Young Vietnamese Diplomat Envisions Nuclear-Free World
She is proud that Viet Nam has ratified the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and is currently at accession level with the NPT.
- Lê Nguyen An Khanh is a young diplomat with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Viet Nam. She is passionate about the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and world peace.
- UNITAR Division for Prosperity trains government officials in Asia to learn about international nuclear disarmament processes and build their communication and negotiation skills.
28 August 2023, Hiroshima, Japan – Lê Nguyen An Khanh is a young official from Viet Nam, working at the Department of International Organisations at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. She believes that diplomats like her have the responsibility to advocate for nuclear disarmament. But it’s not always easy to keep abreast of the intricacies of the field. “We are constantly having [to] research all the issues, of which nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation is a huge part”, she says………………………………………………………………………………….
Lê has had to learn how to take the uncertainties of global politics and turn them into something surmountable. She is proud that Viet Nam has ratified the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and is currently at accession level with the NPT. She wants to make sure her country’s voice is heard on the international stage, that it is seen as a world player. (Plus, she enjoys meeting, learning and working with like-minded people from different backgrounds and cultures.)
Being a young diplomat can come with its challenges: her views and opinions may not be granted the same weight as her older, perhaps more experienced, colleagues. But Lê challenges other young diplomats to be passionate and work hard.
“If you work hard enough, stick to your ideals and you are passionate about what you do and want to do in the future, people will recognize you – especially the seasoned diplomats who have already been there. You have to demonstrate that you are willing and have the capability to deliver. [If] you have a passion, you will be able to overcome challenges”. -Lê Nguyen An Khanh, Vietnamese diplomat and 2023 alumna, UNITAR Nuclear Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Training Programme
Looking to the Future
Lê will incorporate into her work all that she learned in the UNITAR training and expects to share her knowledge with colleagues in other departments and ministries as well. She applauds the UNITAR Hiroshima Office for putting together a well-organized and resourced training programme that she calls “an epitome of a good training programme”.
In the next 20 years, Lê says she wants to see more UNITAR offices around the world and for more people to learn about nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. “I want to see UNITAR bring people from different regions with different cultures, race, genres to show the similar yet different experiences of their lives.”
Her personal goal is to make sure that she contributes to global peace.
Peace is a universal value. Everybody wants peace. I think peace is the motivation for every country to move towards development and stability. It is only when we have peace that we can move forward and make ourselves stronger.” -Lê Nguyen An Khanh, Vietnamese diplomat and 2023 alumna, UNITAR Nuclear Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Training Programme
About UNITAR
The United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) is a dedicated training arm of the United Nations. In 2022, UNITAR trained 396,046 learners around the world to support their actions for a better future. In addition to our headquarters in Geneva, we have offices in Hiroshima, New York and Bonn and networks around the world.
The Division for Prosperity is based in the Hiroshima Office and Geneva. We seek to shape an inclusive, sustainable and prosperous world through world-class learning and knowledge-sharing services on entrepreneurship, leadership, finance and trade, digital technologies, and nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. We empower individuals from least-developed countries, countries emerging from conflict, and small-island developing states – especially women and young people – to bring about positive change.
United Nations Volunteer Ruhiya Yousuf contributed to this article.
Only Idiots Believe The US Is Protecting Australia From China
CAITLIN JOHNSTONE, AUG 29, 2023 https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/only-idiots-believe-the-us-is-protecting?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
The Economist has taken a keen interest in Australia lately, which if you know anything about The Economist is something you never want to see happen to your country. Two articles published in the last few days by the notorious propaganda outlet have celebrated the fact that Australia appears to be the most likely nation to follow the United States into a hot war with China as it enmeshes itself further and further with the US war machine.
In “How Joe Biden is transforming America’s Asian alliances,” The Economist writes the following:
Meanwhile, the ‘unbreakable’ defence relationship with Australia is deepening, following the AUKUS agreement struck in March, amid a flurry of equipment deals and military exercises. Should war break out with China, the Aussies seem the most willing to fight at America’s side. Australian land, sea and air bases are expanding to receive more American forces. Under the AUKUS deal, Australia is gaining its own long-range weapons, such as nuclear-powered (but not nuclear-armed) submarines to be developed jointly with America and Britain. The three partners want to work on other military technologies, from hypersonic missiles to underwater drones.
“Taken together the ‘latticework’ of security agreements, shows how America’s long-heralded pivot to Asia is accelerating.”
In “Australia is becoming America’s military launch-pad into Asia,” The Economist elaborates upon this war partnership with tumescent enthusiasm, calling it a “mateship” and likening it to a “marriage”, and calling for a rollback of US restrictions on sharing military technology with Australia.
“If America ever goes to war with China, American officials say the Aussies would be the likeliest allies to be fighting with them,” The Economist gushes, adding, “Australia’s geographical advantage is that it lies in what strategists call a Goldilocks zone: well-placed to help America to project power into Asia, but beyond the range of most of China’s weapons. It is also large, which helps America scatter its forces to avoid giving China easy targets.”
The Economist cites White House “Asia Tsar” Kurt Campbell reportedly saying of Australia, “We have them locked in now for the next 40 years.”
“Equally, though, Australia may have America locked in for the same duration,” The Economist hastens to add.
Well gosh, that’s a relief.
“How the world sees us,” tweeted former Australian foreign minister Bob Carr when sharing the Economist article.
“Historians will be absolutely baffled by what’s happening in Australia right now: normally countries never voluntarily relinquish their sovereignty and worsen their own security position out of their own accord. They normally have to lose a war and be forced to do so,” commentator Arnaud Bertrand added to Carr’s quip.
As much as it pains me to admit it, The Economist is absolutely correct. The Australian government has been showing every indication that it is fully willing to charge into a hot war with its top trading partner to please its masters in Washington, both before and after the US puppet regime in Canberra changed hands last year.
This sycophantic war-readiness was humorously mocked on Chinese state media back in 2021 by Impact Asia Capital co-founder Charles Liu, who said he didn’t think the US will actually fight a war with China over Taiwan, but the Australians might be stupid enough to fight it for them.
“US is not going to fight over Taiwan,” Liu said. “It’s not going to conduct a war over Taiwan. They may try to get Japanese to do it, but Japanese won’t be so stupid to do it. The only stupid ones who might get involved are the Australians, sorry.”
He had nothing to be sorry about; he was right. Australians are being very, very stupid, and not just our government. A recent Lowy Institute poll found that eight in ten Australians believe the nation’s alliance with the United States is important for Australia’s security, despite three-quarters also saying they believe the alliance makes Australia more likely to be drawn into a war in Asia.
That’s just plain stupid. A war with China is the absolute worst case security scenario for Australia; anything that makes war with China more likely is making us less secure. Making bad decisions which hurt your own interests is what stupid people do.
That’s not to say Australians are naturally dimwitted; we’re actually pretty clever as far as populations go. What’s making us stupid in this case is the fact that our nation has the most concentrated media ownership in the western world, a massive chunk of which is owned by longtime US empire asset Rupert Murdoch. This propaganda-conducive information environment has been distorting Australia’s understanding of the world so pervasively in recent years that on more than one occasion I’ve had total strangers start babbling at me about the dangers of China completely out of nowhere within minutes of striking up conversation with them.
This artificially manipulated information ecosystem has made Australians so pants-on-head idiotic that they think the US empire is filling their country up with war machinery because it loves them and wants to protect them from the Chinese. That’s as stupid as it gets.
The single biggest lie being circulated in Australia right now is that our government is militarising against China as a defensive measure. China has literally zero history of invading and occupying countries on the other side of the planet. You know who does have a very extensive history of doing that? The United States. The military superpower that Australia’s military is becoming increasingly intertwined with. The belief that we’re intertwining ourselves with the world’s most aggressive, destructive and war-horny military force as a defensive measure to protect ourselves against that military force’s top rival (who hasn’t dropped a bomb in decades) is transparently false, and only a complete idiot would believe it.
We’re not militarising to defend ourselves against a future attack by China, we’re militarising in preparation for a future US-led attack on the Chinese military. We’re militarising in preparation to involve ourselves in an unresolved civil war between Chinese people that has nothing to do with us. China has been sorting out its own affairs for millennia and has managed to do so just fine without the help of white people running in firing military explosives at them, and Taiwan is no exception.
The imperial media talk nonstop about how the People’s Republic of China is preparing to seize control of Taiwan using military force, without ever mentioning the fact that that’s exactly what the US empire is doing. The US empire is preparing to wrest Taiwan away from China to facilitate its long-term agenda to balkanize, weaken and subjugate its top rival.
Only a complete blithering imbecile would believe any part of this is being done defensively. It’s being done to secure unipolar planetary domination for the world’s most powerful and destructive government, and only an absolute moron would agree to risk their own country’s security and economic interests to help facilitate it.
TEACHERS ACT AGAINST SCHOOLS NUCLEAR SUBMARINES PROGRAM
the normalisation of militarisation and downplaying of nuclear risks in schools is a grave concern.
“Nuclear and military aspects in the curriculum fail to address health and environmental risks associated with both, as well as the drive to war,”
Education. 28 Aug 2023 https://www.nationaltribune.com.au/teachers-act-against-schools-nuclear-subs-program/
Children being taught to make weapons
Teachers are moving to boycott a new pro-nuclear-fuel brainwashing program being introduced into schools.
There’s growing momentum within unions to ban the Nuclear-powered Submarine Propulsion Challenge, which is a Defence Department initiative backed by the Federal and Victorian governments.
In a blatant attempt to normalise nuclear power and indoctrinate children into building instruments of death, the challenge asks students from years 7 to 12 to design a nuclear-powered propulsion system for a submarine.
Friends of the Earth (FoE) understands that motions calling for a boycott have already been passed in some chapters of the Australian Education Union.
One motion, passed at a recent branch meeting said: “We resolve to refuse to refer students to this program or others like it, and we will refuse to promote it within our schools. We call on the Department of Education to cease all involvement in this and similar programs.”
Another said: “We don’t intend to refer students to this program or others like it, or to promote it within our schools. We call on the Department of Education to cease all involvement in this and similar programs.”
Friends of the Earth is supporting the ban and has written to the Australian Education Union asking them to impose a nationwide boycott.
FoE Nuclear Free Coordinator Sanne De Swart said the normalisation of militarisation and downplaying of nuclear risks in schools is a grave concern.
“Nuclear and military aspects in the curriculum fail to address health and environmental risks associated with both, as well as the drive to war,” Sanne De Swart said.
“It fails to acknowledge Australia’s significant and devastating history with nuclear, including the atomic bomb tests, uranium mining and the attempts to impose nuclear waste dumps, all which have and continue to affect First Nations communities disproportionately .”
‘Peaceful Atom’ Sparks Fierce Debate In Kazakh Village Slated To Host Nuclear Power Plant
By Petr Trotsenko, August 28, 2023 Radio Free Europe
ULKEN, Kazakhstan — Plans are under way to build a nuclear power plant (NPP) scheduled to be online by 2035, to supply Kazakhstan’s soaring energy needs.
In Ulken, where the plant is likely to be built, opinions among the village’s 1,500 residents on what a nuclear future for their impoverished lakeside village would look like are split.
Ulken is located 330 kilometers northwest of Almaty on the shores of Lake Balkhash. The village was created in the 1980s to house workers for a planned hydroelectric power plant. That project was unfinished when the Soviet Union collapsed and high-rise apartments are the only completed constructions from the period.
Officially, Ulken is a village, but it feels like an urban settlement. There are no houses here, only apartments. There is no livestock, and no gardens grow in the rocky soil…………………………………………………………………………….
Khairulina wants to increase the population of Ulken, renovate the village, and give life to the abandoned apartments. For these reasons she supports the construction of an NPP. “If the project starts, civilization will come,” she said. The villager is concerned for the environment, but said, “We are not afraid of environmental problems, now everything is made with modern technology.”
Fishermen in Ulken are largely against the NPP project because they fear that Lake Balkhash will be affected and that fishing there could eventually be banned.
It’s not difficult to find fishermen. In front of one abandoned apartment, fish hang in the breeze.
The owner of the property is a young man named Rinat. The 34-year-old fisherman has devoted half of his life to the profession and works the lake every day. Rinat firmly opposes the construction of an NPP.
“The lake sustains us,” he said. “This year the water level in the Balkhash dropped severely, and the fish population decreased. If an NPP is built, there will be no water left in the lake,” Rinat claimed.
At the grocery store, I met another resident, Aleksei Losev. The 35-year-old moved to Ulken six years ago to live with his future wife. He’s not a fisherman, but does not expect anything good from the construction of the NPP.
“On one hand I support its construction, because new jobs will be created, people will come from abroad, and the village will develop. On the other hand, it’s about ecology,” he said, before referencing a troubled Soviet-era NPP in western Kazakhstan that is currently being decommissioned. “Three kilometers from Aqtau there is the Manghystau NPP. The environmental situation there is bad. Why? Wastewater! Both fish and seals are dying…. It will be the same here,” he said……………………………………………………………………………….
In the small assembly hall of the Ulken high school where the August 21 meeting to discuss the NPP took place, it was standing room only. Environmental activists who had travelled from Almaty for the meeting unfurled posters calling to put a stop to the project as residents chanted, “we support the peaceful atom!”
When the discussion on the planned NPP got under way it was clear that there would be little constructive conversation. The emotions of the crowd boiled over.
“We are against the nuclear power plant, it will destroy Balkhash Lake!” activists shouted.
“You’re not a nuclear specialist, how do you know it will be harmful? You don’t live in Ulken” responded some residents.
“It is not only an Ulken problem, this topic should be discussed by all of Kazakhstan!” the activists countered.
…………………………………………………………………… Another local man hoped to work in the future energy sector.
“We residents have been waiting for this construction for 40 years,” he said. “We started with the construction of the power station, we spent days without heat and electricity, we went through many different events together. Ulken needs this energy, this is the center of Kazakhstan. Our region is seismologically stable! There are 15 nuclear power plants in Japan, which has an earthquake every month. Energy is scarce and very expensive in our country. We all need electricity. We support the peaceful atom!” he said.
People in the hall clapped and someone asked, “What about solar energy?” nobody seemed to hear the question amid chants of “Peaceful atom! Peaceful atom!”
Then environmentalist Svetlana Mogilyuk spoke. Like many others, Svetlana came to Ulken to take part in the discussion.
“Dear residents, we have now listened very carefully to what was said,” Mogilyuk said. “No basic, truthful information was provided to you. In contrast to the claim that nuclear energy is not harmful to health, there are qualified studies showing that nuclear energy is still harmful! Numerous studies also confirm that children who live near nuclear power plants are more likely to develop leukemia, and deaths from cancer increase by 24 percent.”
As she made these claims, her microphone cut off. She continued without it.
“Nuclear power plants are harmful, they are accompanied by radioactive emissions. Citizens! You are now being told a lie! Hearings must be accompanied by basic information! You must understand that apart from the NPP, you have other opportunities, you have the opportunity to develop other types of electricity. They will be no less powerful, no less effective, but safer!”
……………………………………………………………………… many in Kazakhstan feel the construction of an NPP is a done deal for the government and that far more depends on its decision than the prospects for locals of a small village on the banks of the Balkhash. https://www.rferl.org/a/kazakhstan-nuclear-power-plant-debate-construction/32563042.html
French energy regulator: Nuclear alone not enough for carbon neutrality
“renewable energies to be brought on stream as quickly as possible, as there will be no new reactors in operation by 2035” to meet the need to decarbonise the energy mix.
By Clara Bauer-Babef and Paul Messad | EURACTIV.fr 27 Aug 23 https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/french-energy-regulator-nuclear-alone-not-enough-for-carbon-neutrality/
If France is to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, it must integrate renewables into its energy mix, according to the head of the country’s energy regulator, RTE, who believes nuclear power alone will not be enough.
As part of its EU targets, France has pledged to become carbon neutral by 2050 and contribute to the bloc’s efforts to cut greenhouse gases by 55% by 2030.
“To achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, nuclear power alone will not be enough,” said Xavier Piechaczyk, Chairman of RTE, on France Inter radio on Saturday.
Instead, France needs to diversify further its energy mix, which is currently 40% nuclear, 28% oil, 16% natural gas, 14% renewables and 2% coal, according to the French Ministry for Ecological Transition.
All the more so as “energy consumption will fall, but electricity consumption will rise to replace fossil fuels”, with a 25% increase in decarbonised electricity, writes RTE in its reference report on the French energy mix in 2050.
As such, Piechaczyk calls for “renewable energies to be brought on stream as quickly as possible, as there will be no new reactors in operation by 2035” to meet the need to decarbonise the energy mix.
France plans to build six new small nuclear reactors (EPR), although these will not be operational until 2035. Construction for the first reactor is only set to start in 2027.
“France is struck by a pathology, which is to spend its time arguing between nuclear versus renewable: it’s not the first question to be asked”, Piechaczyk said.
Piechaczyk referred in particular to the conflict between the radical left and ecologists, who are opposed to nuclear power, and the presidential majority and the right, supported by the Communists, who favour the development of nuclear power.
(Paul Messad & Clara Bauer-Babef | EURACTIV.fr)
Respect for hibakusha, and hope in younger generations
Hibakusha, atomic bombing survivors, have been tirelessly exerting themselves toward a world free of nuclear weapons, with their only wish that no one else should go through the sufferings they have experienced
The Bulletin, By Masako Toki | August 22, 2023
For too long, nuclear weapons narratives have been dominated by those who saw the mushroom cloud from afar or above. Or maybe just in photos, TV, or videos. Most absurdly, the voices of people who suffered the most under the mushroom cloud have often been marginalized.
There have been numerous efforts to raise awareness of the inhumane nature of nuclear weapons among hibakusha (atomic bomb survivors), people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and more broadly, in the international community. One of the most important milestones came when the 2010 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference adopted a final document that included, for the first time “the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons.” Since then, the humanitarian initiative for nuclear disarmament has been gaining momentum.
Three conferences on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons contributed to the start of the negotiation of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) and to adoption of the treaty. Through this process, a wide range of civil society members, along with like-minded governments, energized the humanitarian initiatives and tenaciously supported bringing humanitarian dimensions to nuclear weapons policy discussion.
The adoption of the TPNW has brought a glimmer of hope to nuclear disarmament advocates, although they are fully aware that this is a first step of the long process. Still, this is considered to be one of very few positive developments in recent nuclear disarmament efforts. The world is currently moving backward on nuclear disarmament. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has caused unspeakable human suffering and raised the risk of nuclear war. Today, nuclear threats are at the highest level since the end of the Cold War,
Hibakusha, atomic bombing survivors, have been tirelessly exerting themselves toward a world free of nuclear weapons, with their only wish that no one else should go through the sufferings they have experienced.
As the memories of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are further fading away every year given the advanced age of hibakusha, it is urgent for younger generations to learn more. Time is of the essence. Earlier this year, the average age of hibakusha reached 85.01 years, according to Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. In addition, the number of hibakusha decreased by 5,286 to 113,649 this year. As the A-bomb survivors continue to age, the issue of how to pass on the message of the catastrophic impact of nuclear weapons to the next generation becomes increasingly pressing. Informing and educating the next generation is how we can ensure that nuclear weapons will never be used again, and eventually, achieve a world free of nuclear weapons.
The time to learn from hibakusha directly is limited and is getting shorter and shorter. The peace declaration this year read by Nagasaki Mayor Shiro Suzuki quoted Sumiteru Taniguchi, one of the late hibakushas who dedicated his life to nuclear disarmament. Taniguchi admonished that “[p]eople appear to be gradually forgetting the suffering of the past. This forgetfulness terrifies me. I fear that forgetfulness will lead to the acceptance of further atomic bombings.”
Keiko Ogura, a Hiroshima hibakusha and an English-Japanese interpreter for peace activities, shared her testimonials with world leaders in May this year at the G7 Hiroshima Summit. She asked the leaders to “relive the struggles in the hearts of hibakusha” that have been felt for so long, and to imagine the invisible wounds, traumas, sorrows, and unspeakable secrets through her eyes and heart. One of the most important abilities you need when you work for nuclear disarmament is to be able to empathize with other’s suffering. Ogura asked the G7 leaders to do precisely this. She also sent a message to Russian President Vladimir Putin through a reporter for one of her numerous interviews, saying, “You don’t know what a nuclear weapon is, the reality of a nuclear weapon. So come here and see.”
Earlier this summer, at a civil society event, Ogura calmly started her atomic bombing testimonial by encouraging the audience to imagine how it feels like to be under the mushroom cloud at the time of the bomb’s detonation. “I was at that time under the mushroom cloud you can see there,” while showing the picture of the mushroom cloud after the bomb was dropped.
Nothing is more powerful and effective than hibakusha testimonials in helping others to understand the horrific reality of the use of nuclear weapons. It is very important to imagine what really happened under the mushroom cloud. When you hear about the Hiroshima bombing or the Nagasaki bombing, the first image that comes to your mind may be the mushroom cloud. But we need to understand that people were under the mushroom cloud. Most of the victims were civilians, including small children.
Every year, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki remembrance days come. These are the days that we have to make efforts to remember and renew our resolve to work for nuclear disarmament. Soon, we will not be able to listen to hibakusha directly. As the hibakusha are aging in the middle of increasing nuclear risks, we cannot do business as usual every year, or think about nuclear disarmament only on these remembrance days……………………………………………………………….more https://thebulletin.org/2023/08/respect-for-hibakusha-and-hope-in-younger-generations/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMedia&utm_campaign=FacebookPost082023&utm_content=NuclearRisk_HibakushaAndHope_08222023&fbclid=IwAR0hzzEqc_dLq2NN_fF9F4OQl0uI31cz7QW9BA5nL5TPKrLpASBAUt9dRDg
Week to 28 August – nuclear news
A bit of good news. Welcome to the world’s first zero-waste island. Ecuador voted to just stop oil.
TOP STORIES
At Fukushima Daiichi, decommissioning the nuclear plant is far more challenging than water release. Fukushima waste-water decision disregards scientific evidence, violates the human rights of Pacific region communities.
Lauding Lise Meitner, Who Said ‘No’ to the Atomic Bomb. #StepUp4Disarmament on International Day against Nuclear Tests. NASA joins the lunatic fringe. Elon Musk’s Shadow Rule
Ukraine Providing an Important Testing Ground For Space-Based Weapons. Sustainability has lost its meaning as the nuclear lobby triumphs.
Climate. Why Scotland must get real on climate crisis: The time has passed for protecting the public from reality. China’s summer of climate destruction.
Nuclear. I felt a bit desperate, watching all the rejoicing about India sending a rocket to the moon. Don’t people realise that all this space research, (at tax-payers’ expense) is geared towards weaponry in space? Another upsetting news item today – intrepid journalist Ronan Farrow, in a terribly long article, explores and exposes the powerful influence of Elon Musk over the American government. It is a scary thought.
Christina notes. The nuclear lobby is gearing up for a takeover of COP 28.
AUSTRALIA. Rex Patrick demolishes Richard Marles’ slick lies about AUKUS and the nuclear submarines. All the way with Anthony A – Labor locks in AUKUS support despite union opposition. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MlVW8qJ-TEACHERS ACT AGAINST SCHOOLS NUCLEAR SUBS PROGRAM.
Green light for nuclear ships, submarines in Tasmanian port. South-east Australia marine heatwave forecast to be literally off the scale.
Coalition’s campaign for nuclear energy implausible, experts say. Ontario nuclear model may not suit Australia. Australian Financial Review’s sloppy journalism makes a nonsense of its case for nuclear SMRs.
ARTS and CULTURE. What ‘Downwinders inherited at Trinity.
CLIMATE. EDF Warns of French Nuclear Output Cuts in Weekend Heat Wave. France issues ‘red alert‘ over heatwave in south. France heatwave curbs cooling water supply to St Alban nuclear plant.
ECONOMICS. French Winter Power Twice as Pricey as Germany’s on Nuclear Woes. Georgia’s new nuclear reactors a cautionary tale. Why the US and Europe Still Buy Russian Nuclear Fuel.
China bans Japanese seafood after Fukushima wastewater release.
ENERGY Degrowthers Gain Support as Planet Cooks. Power-starved North Korea turns to solar energy to keep the lights on. French energy regulator: Nuclear alone not enough for carbon neutrality
ENVIRONMENT. Japanese fishing industry leader is “greatly concerned” over the pending disharge of Fukushima radioactive water into the ocean. Japan’s nuclear wastewater – should we be worried?. ‘Animals could become MUTATED’ from the 1.3 million tons of radioactive waste dumped from Japan’s nuclear power plant in the Pacific. Endless fallout: the Pacific idyll still facing nuclear blight 77 years on. Marshall Islands sea turtle found to have nuclear contamination.
Hinkley Point C: Millions of fish under threat after permit change.
Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety Urges State Legislature to Protect the Española Aquifer from LANL Pollutants.
ETHICS and RELIGION. Nuclear deterrence is a dangerous fraud . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH6xkjMNdnk&t=116s
HEALTH. Exposure to Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation Linked to Solid Cancer Mortality.
LEGAL. Texas nuclear waste storage permit invalidated by US appeals court.
MEDIA. Chicago Tribune should support Vivec Ramasramy’s call for end to perpetual war in Ukraine
NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY. The ageing nuclear reactors. How to keep them going for decades, (best to forget coming climate extremes). On the warpath: AI’s role in the defence industry.
OPPOSITION to NUCLEAR . Fukushima: What are the concerns over waste water release? For the sake of Suffolk, Nuclear Free Local Authorities urge Centrica to ‘Say Non to Sizewell C’. Calls for West Sussex to be made a nuclear free zone.
PERSONAL STORIES. Respect for hibakusha, and hope in younger generations
POLITICS. Much hype, enthusiasm, tax-payers’ largesse, for Britain’s “new nuclear”. (What could possibly go wrong?) The role of nuclear in the UK’s energy mix. Sizewell C project descends into farce. Kudankulam Nuclear plant will destroy Southern Tamil Nadu, warns Vaiko.
Senate extends nuclear liability-limiting law without public scrutiny. Here’s why we should care.
POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY.
- China outraged at water release from wrecked Fukushima nuclear power plant. Seafood war looms after Japan releases nuclear plant water.
- Bibi Isn’t Serious About Preventing a Regional Nuclear Arms Race. Saudi Arabia weighs nuclear power offers from China and France in bid to sway US. Israel will not agree to Saudi nuclear program: Netanyahu.
- UK financially props up Ukraine’s nuclear industry, while renewable sources there grow.
- The Last Time A Foreign Military Threat Was Placed Near The US Border, The World Almost Ended.
SAFETY. French nuclear watchdog ASN issues first lifespan extension to 40-year-old reactor. Cattenom nuclear plant reports ‘significant safety event‘.
SECRETS and LIES. Why we cannot trust the International Atomic Energy Agency.
SPACE. EXPLORATION, WEAPONS. Threat from the skies: India steps up the fight against a major space danger.
WASTES. The Fukushima nuclear plant will start releasing treated wastewater. Here’s what you need to know.. Fukushima: wastewater from ruined nuclear plant to be released from Thursday, Japan says. Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station is still continuing to release radioactive materials. More nuclear challenges await Japan after Fukushima water release. More countries take actions to handle Japan’s nuclear-contaminated water dump, while US ‘double-standard exposed hypocrisy’.
North County Report: What’s the Deal with San Onofre’s Nuclear Power Plant? . Decommissioning. Dismantling of deactivated Fort Greely nuclear power plant to resume.
WAR and CONFLICT. US derides wimpy Ukrainians that have become ‘casualty adverse’. US and Ukraine ‘at odds’ over counteroffensive tactics – WSJ . Ukraine’s Counteroffensive Has Failed—It’s Time to Reevaluate.
Ukraine will ‘capitulate unconditionally’ – Scott Ritter. Zelensky Cracks Down on Draft Dodgers, Forces Men to Fight & Die in This War . German officials believe Ukraine destroyed Nord Stream – media. UN warns Ukraine over attacks on Russian civilian targets.
WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES. Biden’s rival, Robert F. Kennedy Junior, labels F-16s for Ukraine ‘a disaster for humanity’. ‘Powerful’ Ukrainian brigade loses US-made demining vehicles – Forbes, (but plenty more available) US to reduce military aid to Ukraine in 2024 – WSJ.
End Nuclear testing Forever, Says Secretary-General in Message for International Day. Neocon Dark Money Front Launches Desperate Ad Blitz, as Support for Ukraine Forever War Craters. Japanese students urge end to nuclear weapons in 1st visit to U.N. Geneva in 4 years.
South-east Australia marine heatwave forecast to be literally off the scale.
Australia’s south-east could be in for a marine heatwave that is literally
off the scale, raising the prospect of significant losses in fishing and
aquaculture. The Bureau of Meteorology has forecast a patch of the Tasman
Sea off Tasmania and Victoria could be at least 2.5C above average from
September to February, and it could get hotter.
Guardian 27th Aug 2023
Elon Musk’s Shadow Rule
In the past twenty years, against a backdrop of crumbling infrastructure and declining trust in institutions, Musk has sought out business opportunities in crucial areas where, after decades of privatization, the state has receded. The government is now reliant on him, but struggles to respond to his risk-taking, brinkmanship, and caprice.
Musk was asked whether he has more influence than the American government. He replied immediately, “In some ways.”
“We are living off his good graces,” a Pentagon official said of Musk’s role in the war in Ukraine. “That sucks.”
How the U.S. government came to rely on the tech billionaire—and is now struggling to rein him in.
New Yorker, By Ronan Farrow, August 21, 2023
Last October, Colin Kahl, then the Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy at the Pentagon, sat in a hotel in Paris and prepared to make a call to avert disaster in Ukraine. A staffer handed him an iPhone—in part to avoid inviting an onslaught of late-night texts and colorful emojis on Kahl’s own phone. Kahl had returned to his room, with its heavy drapery and distant view of the Eiffel Tower, after a day of meetings with officials from the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. A senior defense official told me that Kahl was surprised by whom he was about to contact: “He was, like, ‘Why am I calling Elon Musk?’ ”
The reason soon became apparent. “Even though Musk is not technically a diplomat or statesman, I felt it was important to treat him as such, given the influence he had on this issue,” Kahl told me. SpaceX, Musk’s space-exploration company, had for months been providing Internet access across Ukraine, allowing the country’s forces to plan attacks and to defend themselves. But, in recent days, the forces had found their connectivity severed as they entered territory contested by Russia.
More alarmingly, SpaceX had recently given the Pentagon an ultimatum: if it didn’t assume the cost of providing service in Ukraine, which the company calculated at some four hundred million dollars annually, it would cut off access. “We started to get a little panicked,” the senior defense official, one of four who described the standoff to me, recalled. Musk “could turn it off at any given moment. And that would have real operational impact for the Ukrainians.”
Musk had become involved in the war in Ukraine soon after Russia invaded, in February, 2022. Along with conventional assaults, the Kremlin was conducting cyberattacks against Ukraine’s digital infrastructure. Ukrainian officials and a loose coalition of expatriates in the tech sector, brainstorming in group chats on WhatsApp and Signal, found a potential solution: SpaceX, which manufactures a line of mobile Internet terminals called Starlink. The tripod-mounted dishes, each about the size of a computer display and clad in white plastic reminiscent of the sleek design sensibility of Musk’s Tesla electric cars, connect with a network of satellites.
The units have limited range, but in this situation that was an advantage: although a nationwide network of dishes was required, it would be difficult for Russia to completely dismantle Ukrainian connectivity. Of course, Musk could do so. Three people involved in bringing Starlink to Ukraine, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because they worried that Musk, if upset, could withdraw his services, told me that they originally overlooked the significance of his personal control. “Nobody thought about it back then,” one of them, a Ukrainian tech executive, told me. “It was all about ‘Let’s fucking go, people are dying.’ ”
In the ensuing months, fund-raising in Silicon Valley’s Ukrainian community, contracts with the U.S. Agency for International Development and with European governments, and pro-bono contributions from SpaceX facilitated the transfer of thousands of Starlink units to Ukraine. A soldier in Ukraine’s signal corps who was responsible for maintaining Starlink access on the front lines, and who asked to be identified only by his first name, Mykola, told me, “It’s the essential backbone of communication on the battlefield.”
Initially, Musk showed unreserved support for the Ukrainian cause, responding encouragingly as Mykhailo Fedorov, the Ukrainian minister for digital transformation, tweeted pictures of equipment in the field. But, as the war ground on, SpaceX began to balk at the cost. “We are not in a position to further donate terminals to Ukraine, or fund the existing terminals for an indefinite period of time,” SpaceX’s director of government sales told the Pentagon in a letter, last September. (CNBC recently valued SpaceX at nearly a hundred and fifty billion dollars. Forbes estimated Musk’s personal net worth at two hundred and twenty billion dollars, making him the world’s richest man.)
Musk was also growing increasingly uneasy with the fact that his technology was being used for warfare. That month, at a conference in Aspen attended by business and political figures, Musk even appeared to express support for Vladimir Putin. “He was onstage, and he said, ‘We should be negotiating. Putin wants peace—we should be negotiating peace with Putin,’ ” Reid Hoffman, who helped start PayPal with Musk, recalled. Musk seemed, he said, to have “bought what Putin was selling, hook, line, and sinker.” A week later, Musk tweeted a proposal for his own peace plan, which called for new referendums to redraw the borders of Ukraine, and granted Russia control of Crimea, the semi-autonomous peninsula recognized by most nations, including the United States, as Ukrainian territory. In later tweets, Musk portrayed as inevitable an outcome favoring Russia and attached maps highlighting eastern Ukrainian territories, some of which, he argued, “prefer Russia.” Musk also polled his Twitter followers about the plan. Millions responded, with about sixty per cent rejecting the proposal. (Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s President, tweeted his own poll, asking users whether they preferred the Elon Musk who supported Ukraine or the one who now seemed to back Russia. The former won, though Zelensky’s poll had a smaller turnout: Musk has more than twenty times as many followers.)
……… . One day, Ukrainian forces advancing into contested areas in the south found themselves suddenly unable to communicate…………………………………….. . The Financial Times reported that outages affected units in Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Kharkiv, Donetsk, and Luhansk. American and Ukrainian officials told me they believed that SpaceX had cut the connectivity via geofencing, cordoning off areas of access.
The senior defense official said, “We had a whole series of meetings internal to the department to try to figure out what we could do about this.” Musk’s singular role presented unfamiliar challenges, as did the government’s role as intermediary……………… The Pentagon would need to reach a contractual arrangement with SpaceX so that, at the very least, Musk “couldn’t wake up one morning and just decide, like, he didn’t want to do this anymore.”
……………… To the dismay of Pentagon officials, Musk volunteered that he had spoken with Putin personally. Another individual told me that Musk had made the same assertion in the weeks before he tweeted his pro-Russia peace plan, and had said that his consultations with the Kremlin were regular……………. On the phone, Musk said that he was looking at his laptop and could see “the entire war unfolding” through a map of Starlink activity. ………….Musk told Kahl that the vivid illustration of how technology he had designed for peaceful ends was being used to wage war gave him pause.
After a fifteen-minute call, Musk agreed to give the Pentagon more time. He also, after public blowback and with evident annoyance, walked back his threats to cut off service. “The hell with it,” he tweeted. “Even though Starlink is still losing money & other companies are getting billions of taxpayer $, we’ll just keep funding Ukraine govt for free.” This June, the Department of Defense announced that it had reached a deal with SpaceX.
The meddling of oligarchs and other monied interests in the fate of nations is not new.……………………………….
But Musk’s influence is more brazen and expansive. There is little precedent for a civilian’s becoming the arbiter of a war between nations in such a granular way, or for the degree of dependency that the U.S. now has on Musk in a variety of fields, from the future of energy and transportation to the exploration of space. SpaceX is currently the sole means by which nasa transports crew from U.S. soil into space, a situation that will persist for at least another year. The government’s plan to move the auto industry toward electric cars requires increasing access to charging stations along America’s highways. But this rests on the actions of another Musk enterprise, Tesla. The automaker has seeded so much of the country with its proprietary charging stations that the Biden Administration relaxed an early push for a universal charging standard disliked by Musk. His stations are eligible for billions of dollars in subsidies, so long as Tesla makes them compatible with the other charging standard.
In the past twenty years, against a backdrop of crumbling infrastructure and declining trust in institutions, Musk has sought out business opportunities in crucial areas where, after decades of privatization, the state has receded. The government is now reliant on him, but struggles to respond to his risk-taking, brinkmanship, and caprice.
Current and former officials from nasa, the Department of Defense, the Department of Transportation, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration told me that Musk’s influence had become inescapable in their work, and several of them said that they now treat him like a sort of unelected official. One Pentagon spokesman said that he was keeping Musk apprised of my inquiries about his role in Ukraine and would grant an interview with an official about the matter only with Musk’s permission. “We’ll talk to you if Elon wants us to,” he told me. In a podcast interview last year, Musk was asked whether he has more influence than the American government. He replied immediately, “In some ways.” Reid Hoffman told me that Musk’s attitude is “like Louis XIV: ‘L’état, c’est moi.’ ”
Musk’s power continues to grow. His takeover of Twitter, which he has rebranded “X,” gives him a critical forum for political discourse ahead of the next Presidential election. He recently launched an artificial-intelligence company, a move that follows years of involvement in the technology. Musk has become a hyper-exposed pop-culture figure, and his sharp turns from altruistic to vainglorious, strategic to impulsive, have been the subject of innumerable articles and at least seven major books, including a forthcoming biography by Walter Isaacson. But the nature and the scope of his power are less widely understood.
More than thirty of Musk’s current and former colleagues in various industries and a dozen individuals in his personal life spoke to me about their experiences with him. Sam Altman, the C.E.O. of OpenAI, with whom Musk has both worked and sparred, told me, “Elon desperately wants the world to be saved. But only if he can be the one to save it.”
…………………………………………………..officials expressed profound misgivings. “Living in the world we live in, in which Elon runs this company and it is a private business under his control, we are living off his good graces,” a Pentagon official told me. “That sucks.”
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Of all Musk’s enterprises, SpaceX may be the one that most fundamentally reflects his appetite for risk…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. “He has a long history of launching and blowing up rockets. And then he puts out videos of all the rockets that he’s blown up. And like half of America thinks it’s really cool,” the former nasa administrator Jim Bridenstine told me. “He has a different set of rules.”
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. There are competitors in the field, including Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin and Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic, but none yet rival SpaceX. The new space race has the potential to shape the global balance of power. Satellites enable the navigation of drones and missiles and generate imagery used for intelligence, and they are mostly under the control of private companies…………………………………
Several officials told me that they were alarmed by nasa’s reliance on SpaceX for essential services. “There is only one thing worse than a government monopoly. And that is a private monopoly that the government is dependent on,” Bridenstine said. “I do worry that we have put all of our eggs into one basket, and it’s the SpaceX basket.”
………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Officials who have worked at osha and at an equivalent California agency told me that Musk’s influence, and his attitude about regulation, had made their jobs difficult…………………………………………………………………………………. You add on the fact that he considers himself to be a master of the universe and these rules just don’t apply to people like him,” Jordan Barab, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor at osha, told me. “There’s a lot of underreporting in industry in general. And Elon Musk kind of seems to raise that to an art form.” Garrett Brown, a former field-compliance inspector at California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health, added, “We have a bad health-and-safety situation throughout the country. And it’s worse in companies run by people like Elon Musk, who was ideologically opposed to the idea of government enforcement of public-health regulations.”
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. On July 12th, Musk announced xAI, his entry into a field that promises to alter much about life as we know it. He tweeted an image of the new company’s Web site, featuring a characteristically theatrical mission statement: the firm’s goal, he said, was “to understand the true nature of the universe.”
……………………………………………………… Musk has been involved in artificial intelligence for years. In 2015, he was one of a handful of tech leaders, including Hoffman and Thiel, who funded OpenAI, then a nonprofit initiative. (It now has a for-profit subsidiary.)………………………………………………… Musk left the company in 2018, reneging on a commitment to further fund OpenAI……………………………. a lot of my life and time to make sure we had enough funding.” OpenAI went on to become a leader in the field, introducing ChatGPT last year. Musk has made a habit of trashing the company,
……………………..It is difficult to say whether Musk’s interest in A.I. is driven by scientific wonder and altruism or by a desire to dominate a new and potentially powerful industry.
……………………….. In March, Musk, along with dozens of tech leaders, signed an open letter calling for a six-month pause in the development of advanced A.I. technology……………………. Yet in the period during which Musk endorsed a pause, he was working to build xAI, recruiting from major competitors, including OpenAI, and even, according to someone with knowledge of the conversation, contacting leadership at Nvidia, the dominant maker of chips used in A.I. The month the letter was distributed, Musk completed the registrations for xAI.
…………… “His whole approach to A.I. is: A.I. can only be saved if I deliver, if I build it.” …………………………………. more https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/08/28/elon-musks-shadow-rule#:~:text=How%20the%20U.S.%20government%20came,struggling%20to%20rein%20him%20in.&text=Last%20October%2C%20Colin%20Kahl%2C%20then,to%20avert%20disaster%20in%20Ukraine.–
Space agency NASA and bro billionaires conspire to trash the moon
Two days before the Lockheed Martin news broke, NASA had announced a literally lunatic plan to trash the Moon with nuclear waste. It’s as if our species has learned nothing at all after ruining our own planet to the point of extinction as a livable organism.
We are arming the heavens
NASA joins the lunatic fringe, By Linda Pentz Gunter, https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2023/08/27/nasa-joins-the-lunatic-fringe/
Russia just crash-landed on the moon. India’s lunar rover is trundling across its surface. Are their intentions purely benign? Just about science? Or something more?
There are no such doubts lingering over US lunar plans, however. The mistakes made on Planet Earth will now be repeated on the moon.
In his fascinating and frightening 2012 book — A Short History of Nuclear Folly — that I somehow maddeningly missed on publication, Rudolph Herzog writes:
“There are places where radioactive substances have no business being. One of them is space.”
Herzog, son of the famous film director Werner, and whose book, written in German, was translated into English in 2013, details a whole panoply of terrifying nuclear accidents and near-misses, including disasters that could have befallen us in and from space.
But no lessons have been learned and no such warnings heeded.
Consequently, we now learn that NASA and the US Defense Department have awarded nuclear weapons company, Lockheed Martin, a contract to build a nuclear powered rocket to speed humans on their way to Mars.
“Higher thrust propulsion” is what Lockheed Martin is seeking to develop, but is travel speed to Mars really the only motivation? Of course not. The Pentagon admits it is also keen to develop nuclear reactor technology that will power satellites with more “fuel-efficient fuel sources” so that they can maneuver in space in such a way as to “make them more difficult for adversaries to target” reported the Washington Post.
As Herzog recounts in his book, we have been here before, and the outcome could have been catastrophic. In his chapter, Flying Reactors, he recounts how in the 1960s, the then Soviet Union developed miniature nuclear reactors to power their RORSAT military surveillance satellites. At the end of their life they were simply blasted into deeper space where their radioactive load would decay far from human exposure risk. Or, at least, that is what was supposed to happen.
Needless to say, eventually one of the Soviet reactor-powered satellites failed to follow orders and instead began plummeting toward Earth. The Soviets warned the US it could crash in North America on January 24, 1978.
Panicked headlines ensued as the media began to speculate on worst case scenario crash landing locations. As Herzog relates, “Time magazine calculated that if the satellite had orbited the Earth one more time it could have crashed in New York City in rush hour.”
Instead, luck prevailed, although not for northwestern Canada where it eventually reached Earth in the middle of the Arctic winter, prompting a challenging and month-long search party to find it and clean up the “mess”.
Despite this, the Soviets continued right on and lost several more of these Cosmos satellites, although none, apparently, crashed on land.
Two days before the Lockheed Martin news broke, NASA had announced a literally lunatic plan to trash the Moon with nuclear waste. It’s as if our species has learned nothing at all after ruining our own planet to the point of extinction as a livable organism.
A total of $150 million in contracts are to be awarded by NASA to “build landing pads, roads and habitats on the lunar surface, use nuclear power for energy, and even lay a high-voltage power line,” reported the Washington Post.
Yes, the USA is going to pave the moon and put up a parking lot.
The endgame is to allow human beings to live on the moon for extended periods of time. And to contaminate it with nuclear waste while they’re about it. And to dig it up and pave it over and, most absurdly, to “Iive off the land” as one NASA administrator put it.
That means implementing an extractive industry to mine the moon for construction materials such as metals, as well as to find water. And, presumably, to dispose of all the waste on other parts of the moon not targeted for human living spaces.
A major recipient of NASA’s lunatic largesse was, needless to say, one of the bro billionaires who are already heavily invested in the futile and expensive space odyssey that will eventually allow human habitation on the moon and Mars (presumably for a handful of other bro billionaires and their cronies.) So Amazon and Washington Post owner, Jeff Bezos, is first in line for a $43.7 million handout to support these goals.
Solar arrays for the moon are also in the offing, but this does little to nullify the awful prospect of the moon turning into Thneed-Ville (see Dr. Seuss’s seminal book on industrial destruction, The Lorax).
As these latest NASA announcements reveal, without actually spelling it out, the agenda here goes well beyond the thrill of human space exploration. We are arming the heavens and that, as Herzog points out, can only go badly.
The madness of nuclear power and nuclear weapons in space has been well documented in War in Heaven: The Arms Race in Outer Space by Helen Caldicott and Craig Eisendrath and The Wrong Stuff: The Space Program’s Nuclear Threat to Our Planet, by Karl Grossman.We also examine the more sinister agenda behind all this in the Beyond Nuclear Handbook — The U.S. Space Force and the dangers of nuclear power and nuclear war in space.
But there is also another question: What gives the United States the right to decide, unilaterally, that it will colonize the moon and Mars? When did the US annex these celestial territories? Human beings have for centuries waxed lyrical and poetic about the moon as it shines down on us with its magical and ethereal glow. But do any of us own it? Surely it belongs in the commons and we, as a collective species, should decide whether or not it can be plundered and desecrated by one country alone, or, preferably, not at all?
Ironically, after all the sci-fi fantasies about evil Martians invading Planet Earth, it turns out that it is we humans who are about to invade Mars and the moon, bringing our heedless and destructive ways with us. And all this, while we leave a spectacularly beautiful planet behind us to decay and degenerate as a result of our selfish greed.
Ukraine’s Counteroffensive Has Failed—It’s Time to Reevaluate.
What makes all of this vastly worse is that the cost to Ukrainians in their lives is staggeringly high. Consider just this one harrowing data point: more Ukrainian soldiers have been killed in the first 18 months of this war than the number of American soldiers killed during the decade-plus war in Vietnam.
August 26, 2023 By Glenn Greenwald ,https://scheerpost.com/2023/08/26/ukraines-counteroffensive-has-failed-its-time-to-reevaluate/—
There is no question that the war in Ukraine has radically changed. Even Western media outlets that have been steadfastly cheerleading for this war – and, indeed, even Ukrainians themselves – are now admitting what battlefield realities dispositively prove. The much-vaunted Ukrainian counter-offensive – the imminent dramatic event we were assured for months would be transformative in finally giving Ukraine the upper hand and dislodging entrenched Russian positions inside Ukraine: a claim that doubled as a propaganda tool to assuage a growingly restless Western population about their endless support for this war – is now, no matter how you slice it, a failure.
After months of multi-pronged attacks, Ukraine’s gains are so minimal and trivial as to be barely worth noting. Russia continues to occupy a very significant chunk of both Eastern and southern Ukraine, along with Crimea which they have held since 2014. Even Western intelligence reports acknowledge that the Russians’ defensive positions are more fortified and entrenched than any seen in decades. The U.S. has already depleted its own stockpiles of artillery and other vital weapons and simply does not have to give Ukraine what they need to have any hope of changing this situation in anything resembling the near- or the short-term future.
What makes all of this vastly worse is that the cost to Ukrainians in their lives is staggeringly high. Consider just this one harrowing data point: more Ukrainian soldiers have been killed in the first 18 months of this war than the number of American soldiers killed during the decade-plus war in Vietnam. The Ukrainian men who were eager to fight and who volunteered to do so have long ago been used up – killed, maimed, or exhausted. Zelensky’s only option for continuing combat is to increase domestic repression, impose greater and greater punishment for desertion, and use harsher and harsher means to force those unwilling to fight to do so against their will. In so many ways, this conflict resembles some of the worst horrors of World War I, including the need to put unwilling men who do not want to fight the deeply grim choice of either offering themselves up as cannon fodder or facing unimaginably harsh punishments by a government completely unconstrained by basic considerations of human rights or legal process, operating under full-scale martial law.
At this point, debates over who is to blame for this war barely matter. All that does matter is the question of how this will end, and who will end it. It is simply becoming unsustainable – politically, economically, and morally – to justify having Western nations pour their resources into fueling and continuing this war that Ukraine has less and less chance of winning. At the start of the war, many who claim that the real goal of the US was not to save Ukraine and Ukrainians but rather to destroy them – at the altar of their geostrategic goal of weakening Russia – were accused of being callous and conspiratorial. Now, there is little reasonable space to contest that they were right all along.
Joe Biden just asked for another $25 billion to keep this war going – as he offered $700 checks per household to the victims of the Maui fire and as profits for the European arms industry reach such record heights that they do not even bother to conceal their glee. Even if you were someone who supported the US role in Ukraine back in February of 2022 with the best of intentions – namely, you wanted to help a country seeing to avoid Russian domination – the failed nature of this mission has to compel a re-evaluation of perspective and policy. The last thing this war is doing is protecting Ukraine and Ukrainians. It is destroying both of those while imposing suffering among everyone in the U.S. and Western countries other than a tiny sliver of arms dealers and intelligence agencies. In other words, the war in Ukraine is following exactly the same pattern as every other U.S. war fought over the last 50 years.
Why we cannot trust the International Atomic Energy Agency
Well, it’s just so simple. Would you have faith in a doctor who advised a medication, when you knew that his main job was to promote and sell that medication?
Today, as Japan starts to pour the tainted water from the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe into the Pacific Ocean, we should take note of Rafael Grossi’s recent statement:
“the future of nuclear as an alternative energy source relies on the success of the Fukushima release,” – Rafael Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
You see, whether or not Japan’s release of Fukushima nuclear wastewater is dangerous, is not the main point. Nuclear authorities around the world have been releasing radioactively tainted water into the seas for yonks. They used to just dump barrels of nuclear wastes. Then in 1993, ocean disposal was banned by international treaties. (London Convention (1972), Basel Convention, MARPOL 73/78). But that applies only to containers of wastes, not to liquids emptied via pipelines. The industry, and its promoter, the IAEA, wants this situation to be complacently accepted world-wide. The Fukushima decision is a key milestone in that process of acceptance.
It all really goes back to 1956, when the IAEA was created, in order to create a more friendly face to nuclear science, rather than being just for nuclear weapons. Its role was to promote the peaceful use of nuclear power, and also to regulate the industry – a conflict of interest from the start.
This became problematic for another United Nations Agency – the World Health Organisation (WHO.) On May 28, 1959, an agreement was signed between the IAEA and WHO , an agreement which began the uneasy situation in which the IAEA took over the prime role in radiation research. Article I (3) states that “whenever either organization proposes to initiate a programme or activity on a subject in which the other organization has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual consent”.
This has resulted in the IAEA taking the lead role as watchdog over the information about radiation health effects which is distributed to the public, while the WHO has become confined to contributing to medical care and public health assistance.
The result of this agreement was especially obvious after the Chernobyl disaster, where IAEA (not WHO) took the lead in reporting radiation health effects. IAEA, enforcing the philosophy of the International Commission for Radiation Protection (ICRP), denied that any of the catastrophic health problems in the exposed population were related to radiation.
Grossi has been adept at downplaying the dangers of nuclear reactors. For instance, regarding the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia plant in Ukraine – “the problem there is war, the problem is not nuclear energy,” Grossi said. In this way, he quietly glosses over the reality that any nuclear reactor could become a military target, at a time of conflict.
This is all getting pretty serious now. It really is time for the world to ask questions about this conflict of interest. Should the control of information about health and environmental effects of the nuclear industry be transferred to some agency that is NOT committed to promoting that industry ?
Nuclear deterrence is a dangerous fraud
The theory of nuclear deterrence is a feeble excuse for nations to hold onto their weapons of mass destruction and a fraud that must be exposed, writes Dr Sue Wareham. 23 Aug 23 https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/nuclear-deterrence-is-a-dangerous-fraud,17833
Dr Sue Wareham OAM is President of the Medical Association for Prevention of War (Australia) and a past board member of ICAN (the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons) Australia.
HOW IS IT that “homo sapiens” has persisted with an invention that threatens our very survival, strikes fear in the heart of every rational one among us, diverts an unconscionable quantity of our collective time, labour and finances from things that are actually useful, and at the same time could be eliminated?
All we need to do is dismantle the invention and prioritise efforts to ensure that it remains a historic relic. That could all be done. Our failure to do so thus far is such an extraordinary gamble on our future that we must examine the reasons.
The invention is, of course, nuclear weapons. The answer to the opening question is not so straightforward, but given our current all-time high risk of these weapons being used, the question has never been more important. And given Australia’s rapidly growing enmeshment with the only nation that has used these weapons thus far in warfare, we in Australia have a particular interest in it.
The first response to the question that often comes to mind is that of “power”. That’s true, a tiny minority of the world’s leaders – in nine out of the nearly two hundred countries that make up the global community – see the capacity to inflict unimaginable suffering on others as a marker of global prestige and influence in world affairs.
But, as we shall see, translating a capacity for cruelty to military or political advantage is a completely different matter. And, in any event, even such leaders need to explain to their people how having horrific and widely-condemned weapons is actually a good thing. For this, they need a theory that sounds plausible; it doesn’t need to be valid, but it just needs to sound reassuring and humane.
That theory is nuclear deterrence — the theory that having nuclear weapons keeps a nation safe from attack, especially nuclear attack, because others will be too terrified of a possible nuclear response. The more inhumane our weapons appear, the safer we are and the more certain we are to prevail militarily if any armed conflict does occur — or so the theory goes. The Latin origin “terrere”, to terrify or deter by terror, sums up how deterrence is meant to work.
For Australia, the theory is extended nuclear deterrence, a belief that our ally – the U.S. – would launch its own nuclear weapons if needed to “protect” Australia (whatever that means in practice), even risking a nuclear retaliatory strike on its own shores in the process. Like nuclear deterrence itself, extended nuclear deterrence is no more than an unproven theory.
Nuclear deterrence has been so consistently presented as justification for the world’s worst weapons of mass destruction that it is worth unravelling. If it is found to be faulty, then the primary crutch that bolsters nuclear weapons policies is exposed as a dangerous fraud.
The first major problem with nuclear deterrence theory is that it hasn’t worked. Nuclear weapons have proven to be generally useless in preventing military aggression or bringing military victories. As nuclear weapons abolition advocate Ward Wilson argues: ‘It is possible for a weapon to be too big to be useful.’
History recounts multiple occasions in which a nuclear arsenal on one side of a conflict has been irrelevant to the outcome. Examples include the attacks on or by Vietnam, Afghanistan, the UK-held Falklands, Iraq (1991 and 2003), Lebanon, former Soviet republics, multiple confrontations between India and Pakistan (both nuclear-armed), and others. In addition, crises over the deployment of the weapons have triggered periods of extreme danger, such as the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.
The war in Ukraine is the latest example of a war involving a nuclear-armed adversary. Whether or not President Putin follows through with his gravely irresponsible threats to use nuclear weapons in this war remains to be seen, but “winning” a nuclear wasteland would be no more than a pyrrhic victory.
Claims that attacks on non-nuclear armed nations, such as Ukraine, would have been prevented if those nations did have “the bomb” are not supported by evidence. In any event, such claims would lead us to the conclusion that the weapons are essential for every nation — including, say, Iran and North Korea. Deterrence cannot work only for “us” and not for “them”.
Have nuclear weapons played a role in preventing a war between two nuclear-armed superpowers? We don’t know, but there is no evidence for such a role. Even if they did, could we rely on this deterrent effect to always work? The answer is a categorical no; such a proposition is not credible.
This leads to the second major problem with nuclear deterrence theory which is that to be reliable, it must work in every conceivable situation for all time. Common features of human behaviour, such as miscommunication, misunderstanding, clouded judgement or plain incompetence in a period of heightened tensions could spell catastrophe.
Irrational or malevolent leaders who care little about human suffering elevate the risks, as do ongoing cyber and computer vulnerabilities. Nuclear deterrence might be fit for a fantasy world where everything goes according to plan, but it is not fit for the real world. The nuclear weapons era has produced over a dozen “near misses” when detonation of a warhead was very narrowly avoided.
Tellingly, even governments for whom the mantra of deterrence is sacrosanct know all this. Repeatedly, official documents in the U.S. and, presumably, in other nuclear-armed nations, refer to measures needed “if deterrence fails”. Events that could be terminal for much of human civilisation are passed off with those few glib words, “if deterrence fails”, to set out what military strategy kicks in next.
Part of the “what next” for the U.S. is its missile defence program, another vast money-guzzling venture that won’t necessarily work but is designed to intercept incoming enemy nuclear missiles, the ones that haven’t been deterred; it just might save “our” side at least. The response of the “other” side, not to be deterred, is obvious — more missiles, thus the race continues.
There is one thing that “if deterrence fails” scenarios steer well clear of, however — what happens to people and the planet when the bombs do hit their target cities? For deterrence advocates, that’s someone else’s problem.
The third major impediment to nuclear deterrence is that pesky constraint on so many nefarious activities — the law. Since the entry into force in January 2021 of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), even the possession of these devices, let alone use or threats to use them, have been explicitly prohibited under international law.
While the prohibition is legally binding only for nations that have joined the Treaty (those with the weapons and their supporters, such as Australia, not yet being among them) its purpose goes much deeper. It replaces whatever international prestige might be attached to the weapons with international opprobrium. The treaties prohibiting both landmines and cluster munitions strongly influenced the behaviour of even nations that hadn’t signed them.
Fourthly, and herein lies the crux of all the above problems, nuclear deterrence is a threat to commit morally abhorrent actions. The incinerating of cities condemns millions of people, guilty and innocent alike, young and old, to the same collective unthinkable punishment. To play any role in deterring, a threat must be credible and therefore acceptable to those making it, something they would be prepared to carry through with in some circumstances.
Being the perpetrator of such suffering, or even just aiding and abetting it as extended nuclear deterrence requires, challenges us to consider whether our common humanity means anything at all. If it does, then committing or even threatening acts of savagery on a grand scale against innocent people has no place. It not only destroys the victims but also degrades the perpetrator.
Beyond the fundamental flaws of nuclear deterrence theory – its failure to prevent wars, its unsuitability for an imperfect world, its illegality and its immorality – it brings further risks and harm.
Economically, the cost of nuclear weapons programs is staggering, diverting scarce funds from essential human and environmental needs. In 2022, the nine nuclear-armed nations between them spent $82.9 billion on their nuclear weapons programs, over half of that being spent by the U.S. — all this for devices with the extraordinary purpose of existing so that they are never used.
With such national treasure invested in being able to commit atrocities, an enemy is needed, or a succession of enemies to suit changing circumstances. The enemy must be portrayed as morally inferior to us, less worthy as humans, so that no fate is deemed too terrible for them.
U.S. President Reagan’s “evil empire” speech of 1983 about the Soviet Union exemplified the process of dehumanising the “other”. President George W Bush’s reference in his January 2002 State of the Union address to the “axis of evil” – comprising Iran, Iraq, North Korea and others – did similarly. While more measured in rhetoric, President Biden’s “democracy versus autocracy” speech in February 2021 carried the same message of U.S. moral authority, for which read supremacy, with which it must confront its enemies.
As our “security” is built on a capacity to destroy, or euphemistically, “deter”, the critical task of building a common future with all people is marginalised. Foreign policies become stunted and skewed far too heavily towards inflicting collective punishment on whole populations rather than the slow and painstaking work of diplomacy to manage international relationships. Cooperation on global challenges such as climate dwindles as enmity is reinforced. Deterrence policy, with nuclear weapons at the pinnacle, erodes our capacity to survive together on this small and troubled planet.
Nuclear weapons themselves must be abolished. Given that they have proven to be almost useless in deterring anything or winning anything, this goal is achievable. Exposing the fraud of nuclear deterrence and extended nuclear deterrence theories – in promising security and yet delivering existential risk – is a key part of that process.
Seafood war looms after Japan releases nuclear plant water
China became the latest country to ban imports of all types of Japanese
seafood while South Korea has stopped taking fish caught or farmed from the
area around the now abandoned power plant.
Anti-Japanese sentiment is also
on the increase in South Korea. Several people were arrested after
attempting to storm the Japanese embassy in Seoul while hundreds have taken
to the capital’s streets in protest. Public concern remains high in South
Korea over the plan to release more than 1 million metric tons of treated
radioactive water.
Other Asian countries are expected to ban or restrict
Japanese seafood imports in the coming weeks. More than a million tonnes of
treated radioactive water is understood to be stored at the now inactive
power plant.
Fish Farmer 24th Aug 2023
Australian Financial Review’s sloppy journalism makes a nonsense of its case for nuclear SMRs
Why does this matter? It’s lazy journalism, bad editing, and is typical of the inflated hopium of the nuclear booster industry.
Just one example: Coalition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien said this week that Canada sources 60 per cent of its power from nuclear. Not true, it is 15 per cent, and falling.
should we expect better from the nation’s business daily?
Giles Parkinson 25 August 2023, https://reneweconomy.com.au/afrs-sloppy-journalism-makes-a-nonsense-of-its-case-for-nuclear-smrs/
The Australian Financial Review has been trying to make a big thing about nuclear power, and small modular reactors in particular. But it seems its ideological enthusiasm for the technology is trumping its fact checking capabilities.
To read the AFR series you’d be forgiven for thinking that SMRs already exist in western grids. Everything is in the present tense, as though the machines are already operating, or in commercial production.
Of course, that’s not the case. The first SMRs are unlikely to be built much before the end of the decade, and it could be years after that before they represent a commercial alternative, if then.
But it’s not just the fake tenses that detract from the AFR’s journalism, it’s the facts, or the lack of them, that grate the most.
Let’s take the latest instalment on the progress of SMRs in Canada, written by the paper’s Washington correspondent. We’ve taken a screen shot of the opening paragraphs of the online article above. [on original]
“By the end of the decade it (the Ontario government utility) expects to begin generation up to 1.2 gigawatts of electricity, enough to supply 1.2 million homes with carbon-free energy,” it proclaims.
Er, no. The minister’s statement announcing the expanded program of a single 300MW SMR to four SMRs totalling 1.2GW makes it very clear that the three additional units won’t be online until 2034 or 2036.
That means, by the end of the decade, there might be one, sized at 300MW and it will only serve 300,000 customers.
That’s important because the nuclear fan club likes to make out the SMRs are not far away and mass deployment is at hand, and that we – Australia – can afford to stop wind and solar and wait.
But it’s clear that even in Canada – one of the biggest and most established users of nuclear in the world, with all the experience and regulatory and grid infrastructure – the authorities can’t see a second unit coming on line until the mid 2030s.
That misinformation certainly fooled the person responsible for the “key statistics” box on the right hand side of the AFR article (above on original)) – which is designed to be a ready reference for those not bothered to read the article itself and in this case is completely misleading.
It tells readers that 1.2 million households will be served by the first SMR. No they won’t. The official release makes clear it is 300,000.
The key statistics box in the AFR article says there will be a total of 1.2 million gigawatts of nuclear. No, just 1.2 gigawatts, eventually. That’s one million times less than what is claimed by the AFR. Maybe just a blooper. But it is more than just a few zeros.
Why does this matter? It’s lazy journalism, bad editing, and is typical of the inflated hopium of the nuclear booster industry.
It’s perhaps telling that the only US politician the AFR quotes in support of nuclear is Vivek Ramaswamy – who shares conspiracy theories about 9/11, blames the recent Hawaii bush fires on “woke water” policies, and reckons Donald Trump has been the greatest US president of the 21st Century.
Ramaswamy, like the other seven Republican candidates in their primary debate this week, did not put his hand up when asked if he accepted climate science. “The climate change agenda is a hoax,” he added. Climate denial and nuclear boosterism often go hand in hand, because it is essentially about a delay to renewables.
Ramaswamy went further: “Unlock American energy, drill, frack, burn coal, embrace nuclear,” he declared. And this is the AFR’s go-to man in the US to push the nuclear argument.
Some might argue Ramaswamy’s “drill, frack and burn” mantra could be a fair summary of the AFR’s own view of the world. It’s not a view that is shared by the bulk of its business readers.
But neither is nuclear – it’s a marginal proposition at best. The Australian energy industry has looked its costs and decided no thanks, it’s too slow and too expensive. As the former head of the US nuclear regulatory commission observed, the drive for nuclear is – more than anything – about ideology.
Of course, the AFR is not the only source of misinformation in this new campaign for nuclear, nor is it the most egregious.
The rot starts at the top. The Coalition – which wants wind and solar stopped while we wait for SMRs – is not the least bit bothered by facts. Just one example: Coalition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien said this week that Canada sources 60 per cent of its power from nuclear. Not true, it is 15 per cent, and falling.
The Murdoch media does its bit, of course, but it is the social media campaign against renewables and for nuclear that is more insidious, and more outrageous – with sometimes absurd claims about wind turbines (they can’t spin by themselves and have to be powered by coal) and solar doing the rounds.
That campaign, depressingly, has taken root – and little more can be expected from the sometimes toxic nature of social media channels, Sky after Dark and even the “mainstream” Murdoch publications. But should we expect better from the nation’s business daily?
1 This month
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/2352741955560
15 April – Zoom –Nuclear Power is Not the Solution
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.
Host Contact Info: australia@icanw.org
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 