasindava peninsula in northwest Madagascar, just across the water from Nosy Be, the country’s main tourist destination.
Demand for rare earth elements, sometimes called “technology metals,” has risen in recent decades because they are used in the production of smartphones and other modern devices. China dominates the market for rare earths, having produced more than 85 percent of world supply for the last few decades. But the environmental and health impacts of rare earth mining have caused Chinese authorities to restructure the industry and close, or attempt to close, many of the mines. Now investors are looking elsewhere. Continue reading →
Nuclear Hotseat , a nuclear awareness podcast, has cautioned about a burial plan for burial of highly radioactive waste near the high tide location of the Pacific Ocean.
This Week’s Featured Interview:
Donna Gilmore of SanOnofreSafety.org reports on Southern California Edison’s plans to bury 1,800 tons – that’s 3,600,000 pounds <!>of high-level radioactive waste on the Pacific Ocean a mere 36 yards from high tide in canisters that are known to crack and leak. Each one contains a Chernobyl’s worth of radiation less than 70 miles
The protesters gathered at Labor MP Lisa Chesters’ office at noon before marching to the office of Senator Bridget McKenzie. Carrying placards and wearing pictures of black lungs, members from the Bendigo District Australian Conservation Foundation delivered letters to both politicians.
Victorian Committee of Doctors for the Environment Australia chair Dr John Iser also spoke at the protest, voicing concerns about health implications of the mine’s coal pollution on its workers and surrounding communities.
It is the first of two events planned in Bendigo for the national “Stop Adani Shakeup” week.
Russia admits spike in radioactive ruthenium-106 over Ural Mountains amid fears of nuclear accident, ABC News, 22 Nov 17, Russian authorities have confirmed reports of a spike in radioactivity in the air over the Ural Mountains.
Key points:
Russia admits “extremely high contamination” of Ruthenium-106 around Ural Mountains
Air samples near Mayak nuclear plant showed levels nearly 1,000 times higher than usual
The state-controlled plant denies any nuclear accidents and claims there’s no health risk
But the suspected source of the leak, a nuclear fuel processing plant, denied it was the source of contamination.
The Russian Meteorological Service said in a statement on Tuesday it recorded the release of ruthenium-106 in the southern Urals in late September and classified it as “extremely high contamination”.
Russian authorities insisted, however, that the contamination posed no health risks.
France’s nuclear safety agency earlier this month said it recorded radioactivity in the area between the Volga River and the Ural Mountains from a suspected accident involving nuclear fuel or the production of radioactive material.
It said the release of the isotope posed no health or environmental risks to European countries.
Last month, when reports of a trace of ruthenium over Europe first appeared, Russia’s state-controlled Rosatom corporation denied any leak.
Rosatom reaffirmed on Tuesday that the ruthenium emission registered by the state meteorological service had not come from any of its facilities.
The corporation said it was working closely with international organisations to identify the potential source of the emission.
The Russian meteorological office’s report, however, noted high levels of radiation in residential areas near Rosatom’s Mayak plant.
The Mayak plant reprocesses nuclear fuel and produces radioactive material for industrial and research purposes. It accounts for half of Russian exports of radioactive isotopes.
Air samples in the town of Argayash in late September-early October, for example, showed levels nearly 1,000 times higher than those recorded in the previous months.
Mayak said it had not conducted any work on extracting ruthenium-106 from spent nuclear fuel “for many years”……..
Professor Paddy Regan at the University of Surrey said the fact that the ruthenium was found in isolation, rather than with other radioactive materials “suggests a leak from a fuel/reprocessing plant or somewhere they are separating the ruthenium” rather than a bigger nuclear accident.
“If it was a reactor leak or nuclear explosion, other radioisotopes would also be present in the plume and from the reports, they are not,” he said.
He added any health effect would be negligible.
Poor record of nuclear disasters
Mayak, in the Chelyabinsk region, saw one of the world’s worst nuclear accidents on September 29, 1957, when a waste tank exploded, contaminating 23,000 square kilometres and prompting authorities to evacuate 10,000 residents from neighbouring regions.
Some details of the disaster were first released to the public in 1989 as part of former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev’s openness campaign, but the exact scope of its impact on the local population has remained unclear.
In 2004, it was confirmed that waste was being dumped in the local Techa River. Nuclear regulators say that no longer happens, but anti-nuclear activists say it is impossible to tell given the level of state secrecy.
In 2016, Associated Press reporters visited a village downstream from Mayak where doctors have for years recorded rates of chromosomal abnormalities, birth defects and cancers vastly higher than the Russian average.
A Geiger counter at the riverbank in the village of Muslyumovo showed measurements 80 to 100 times the level of naturally occurring background radiation.
Reuters reported in February that in a phone conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump denounced the New START treaty and rejected Putin’s suggestion that talks begin about extending it once it expires in 2021.
Some former senior U.S. government officials, legislators and arms-control specialists – many of whom once backed a strong nuclear arsenal — are now warning that the modernization push poses grave dangers.
Special Report: In modernizing nuclear arsenal, U.S. stokes new arms race, Scot PaltrowWASHINGTON (Reuters), 21 Nov 17 – President Barack Obama rode into office in 2009 with promises to work toward a nuclear-free world. His vow helped win him the Nobel Peace Prize that year.
The next year, while warning that Washington would retain the ability to retaliate against a nuclear strike, he promised that America would develop no new types of atomic weapons. Within 16 months of his inauguration, the United States and Russia negotiated the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, known as New START, meant to build trust and cut the risk of nuclear war. It limited each side to what the treaty counts as 1,550 strategic nuclear warheads.
By the time Obama left office in January 2017, the risk of Armageddon hadn’t receded. Instead, Washington was well along in a modernization program that is making nearly all of its nuclear weapons more accurate and deadly.
The consensus is clear: there is no upside to a nuclear Brexit, Guardian, Clare Moody, 21 Nov 17, This government must heed the warnings – leaving the treaty on nuclear energy, Cabinet resignations, a government with no majority in the Commons, a make-or break-budget for the chancellor and a fast-approaching Brexit negotiating deadline means it is easy for issues to slip out of the public consciousness. Against this backdrop, Euratom and the UK’s future nuclear safeguarding regime risk being forgotten.
As the nuclear safeguards bill – one of the “Brexit bills” announced in the Queen’s speech – makes its way through the parliamentary process, nuclear experts were called to present evidence to MPs. The message from experts is unequivocal – there is no upside to the UK leaving the Euratom treaty.
Be it Prospect, the trade union representing civil nuclear experts, EDF Energy, or the Nuclear Industry Association (NIA), the sector is united in its message to the government: leaving Euratom is complicated, and the potential consequences could be disastrous for our country. Rupert Cowen, a nuclear expert at Prospect Law, claims the UK is “sleepwalking” to disaster: “If we do not get this right, business stops … no nuclear trade will be able to continue.”
This is not scaremongering. Analysis of the facts shows just how much is at risk by leaving Euratom, and how complex this process is, given the government’s unnecessary, self-imposed deadline. This government must start listening.
Euratom, among other things, provides safeguarding inspections for all civil nuclear sites in the UK. Inspectors are employed by Euratom and many are EU nationals. It takes five years to train a nuclear inspector and there is currently a limited pool of qualified inspectors from which to recruit. As Sue Ferns, deputy general secretary of Prospect, said in her evidence to the nuclear safeguards bill committee, “this is a highly skilled, very specialist area, which is why there is such a premium on this source of labour” and this is why we must question the wisdom of the government’s actions so far.
The government plans for the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) to take over the role that Euratom currently carries out, but the ONR and the NIA have made clear that new arrangements will not be in place by the time we are due to leave Euratom in March 2019. Asked by MPs whether new arrangements could be put in place within the timeframe, Dame Sue Ion, chair of the Nuclear Innovation and Research Advisory Board, said: “I do not think it is possible.”
Should the UK fail to have its safeguarding regime in place by March 2019, nuclear trade would halt, as well as cross-nation technology sharing that some of our nuclear power stations rely on to function. Again, this is not an exaggeration of the problem, or political point-scoring. Put simply, if we don’t have our safeguarding regime in place, our nuclear industry will face major, potentially dangerous, disruptions…….. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/21/the-consensus-is-clear-there-is-no-upside-to-a-nuclear-brexit
Radiation Free Lakeland 19th Nov 2017, West Cumbria was ruled out as a site to bury nuclear waste 20 years ago because the geology was unsafe. The plan this time round is ten times as big and to include high level nuclear wastes, so not surprisingly Cumbria County Council said NO in January 2013.
However, in order to build new nuclear plants the industry and government need to be seen to have a
“final solution” to the problem, no matter if that “final solution” is dangerous to life in Cumbria and on planet earth. The ducks are being lined up.
To soften the public up in West Cumbria deep mining is once again being promoted as a “good thing” no matter that it is for coal, the mining expertise and infrastructure is being aggressively put into place
creating a “demand”. Companies like Eden Nuclear and Environment are sprouting up like toxic mushrooms and promoting their services: “Our team has undertaken work for a range of disposal facilities including the Geological Disposal Facility” (the one that is planned for Cumbria?) https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2017/11/19/geological-dumping-of-nuclear-waste-where-why/
Paul Waldon Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste Dump In Flinders Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste Dump In Flinders Ranges SA 19 Nov 17 Why do we believe the power to move more than 2100 kilograms (Ford Territory) is “NOT” economical when moving 80kgs (1adult). Yet proponents of nuclear believe the life span of a nuclear power plant generating electricity for less than 0.0164% of the life of the hazard persistence of the radioactive spent fuel rods “IS” economical acceptable.
Is it because this generation wont be picking up the “TAB” for babysitting the deadly radioactive waste. This is the worst deal that anyone could bestow on future generations.
The Sway of the Nuclear Arms Industry Over Donald Trump and Congress Is Terrifying
“The devastation is very important to me.” Mother Jones WILLIAM HARTUNGNOV. 18, 2017 This story originally appeared on TomDispatch.com. ……… in every sense of the term, our nuclear arsenal already represents overkill on an almost unimaginable scale. Independent experts from US war colleges suggest that about 300 warheads would be more than enough to deter any country from launching a nuclear attack on the United States.
It may not surprise you to learn that there’s nothing new about the influence the nuclear weapons lobby has over Pentagon spending priorities. The successful machinations of the makers of strategic bombers and intercontinental ballistic missiles, intended to keep tax dollars flowing their way, date back to the dawn of the nuclear age and are the primary reason President Dwight D. Eisenhower coined the term “military-industrial complex” and warned of its dangers in his 1961 farewell address.
Without the development of such weapons, that complex simply would not exist in its present form. The Manhattan Project, the vast endeavor that produced the first workable nukes during World War II, was one of the largest government-funded research and manufacturing projects in history. Today’s nuclear warhead complex is still largely built around facilities and locations dating back to that time…….
Eisenhower couldn’t have been more clear-eyed about all of this. He saw the missile gap for the fiction it was or, as he put it, a “useful piece of political demagoguery” for his opponents. “Munitions makers,” he insisted, “are making tremendous efforts towards getting more contracts and in fact seem to be exerting undue influence over the senators.”
Once Kennedy took office, it became all too apparent that there was no missile gap, but by then it hardly mattered. The damage had been done. Billions of dollars more were flowing into the nuclear-industrial complex to build up an American arsenal of ICBMs already unmatched on the planet.
The techniques that the arms lobby and its allies in government used more than half a century ago to promote sky-high nuclear weapons spending continue to be wielded to this day. The 21st-century arms complex employs tools of influence that Kennedy and his compatriots would have found familiar indeed—including millions of dollars in campaign contributions that flow to members of Congress and the continual employment of 700 to 1,000 lobbyists to influence them; that’s nearly two arms lobbyists for every member of Congress. Much of this sort of activity remains focused on ensuring that nuclear weapons of all types are amply financed and that the funding for the new generations of the bombers, submarines, and missiles that will deliver them stays on track.
When traditional lobbying methods don’t get the job done, the industry’s argument of last resort is jobs—in particular, jobs in the states and districts of key members of Congress. This process is aided by the fact that nuclear weapons facilities are spread remarkably widely across the country. There are labs in California and New Mexico; a testing and research site in Nevada; a warhead assembly and disassembly plant in Texas; a factory in Kansas City, Missouri, that builds nonnuclear parts for such weapons; and a plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, that produces weapon-grade uranium. There are factories or bases for ICBMs, bombers, and ballistic missile submarines in Connecticut, Georgia, Washington State, California, Ohio, Massachusetts, Louisiana, North Dakota, and Wyoming. Such a nuclear geography ensures that a striking number of congressional representatives will automatically favor more spending on nuclear weapons.
In reality, the jobs argument is deeply flawed. As the experts know, virtually any other activity into which such funding flowed would create significantly more jobs than Pentagon spending. A study by economists at the University of Massachusetts, for example, found infrastructure investment would create one and one-half times as many jobs as Pentagon funding and education spending twice as many.
In most cases it hasn’t seemed to matter that the jobs claims for weapons spending are grotesquely exaggerated and better alternatives litter the landscape. The argument remains remarkably potent in states and communities that are particularly dependent on the Pentagon. Perhaps unsurprisingly, members of Congress from such areas are disproportionately represented on the committees that decide how much will be spent on nuclear and conventional weaponry………. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/11/devastation-very-important-nuclear-weapons-industry-donald-trump-1/
#StateCapture fears as SA nuclear bid lifts off, IOL 19 NOVEMBER 2017, Johannesburg –Russian state energy firm Rosatom is pushing ahead with its nuclear bid despite two environmental groups taking Energy Minister David Mahlobo to court to block the nuclear build programme.
Head of Rosatom in sub-Saharan Africa Viktor Polikarpov said on Saturday it was still in the race to build nuclear in South Africa irrespective of what was happening.
Polikarpov, who was in Accra, Ghana, said it was not involved in politics and were businesspeople.
Earthlife Africa and the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (Safcei) lodged an urgent high court application this week to block Mahlobo from fast-tracking the nuclear build programme.This followed reports that Mahlobo was planning to finalise processes soon.
Polikarpov said it will still pursue the nuclear build programme in South Africa. He said Rosatom was busy all over Africa.
“As for South Africa if the government launches another tender we will participate. This is business for us which should not be mixed with politics,” said Polikarpov.
Earthlife Africa and Safcei said they went to the high court to block Mahlobo from pushing through the nuclear deal because he was fast-tracking the process.
Mahlobo will be in Parliament on Tuesday where he will brief the portfolio committee on energy on matters of energy in the country.
Makoma Lekalaka of Earthlife Africa Johannesburg said they wanted to put a stop to the nuclear programme.
“We are part of an international movement against dirty nuclear energy, where we have seen governments enter into nuclear deals that are not in the interests of their people. That must not happen in South Africa,” said Lekalaka…..
Lid McDaid of Safcei said they wanted to block the process because the state was now captured.
GE faces lawsuit over role in Fukushima nuclear disasterBy Jon Chesto Boston
A group of Japanese businesses and doctors sued General Electric Co. in Boston federal court on Friday, claiming the industrial giant was reckless and negligent in its design of the reactors and related systems at the core of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011.
The plaintiffs claim Boston-based GE knowingly used a reactor design at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant that would fail to protect against the possible threat of earthquakes and tsunamis, a natural risk in that area.
The plaintiffs are seeking class-action status for businesses in the area that suffered economic damage as a result of the disaster, which displaced as many as 150,000 people.
Among other things, the lawsuit claims GE and its partners lowered a protective cliff by more than 60 feet, placing the plant and all six of its GE-designed reactors closer to the Pacific Ocean and in the path of the severe tsunami that struck on March 11, 2011.
Afte the tsunami hit, three GE-designed reactors suffered from “entirely foreseeable flooding and resulting nuclear meltdowns,” causing the release of radioactive matter into the area surrounding the plant, according to the lawsuit. The plaintiffs are essentially blaming GE for defective reactor design as well as for not putting in place enough safeguards to prevent the spread of radiation once the Fukushima plant was breached……..Jon Chesto can be reached at jon.chesto@globe.com. https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2017/11/17/faces-lawsuit-over-role-fukushima-nuclear-disaster/LHeU66Nxd1jOLCV7DhwcoN/story.html
Climate News Network 16th Nov 2017 Climate change and nuclear threats are closely linked and must be tackled together, US experts say. The warning comes from a working group chaired by
the Center for Climate and Security (CCS), a non-partisan policy institute
of security and military experts (many of them high-ranking former members
of the armed forces), in a report which offers a framework for
understanding and addressing the distinct problems together.
The report is published as this year’s UN climate summit draws to a close in Bonn in
the aftermath of President Trump’s tour of Asia, during which nuclear
weapons issues featured prominently.
Professor Christine Parthemore, a former adviser to the US defence department, co-chairs the working group.She told the Climate News Network: “Simultaneous effects of climate
change, tough social or economic pressures, and security challenges could
increase the risk of conflict among nuclear weapon-possessing states, even
if that conflict stems from miscalculation or misperception.
India and Pakistan are major concerns. “They are grappling with water stress,
deadly natural disasters, terrorism, and numerous other pressures. At the
same time, the types of nuclear weapons they are developing and policies on
command of those weapons are raising tensions between them. http://climatenewsnetwork.net/climate-nuclear-threats-twins/
Ultimately, the larger problem is that President Trump’s policy objectives are unattainable.
Denuclearization is a non-starter from North Korea’s perspective because Kim believes – not without reason – that nuclear weapons are a matter of regime survival, having seen what happens to leaders in countries like Libya when they give up their nuclear programs.
As long as President Trump insists on “complete, verifiable and total denuclearization,” Washington is walking America down a path that leads to (likely nuclear) military conflict
It would be both foolish and naïve to think that all the tough talk coming out of the Trump administration is simply meant to intimidate North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un into giving up his nuclear weapons and long-range missiles.
The three so-called “adults in the room” who are apparently the strongest voices influencing President Trump’s foreign policy are National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, Secretary of Defense James Mattis and White House Chief of Staff John Kelly.
Mattis is an active duty lieutenant general in the Army. Mattis and Kelly are retired Marine Corps generals. Their common experience is commanding ground forces in the Iraq War. If they are shaping the Trump administration’s North Korea policy, it stands to reason that their views would have a decidedly military tilt.
If President Trump decides to take military action, what might it look like?Continue reading →
China’s nuclear spaceships will be ‘mining asteroids and flying astronauts to the moon’ as it aims to overtake US in space race State media publishes Chinese scientists’ ambitious plans to revolutionise space travel and exploration in coming decades, South China Morning Post, Stephen Chen: Friday, 17 November, 2017 China is on course to develop nuclear-powered space shuttles by 2040, and will have the ability to mine resources from asteroids and build solar power plants in space soon after, according to state media. The ambitious claims, made by the China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology – the country’s leading rocket developer and manufacturer – were published on the front page of People’s Daily on Friday.
According to the report, a new “nuclear fleet” of carrier rockets and reusable hybrid-power carriers will be ready for “regular, large scale” interplanetary flights, and carrying out commercial exploration and exploitation of natural resources by the mid-2040s.
China will catch up with the United States on conventional rocket technology by 2020, it said. In 2025, it is expected to launch a reusable suborbital carrier and start suborbital space tourism.
By 2030, it aims to put astronauts on the moon and have the capabilities to bring samples back from Mars. In the 2040s, a nuclear-powered fleet will be ready to carry out mining operations on asteroids and planets, the report said…..
“The nuclear vessels are built to colonise the solar system and beyond,” Wang Changhui, associate professor of aerospace propulsion at the School of Astronautics at Beihang University in Beijing, said…..
A nuclear spaceship would have a reactor loaded with radioactive fuel for fission – the splitting of atoms that produces large amounts of energy.
That energy could be used to generate a driving force as well as electricity for the craft’s on-board equipment….
During the cold war, dozens of satellites equipped with various types of nuclear reactors were launched by the former Soviet Union and the United States..
But the nuclear space race was eventually postponed, partly due to its threat to humanity. In 1978, Russian spy satellite Kosmos 954 crashed and sprayed radioactive waste over an area of 124,000 square kilometres in Canada.
More than 30 dead nuclear satellites are still drifting in space and could fall to earth at any time over the next few thousand years.
“Safety issues will be the top challenge for the Chinese nuclear fleet,” Wang said. “If they come down, it will cause a global nuclear disaster.”
According to China’s space authorities, the nuclear shuttles would be docked at a transport hub that would orbit the earth. Reusable spacecraft would be used to transport people and cargo to and from the shuttles.
But even if they were permanently in space, the nuclear-powered vessels were still at risk of being hit by meteorites or even colliding with one another, Wang said.
PopePope Francis rebukes ‘perverse’ climate change deniers over rejection of science behind global warming Pontiff encourages policymakers to accelerate their efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions at Bonn summit Independent, Nicole Winfield, 17 Nov 17 Pope Francis has rebuked those who deny the science behind global warming and urged negotiators at climate talks in Germany to avoid falling prey to such “perverse attitudes” and instead accelerate efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
Francis issued a message to the Bonn meeting, which is working to implement the 2015 Paris accord aimed at capping global emissions.
In it, Francis called climate change “one of the most worrisome phenomena that humanity is facing.” He urged negotiators to take action free of special interests and political or economic pressures, and to instead engage in an honest dialogue about the future of the planet. ……. In his message, the Argentine pope denounced that efforts to combat climate change are often frustrated by those who deny the science behind it or are indifferent to it, those who are resigned to it or think it can be solved by technical solutions, which he termed “inadequate.” “We must avoid falling into these four perverse attitudes, which certainly don’t help honest research and sincere, productive dialogue,” he said. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/pope-france-climate-change-deniers-perverse-global-warming-greenhouse-gas-emissions-bonn-germany-a8060746.html
Apr 15, 2026 01:00 AM in Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney
Join the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) on Tuesday, April 14th for a timely webinar exploring the risks associated with nuclear power and challenging the myth that it offers a simple, safe, carbon-free solution to the climate crisis
21 April Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-04-21 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-04-21 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
Event Type: Virtual A virtual link will be communicated before the event.
Antinuclear 