Tuesday 20th of August 2019

the nuclear dilemma...

nuclear dilema

The economics of new nuclear power plants is a controversial subject, since there are diverging views on this topic, and multi-billion dollar investments ride on the choice of an energy source. Nuclear power plants typically have high capital costs for building the plant, but low fuel costs.

Therefore, comparison with other power generation methods is strongly dependent on assumptions about construction timescales and capital financing for nuclear plants. Cost estimates also need to take into account plant decommissioning and nuclear waste storage costs. On the other hand measures to mitigate global warming, such as a carbon tax or carbon emissions trading, may favor the economics of nuclear power.

In recent years there has been a slowdown of electricity demand growth and financing has become more difficult, which has an impact on large projects such as nuclear reactors, with very large upfront costs and long project cycles which carry a large variety of risks.[1] In Eastern Europe, a number of long-established projects are struggling to find finance, notably Belene in Bulgaria and the additional reactors at Cernavoda in Romania, and some potential backers have pulled out.[1] Where cheap gas is available and its future supply relatively secure, this also poses a major problem for nuclear projects.[1]

Analysis of the economics of nuclear power must take into account who bears the risks of future uncertainties. To date all operating nuclear power plants were developed by state-owned or regulated utility monopolies[2] where many of the risks associated with construction costs, operating performance, fuel price, and other factors were borne by consumers rather than suppliers. Many countries have now liberalized the electricity market where these risks, and the risk of cheaper competitors emerging before capital costs are recovered, are borne by plant suppliers and operators rather than consumers, which leads to a significantly different evaluation of the economics of new nuclear power plants.[3]

read more at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants

 

------------------------------

From another source:

...

Indeed, when compared to other energy sources, nuclear power ranks higher than oil, coal, and natural gas systems in terms of fatalities, second only to hydroelectric dams. There have been 57 accidents since the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. While only a few involved fatalities, those that did collectively killed more people than have died in commercial US airline accidents since 1982.

Another index of nuclear-power accidents – this one including costs beyond death and property damage, such as injured or irradiated workers and malfunctions that did not result in shutdowns or leaks – documented 956 incidents from 1942 to 2007. And yet another documented more than 30,000 mishaps at US nuclear-power plants alone, many with the potential to have caused serious meltdowns, between the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania and 2009.

Mistakes are not limited to reactor sites. Accidents at the Savannah River reprocessing plant released ten times as much radio­iodine as the accident at Three Mile Island, and a fire at the Gulf United facility in New York in 1972 scattered an undisclosed amount of plutonium, forcing the plant to shut down permanently.

At the Mayak Industrial Reprocessing Complex in Russia's southern Urals, a storage tank holding nitrate acetate salts exploded in 1957, releasing a massive amount of radioactive material over 20,000 square kilometers, forcing the evacuation of 272,000 people. In September 1994, an explosion at Indonesia's Serpong research reactor was triggered by the ignition of methane gas that had seeped from a storage room and exploded when a worker lit a cigarette.

Accidents have also occurred when nuclear reactors are shut down for refueling or to move spent nuclear fuel into storage. In 1999, operators loading spent fuel into dry-storage at the Trojan Reactor in Oregon found that the protective zinc-carbon coating had started to produce hydrogen, which caused a small explosion.

Unfortunately, on-­site accidents at nuclear reactors and fuel facilities are not the only cause of concern. The August 2003 blackout in the northeastern US revealed that more than a dozen nuclear reactors in the US and Canada were not properly maintaining backup diesel generators. In Ontario during the blackout, reactors designed to unlink from the grid automatically and remain in standby mode instead went into full shutdown, with only two of twelve reac­tors behaving as expected.

As environmental lawyers Richard Webster and Julie LeMense argued in 2008, "the nuclear industry…is like the financial industry was prior to the crisis" that erupted that year. "[T]here are many risks that are not being properly managed or regulated."

This state of affairs is worrying, to say the least, given the severity of harm that a single serious accident can cause. The meltdown of a 500-megawatt reactor located 30 miles from a city would cause the immediate death of an estimated 45,000 people, injure roughly another 70,000, and cause $17 billion in property damage.

A successful attack or accident at the Indian Point power plant near New York City, apparently part of Al Qaeda's original plan for September 11, 2001, would have resulted in 43,700 immediate fatalities and 518,000 cancer deaths, with cleanup costs reaching $2 trillion.

To put a serious accident in context, according to data from my forthcoming book Contesting the Future of Nuclear Power, if 10 million people were exposed to radiation from a complete nuclear meltdown (the containment structures fail completely, exposing the inner reactor core to air), about 100,000 would die from acute radiation sickness within six weeks. About 50,000 would experience acute breathlessness, and 240,000 would develop acute hypothyroidism. About 350,000 males would be temporarily sterile, 100,000 women would stop menstruating, and 100,000 children would be born with cognitive deficiencies. There would be thousands of spontaneous abortions and more than 300,000 later cancers.

Advocates of nuclear energy have made considerable political headway around the world in recent years, touting it as a safe, clean, and reliable alternative to fossil fuels. But the historical record clearly shows otherwise. Perhaps the unfolding tragedy in Japan will finally be enough to stop the nuclear renaissance from materialising.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011317104344324144.html#

 

--------------------------

But from another source:

Today, nuclear energy is America's second largest source of electric power after coal. More than 110 nuclear energy plants provide more electricity than oil natural gas or hydropower. Nuclear energy is a cheap effective source of energy, as can be seen in figure 2. However, this chart shows data only until 1996. Since this point in time, new technology and research have lowered the cost of nuclear energy even more, where as war and the scare of and oil shortage have driven the price of the other energy sources up significantly. Since 1973, nuclear energy has saved American consumers about $44 billion, compared to the other fuels that would have been used to make electricity.


Table 1: Nuclear Energy Vs Other Sources



Nuclear energy is a clean burning source of energy. As can be seen in figure 2, nuclear energy has helped in reducing the amount of carbon dioxide released into the ozone [sic], helping to reduce the green-house effect. This shows that if the world continues to produce carbon dioxide at the current rate, the climates around the world will be affected and many problems arise due the idea of Global warming [sic].

http://www.freeinfosociety.com/site.php?postnum=3115

 

----------------------------

But from the first source of information, contrary to this article above (the diagram stops at 1997 — 13 years ago), the cost of nuclear power is quite higher than coal or gas:

cost of nuke

gains are privatized, while its risks are socialized...

The Union of Concerned Scientists have stated that "reactor owners ... have never been economically responsible for the full costs and risks of their operations. Instead, the public faces the prospect of severe losses in the event of any number of potential adverse scenarios, while private investors reap the rewards if nuclear plants are economically successful. For all practical purposes, nuclear power’s economic gains are privatized, while its risks are socialized".[37]

Any effort to construct a new nuclear facility around the world, whether an existing design or an experimental future design, must deal with NIMBY or NIABY objections. Because of the high profiles of the Three Mile Island accidentChernobyl disaster, relatively few municipalities welcome a new nuclear reactor, processing plant, transportation route, or nuclear burial ground within their borders, and some have issued local ordinances prohibiting the locating of such facilities there. and

-----------------------------

At the end of a nuclear plant's lifetime (estimated at between 40 and 60 years), the plant must be decommissioned. This entails either Dismantling, Safe Storage or Entombment. Operators are usually required to build up a fund to cover these costs while the plant is operating, to limit the financial risk from operator bankruptcy.

In the United States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requires plants to finish the process within 60 years of closing. Since it may cost $300 million or more to shut down and decommission a plant, the NRC requires plant owners to set aside money when the plant is still operating to pay for the future shutdown costs.[38] In June 2009, the NRC published concerns that owners were not setting aside sufficient funds.[39]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants

from the master of defuse...

From one of the master of spin: Andrew Bolt

IT'S not bad enough that thousands of people may be dead from Japan's earthquake and devastating tsunami. No, the media is instead obsessing over a nuclear reactor that has killed no one and probably never will.

This scaremongering over the crippled Fukushima nuclear complex is extraordinary.

Already anti-nuclear activists, rebadged as nuclear "experts", are out spreading terror.

There's Dr Tilman Ruff, actually a Nossal Institute infectious diseases expert and long-time anti-nukes activist, everywhere warning we might be "looking at a Chernobyl-type disaster or worse" and describing in lascivious detail the ways people could get sick from the fallout.

And what's a nuclear holocaust story without Helen Caldicott, actually a paediatrician and anti-nuke hysteric? So there she was, too, on 3AW, warning that if the reactor blew up, "hundreds of thousands of Japanese will be dying within two weeks of acute radiation illness", with countless more later suffering an "epidemic" of cancers.There's Dave Sweeney, actually a professional activist from the Australian Conservation Foundation with zero formal qualifications in nuclear science, warning the reactor was potentially like a kettle without water, and "sooner or later, it superheats and it blows".

But wait. Time to check the facts and get some perspective.

Let's start with Dr Ruff.

If the Fukushima reactor indeed becomes a "Chernobyl disaster", it will still be as nothing compared to the devastation the Japanese have already suffered.

Right now, rescue
workers are combing through the ruins of the seaside cities swamped by the tsunami, looking for 10,000 missing people.

By contrast, Chernobyl, the world's worst nuclear power station disaster, is known to have killed no more than 65.

Yes, I know this doesn't fit with all the horror stories that activists and journalists spread about Chernobyl.

Yes, I know that even the Gillard Government's Education Minister, Peter Garrett, has warned that the 1986 explosion at Chernobyl's shambolic nuclear reactor "caused the deaths of more than 30,000 people".

I know that Mr Sweeney's ACF once published on its website a paper claiming the death toll was actually 250,000 people. And I heard Ms Caldicott on Wednesday trump them all by insisting "nearly a million" died.

But the most reliable assessment of the deaths in that iconic disaster comes instead from the Chernobyl Forum, which represents Ukraine, Russia and Belarus, as well as all relevant United Nations agencies, including the World Health Organisation and International Atomic Energy Agency.

After reviewing countless studies, the forum in 2005 concluded much of the reporting of the deaths was a beat-up.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion-old/time-to-stop/story-e6frfifx-1226022037307

-------------------------

Gus: the problem with radiation is that i's not a bullet nor a tsunami... People die of a horrible death should they be exposed to high doses. The lives of people exposed to medium to low radioactivity have a chance of being shortened in proportion to that of the amount of radiation. There are benefit with radiation below a certain amount, mostly for cancer patients but above this SMALL amount, the chances of dying early increase fast...

It's like asbestos: some people will get an awful disease and some won't. It may take up to 40 years to show up and death often happens within the first year of diagnosis. It's like mad cow disease: It may take up to 40 years before symptoms and a quick death... The radiation poisoning at low dosage is much harder to pinpoint... as people will react differently to exposure.

These are no illusions. Children are often the earliest victims (see Australian nuclear tests).

Just above the "safe" radiation level, about 5 per cent of a population is at risk and that percentage increases rapidly with exposure. One should remember the death of that spy in London from an isotope of polonium... The problem is that it's impossible to attribute some death to radiation while it would have been the origination from the onset.

If radiation was not such a problem, why are the Japanese engineers risking their lives — presently shortening their life-span by at least 10 years just to avoid a sunday radiation picnic? The answer is simple: a meldown would create a major radiation problem for Japan (see article above)...

The second biggest lung cancer killer is... Radon... It's a common gas found under old houses. It seeps from the ground and is a heavy radioactive gas. It's about 8 times heavier than "air", thus it lurks at the bottom below the floorboards...

Andrew Bold s a good spinner but a lousy analyst...

a snag on monday...

New Repairs Delay Work at Crippled Nuclear Plant


By KEN BELSON, HIROKO TABUCHI and NORIMITSI ONISHI


TOKYO — Efforts to stabilize the hobbled nuclear power plant in Fukushima hit a snag on Monday when engineers found that crucial machinery at one reactor requires repair, a process that will take two to three days, government officials said.

Another team of workers trying to repair a separate reactor were forced to evacuate in the afternoon after gray smoke was spotted escaping Reactor No. 3, according to the public broadcaster NHK. However, no explosion was heard and the smoke was starting to decrease, NHK said.

Hundreds of employees from Tokyo Electric Power Company, which owns the disabled Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, worked through the weekend to connect a mile-long high-voltage transmission line to Reactor No. 2 in hopes to restarting a cooling system that would help bring down the temperature in the facility’s reactor and spent fuel pool.

After connecting the transmission line on Sunday, engineers found on Monday that they still did not have enough power to fully run the systems that control the temperature and pressure in the building that houses the reactor, officials from the nuclear safety agency said.

Engineers were also trying to repair the ventilation system in the control room that is used to monitor conditions in the No. 1 and No. 2 units. When that work is completed, possibly on Monday, it will allow the power company, also known as Tepco, to begin cleansing the air in the control room so that workers can eventually re-enter and begin using equipment inside to monitor conditions in the two reactor units.

Workers were also trying to connect a separate power cable to unit No. 4 by late afternoon in Japan on Monday.

The nuclear safety agency also said that some of the water used to douse the damaged reactors had reached the ocean nearby, and that officials were investigating radiation levels in the water.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/world/asia/22japan.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print

no spinash on tuesday...

Japan is continuing to deal with a nuclear emergency as fears of food contamination grow and high levels of radioactive substances are found in seawater near the crippled Fukushima plant.

The news comes amid another setback in efforts to cool the earthquake-crippled nuclear plant, with officials spotting grey smoke coming from the roof of the No. 3 reactor.

Some workers were temporarily evacuated from the nuclear plant, 250km north-east of Tokyo, but there are reports smoke can no longer be seen rising from that reactor.

The World Health Organisation says the detection of radiation in food is a more serious problem than first expected and food contamination is not a localised problem.

Four prefectures have been singled out, but it says there is no evidence of contaminated food from Fukushima reaching other countries.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/22/3170109.htm

Gus: after a snag on monday, no spinash on tuesday...

Sorry this is a sick joke... Why do people tell sick jokes?....

-------------------

I served for 19 years in the UK military. I completly understand the dynamics of sick humour as it predominates in the armed forces and is, in fact, intrisnic to it. Life is complex, short, unpredictable, and really, quite pointless in many ways. Who wouldn't want to laugh about it?

Garry Harriman, Labrador, Canada

the thorium option...

A few weeks before the tsunami struck Fukushima's uranium reactors and shattered public faith in nuclear power, China revealed that it was launching a rival technology to build a safer, cleaner, and ultimately cheaper network of reactors based on thorium.

This passed unnoticed –except by a small of band of thorium enthusiasts – but it may mark the passage of strategic leadership in energy policy from an inert and status-quo West to a rising technological power willing to break the mould.

If China's dash for thorium power succeeds, it will vastly alter the global energy landscape and may avert a calamitous conflict over resources as Asia's industrial revolutions clash head-on with the West's entrenched consumption.

China's Academy of Sciences said it had chosen a “thorium-based molten salt reactor system”.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/energy-smart/the-reactor-that-saves-itself-safe-nuclear-does-exist-and--china-leads-the-way-with-thorium-20110323-1c6eb.html

-------------------------

 

are we ready to look into our own eyes?...

What will it take for our world to recognise the dangers that nuclear scientists and even Albert Einstein were warning about at the "dawn" of the nuclear age?

Amy Goodman reminds us of the prophetic statement by Australian journalist Wilfred Burchett who tried to find words to describe the horror he was seeing in Hiroshima in 1945 after the bomb fell.

"It looks as if a monster steamroller had passed over it and squashed it out of existence. I write these facts as a warning to the world."

The world heard his warning, but seems to have ignored it. In fact, what followed has been decades of nuclear proliferation, the spread of nuclear power plants and the escalation of the arms race with new higher tech weaponry.

As Hiroshima becomes yesterday's distant memory and Fukishima the current threat, the full extent of the casualties and body count are not yet in, partly because the Japanese government and the power companies do not want to alarm the public.

Nuclear cover-up

Years earlier, a similar cover-up was in effect at Thee Mile Island complex in Pennsylvania where reports of the damage people suffered from a serious accident was minimised, never examined in depth by some of the very same media outlets who are today criticising Japan for a lack of transparency.

On April 6, 2009, the anniversary of the dropping of the first nuclear bomb, Alternet.org reported that the government and media were complicit in minimising public awareness of the extensive suffering that did take place:

"But the word never crossed the conceptual chasm between the 'mainstream' media and the 'alternative'. Despite a federal class action lawsuit filed by 2400 Pennsylvania families claiming damages from the accident, despite at least $15 million quietly paid to parents children with birth defects, despite three decades of official admissions that nobody knows how much radiation escaped from TMI, where it went or who it affected, not a mention of the fact that people might have been killed there made its way into a corporate report."

Was this just accidental or is there a deeper pattern of denial? The great expert on psycho history, Robert J. Lifton, wrote a book, Hiroshima In America, with journalist Greg Mitchell about the aftermath of Hiroshima in America exploring what they call '50 years of denial'.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/201132291551838399.html#

Nothing is deadly to those who do not die from whatever. Those who die from whatever become statistics.

Once again, small is beautiful

Once again, as the western world seems to teeter on the edge of catastrophe, mankind begins fearfully to wonder, "What on earth is to be done?" Practically speaking, the disasters in Japan and the revolutions in the Middle East demand an answer to an urgent, even desperate, question. Global warming may be high on the international agenda, but global capitalism still takes nuclear power and fossil fuels for granted.

  1. Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered
  2. by E F Schumacher
  3. Buy it from the Guardian bookshop  

One draft of an answer lies buried in the crumbling, saffron pages of the Observer's back numbers from the 1940s, 50s and 60s. As 2011 unfolds, their author, the economist EF Schumacher, looks set for rediscovery as a man with a plan whose hour has come. Here, for instance, is Schumacher on "the so-called peaceful use of atomic energy" – "There could be no clearer example of the prevailing dictatorship of economics… That nuclear fission represents an incredible, incomparable, and unique hazard for human life does not enter any calculation and is never mentioned."

To submit to the nuclear lobby, he continues, "is a transgression against life itself, a transgression infinitely more serious than any crime ever perpetrated by man. The idea that a civilisation could sustain itself on the basis of such a trangression is an ethical, spiritual, and metaphysical monstrosity." These brave, burning words could have been written last night. But who, exactly, was EF Schumacher?

To his family, he was "Pop". To friends he was "Fritz" and, occasionally, "James". To David Astor, editor of the Observer, he was "Professor". When he died in 1977, EF Schumacher was not only a secular guru to countless admirers, but also the author of Small Is Beautiful, a global bestseller subtitled "a study of economics as if people mattered".

Schumacher expressed the ideas of Small Is Beautiful in pithy soundbites: "Technology must be the servant of man, not its master"; "there is more to life than GDP"; "the world cannot rely on diminishing supplies of non-renewables"; and, most famous of all, his belief in "lots and lots of small autonomous units". For a moment, in the 1970s, these caught the wind of the zeitgeist.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/mar/27/schumacher-david-cameron-small-beautiful/print

--------------------

Gus: on this site we have mentioned "Small is Beautiful" by E F Schumacher, many times, as a reference point to do "human" things in harmony with the planet...

 

mr burns does not glow in the dark in yourp...

The Simpsons has been edited for TV in Europe to remove sensitive storylines involving a disaster at the Springfield nuclear plant in light of the current crisis in Japan.

Japanese officials have been struggling to contain radiation levels around a nuclear centre in Fukushima since the complex was damaged in the earthquake and tsunami which struck Japan earlier this month.

TV producers at Germany's Pro7 channel reacted to the disaster by checking through new episodes of The Simpsons and removing "unsuitable" segments featuring trouble at Mr Burns' plant.

The Hollywood Reporter says network executives in Austria and Switzerland have since taken Germany's lead and followed suit.

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/tv-bosses-pull-simpsons-episodes-20110328-1ccxn.html

don't start me glowing in the dark...

 

SEVENTY-FIVE PROFESSORS from the world’s leading universities have signed a letter urging environmentalists to re-think their attitude to nuclear power as a way to save the planet from climate change and preserve its animals, plants and fish.

Ironically, it is two Australian academics who came up with the research. They come from a country whose government has reversed measures to cut climate change, is one of the world’s biggest coal exporters and has no nuclear power production. Australia has also just recorded the hottest spring since records began 100 years ago.

The two professors are Barry W. Brook, Chair of Environmental Sustainability at the University of Tasmania and Corey J.A. Bradshaw, Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change at the University of Adelaide’s Environment Institute. Their backers include many leading experts on ecology, biodiversity, evolution and geography from the U.S., UK, China and India.

Read more: https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/professors-tell-greens-to-accept-nuclear-power,7227

-------------------------

One could be sucked in by the spiel...  Gus has to reiterate here that nuclear power is not cheap. Every single nuclear power station in the world does not make money unless subsidised by government. Gus will add here that unless weapon grade uranium and plutonium is sold to government, nuclear power stations would be further in the red. The decommissioning of nuclear power stations is often left to governments to clean up and pay enormous amounts of cash for the process. Nuclear power CENTRALISES power distribution while renewables allows decentralisation AND CHEAPER electricity from smaller units — limiting the amount of transport of "dangerous goods" such as coal dust and nuclear material — often driven during the night.

Getting rid of the WASTE from nuclear power is still an unsolved problem.

And please do not Bob Hawke and his mates turn Australia into a nuclear waste dump.

Renewables have a long way to go in exciting development, yet once online, they already prove reliable and cheaper than gas and coal. I would not be surprised if the dear professors are misled or at worse being coerced by the nuclear industry sweet-talking nonsense into their ears... 

The cost of electricity is only going up for various reasons — the carbon pricing and the cost of renewables being the least of the culprits. Despite the price of coal going in the dumps, electricity is still charged at the old price in order to keep the old coal fired stations going. 

Meanwhile the other LYING turds (especially Cormann) in the Abbott Regime decided that the emission reduction due to the CARBON PRICING during the Gillard years were not due to the CARBON PRICING but due to the economy tanking — which it was not. The economy was growing faster under the Gillard government than it has under the destructive incompetent idiotic Abbott — who has managed to create unemployment beyond the acceptable.

back in 1959 or so...

 

back in 1959 or so...

pretty radiation colours...

 

radiations

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.

read more:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-22/russia-admits-ruthenium-106-spike-...

 

Meanwhile:

 

An analysis of xenon isotopes created four days after the Chernobyl explosion of 1986 in Kiev, Ukraine is challenging our understanding of what happened on that catastrophic day.

It’s long been accepted that the explosion, which killed 30 people, was a steam one—not nuclear. A group of scientists from the Swedish Defense Research Agency, Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute, and Stockholm University says that an assessment of the isotopes shows that they’re the products of nuclear fission—meaning they could have originated from a nuclear explosion.

read more:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/tech/chernobyl-reactor-was-destroyed-b...

Note: the "pretty colours" of the image in this comment comes from Gus' old computer screen (I won't name the brand) but it's definitely not as good as the Philips...

 

 

stop the nuke energy!...

IN SEPTEMBER THIS YEAR, National Geographic will launch the documentary series, Wild Edens. It's all about wilderness areas and is also a soft sell for the nuclear industry. And there's a proud Australian connection, with the Global Ecology Lab of Flinders University, South Australia. Their energy researcher, Ben Heard, was master of ceremonies at the premiere in Spain in April.

Gone are the days of "nuclear power too cheap to meter" and "Atoms for Peace”. These were the 20th Century catch calls to promote the nuclear industry to business and to the public. Even late in the 20th Century, when things had come a bit unstuck with WindscaleThree Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents, the propaganda was still straightforward and often simplistic.

By 2018, things have changed. The argument that nuclear power is cheap has fallen apart. As for the "peaceful atom" and "no connection with nuclear weapons", that one has fallen through, too. Recent research in UK and the USA make it clear that nuclear energy and developing new reactors are necessary for the continued development of nuclear weapons.

Hans-Josef Fell, president of the global Energy Watch Group, states in the brief titled 'The disaster of the European nuclear industry':

‘The driving force behind the UK government's affinity to nuclear technology is the cross-subsidization of the military nuclear program.’

In the 20th Century, the industry was slow to come up with the new selling arguments — the need for boundless energy, nuclear being "clean", combating climate change, the need for nuclear for space travel. Another factor was the type of nuclear reactor being developed. By the turn of the century, the "conventional" large nuclear reactors were looking expensive to build, fraught with safety problems (and hence, strict regulations) and lumbered with issues of radioactive waste disposal.

 

Read more:

https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/national-geographic-joins-thenuclear-propagandists---the-australian-connection,11577

 

Read from top.

bad news from the inside....

A shocking exposé from the most powerful insider in nuclear regulation about how the nuclear energy industry endangers our lives—and why Congress does nothing to stop it.

Greg Jaczko never planned things to turn out this way. A Birkenstocks-wearing physics PhD, he had never heard of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) when he came to Washington and—thanks to the determination of a powerful senator—found himself at the agency’s head. He felt like Dorothy invited behind the curtain at Oz.

The problem was that Jaczko wasn’t the kind of leader the NRC had seen before: he had no ties to the nuclear industry, few connections in Washington, and no agenda other than to ensure that nuclear technology was deployed safely. And so he witnessed what outsiders like him were never meant to see, including an agency overpowered by the industry it was meant to regulate and a political system determined to keep it that way. After the shocking nuclear disaster at Fukushima in Japan, and the American nuclear industry’s refusal to make the changes necessary to prevent a catastrophe like that from happening here, Jaczko started saying something aloud that no one else had dared: nuclear power has fatal flaws.

Written in a tone that’s equal parts self-deprecating, puzzled, and passionate, Confessions of a Rogue Nuclear Regulator tells the story of a man who got pushed from his high perch for fighting to keep Americans safe. Never before has the chairman of the world’s foremost nuclear regulatory agency challenged the nuclear industry to expose how these companies put us at risk. Because if we (and they) don’t act now, there will be another Fukushima. Only this time, it could happen here.


Read more:

https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Confessions-of-a-Rogue-Nuclear-Re...

 

nuke

 

Read from top.

secrets of nuclear fallout...

An astonishing exposé of the aftermath of Chernobyl - and the plot to cover up the truth

The official death toll of the 1986 Chernobyl accident, 'the worst nuclear disaster in history', is only 54, and stories today commonly suggest that nature is thriving there. Yet award-winning historian Kate Brown uncovers a much more disturbing story, one in which radioactive isotopes caused hundreds of thousands of casualties, and the magnitude of this human and ecological catastrophe has been actively suppressed.

Based on a decade of archival and on-the-ground research, Manual for Survival is a gripping account of the consequences of nuclear radiation in the wake of Chernobyl - and the plot to cover it up. As Brown discovers, Soviet scientists, bureaucrats, and civilians documented staggering increases in cases of birth defects, child mortality, cancers and a multitude of life-altering diseases years after the disaster. Worried that this evidence would blow the lid on the effects of massive radiation release from weapons-testing during the Cold War, scientists and diplomats from international organizations, including the UN, tried to bury or discredit it. Yet Brown also encounters many everyday heroes, often women, who fought to bring attention to the ballooning health catastrophe, and adapt to life in a post-nuclear landscape, where dangerously radioactive radioactive berries, distorted trees and birth defects still persist today.

An astonishing historical detective story, Manual for Survival makes clear the irreversible impact of nuclear energy on every living thing, not just from Chernobyl, but from eight decades of radiaoactive fallout from weapons development.

https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/309/309235/manual-for-survival/9780241352069.html

secret of nuclear fallout...

 

Read from top.

toxic soil...

The slow poison of "forgotten" radioactive waste contaminating French soils
In France, 200 million cubic meters of long-lived residues do not have a management system. Only 1.6 million cubic meters are supported by Andra.
In front of the municipal stadium of the small town of Gueugnon (Saône-et-Loire), a tarmac esplanade, completely empty, is surrounded by a metal fence two meters high. "No access", announces in red letters a sign. On this former wasteland, the town had planned to build parking for busy days. Because the Gueugnon Football Club had its hour of glory: champion of France of second division in 1979, winner of the cup of the League in 2000 against PSG.
There, under the bitumen, lie more than 20,000 tons of radioactive waste dumped by a former uranium ore processing plant, operated from 1955 to the early 1980s, by the Atomic Energy Commission (CEA), then by Cogema, now Areva and today Orano.
"In some places, it spits! The radon fumes [a carcinogenic gas formed by the decay of uranium] are enormous, "says physicist Roland Desbordes, spokesman and former chairman of the Commission for Independent Research and Information on Radioactivity (Criirad), who led several measurement campaigns.
Closed to the public since 2009, the land has long been kept only by simple barriers. In October 2018 again, during a match, dozens of supporters entered it to park. It was not until early 2019 that a grid was laid and the site was integrated into a facility classified for the protection of the environment (ICPE), including an old sand pit where 220,000 tons of uranium sludge were transferred. , covered with a mound of earth. Without being disturbed at the time. To the point that had been arranged, all around, a running path, dismounted since.

"Truncated and tendentious information”
The case of Gueugnon is far from isolated. Between 1947 and 2001, nearly 250 uranium deposits were exploited in France, for the manufacture of nuclear weapons and fuel supply of nuclear reactors.
They left as legacy 51 million tons (about 40 million cubic meters) of residues stored in the mining enclaves, but also 170 million tons (more than 100 million cubic meters) of waste rock: rocks extracted to access the ore , which contain radioactive heavy metals. These wastes were piled up here and there in "verses", when they were not reused, without any other precaution, to backfill roads, develop sports fields or even serve as a base for houses.
https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2019/06/11/la-contamination-sans-...

carefully building the next chernobyl...

Hinkley Point nuclear power station, Britain’s biggest construction project since the second world war, is grappling with a mental illness crisis, with several attempted suicides since work began in 2016, a Guardian investigation can reveal.

More than 4,000 workers are on site delivering the vast decade-long building project, a central plank in Britain’s future energy strategy.

But according to union officials, there has been a surge in suicide attempts this year, a rise in the number of people off sick with stress, anxiety and depression, and an increase in workers suffering from mental distress.

Officials from the Unite union say they have been told of 10 suicide attempts in the first four months of 2019. The Guardian understands at least two workers connected to the project have taken their lives since construction started in earnest in 2016.

Read more:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/13/revealed-suicide-alarm-h...

 

 

Read from top.