Beyond Nuclear International
In the name of Indigenous rights
Time to take nuclear power out of the ban treaty
What follows is a policy paper written by Mari Inoue with the Manhattan Project for a Nuclear-Free World, with input from members of the Affected Communities and Allies Working Group, including Adrian Monty, Eileen O’Shaughnessy, Linda Modica, Kathleen Sullivan, Michel Lee, and Yukiyo Kawano. It calls for the references to nuclear power in the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) to be deleted. Endorsed by more than 45 US organizations, the paper, reproduced below, calls for equity and justice and due consideration for Indigenous Peoples, none of which can be achieved as long as nuclear power operations remain endorsed by the TPNW. Specifically, wording in the treaty states: “Emphasizing that nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of its States Parties to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination”.
Introduction
These policy recommendations are endorsed by 45 civil society groups from across the United States. As groups that are active in the United States where the original Manhattan Project unleashed the violent atom, we believe that we have a social responsibility to raise our deep concerns and provide recommendations to reduce the extreme dangers associated with the use and testing of nuclear weapons as well as the development, production, and storage of nuclear weapons and radioactive waste.
Expected Policy Outcomes
We recommend that states parties adopt a declaration and an action plan with specific commitments to implement the articles of the Treaty as outcome documents based on the following key messages and policy commitments, with the intention to fulfill their legal obligations under the Treaty.
We recognize the groundbreaking nature of the Treaty that declares that “any use of nuclear weapons [would be] abhorrent to the principles of humanity and the dictates of public conscience” and “would be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, in particular the principles and rules of international humanitarian law.” We are immensely grateful for the novel recognition of the disproportionate impact of radioactive violence on Indigenous Peoples, women and girls, for naming and recognizing the suffering of hibakusha and nuclear test survivors. We also commend the Treaty’s fundamental shift from a Cold War narrative of the doctrine of deterrence to humanitarian and environmental consequences of nuclear weapons where the development, testing, production, possession, deployment, use, and threat of use is outlawed for the first time since the dawn of the Atomic Age.
Read More‘Unacceptable, deplorable and criminal’
Bringing nuclear weapons into any war should be unthinkable, not a present danger
By Ray Acheson
At the outset of his invasion of Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin declared that other countries “will face consequences greater than any you have faced in history” if they intervened.
A few days later, he ordered Russian nuclear forces to be put on a heightened alert status. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev later outlined possible scenarios for the use of nuclear weapons and Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu said that maintaining “readiness of strategic nuclear forces” remains a priority. A Russian government spokesperson has since said that Russia would only consider the use of nuclear weapons if there was an “existential threat” to Russia.
The words and actions of Putin and other Russian officials have elevated the risks and dangers of nuclear war back into mainstream consciousness. But the threat of nuclear weapons is not limited to the Russian government. Eight other governments—those of China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, the United Kingdom, and the United Kingdom and the United States—also possess nuclear weapons, and US nuclear bombs are stored on the territory of five other North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) members—Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and Turkey.
Each and every one of these bombs is a threat to peace and security. Nuclear weapons are not abstract “tools” that maintain global peace and security. They are weapons of mass destruction. They create instability, enable horrific violence, and risk life on the planet. As the Human Rights Committee declared in 2018, nuclear weapons “are of a nature to cause destruction of human life on a catastrophic scale that is incompatible with respect for the right to life.”
Yet it seems as if mainstream media and so-called experts from nuclear-armed countries are trying to normalise this threat, suggesting that yes, Putin might use nuclear weapons, and maybe the consequences wouldn’t be as bad as some suggest.
The technostrategic-speak of “tactical nuclear weapons”
There have been many demands for NATO to impose a “no-fly zone” over Ukraine to end Russia’s airstrikes against Ukrainian cities, with little regard for the fact that this could very well lead to the use of nuclear weapons by Russia or all-out nuclear war. Instead, some politicians and commentators are suggesting that a no-fly zone is worth the risk of Russia using what are misleadingly called “tactical” nuclear weapons. Others are escalating the rhetoric of potential nuclear war, arguing that Putin is “irrational” and likely to use them, or that the Russian government sees a nuclear exchange as a “viable strategy”.
Read MoreThe devilish dangers of Diablo Canyon
Nuclear plant sits on fault lines and needs to close as planned
The Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, sitting on the California coast near San Luis Obispo, first came on line in 1985. It was protested then, given its location on several active fault lines.
As a “once-through cooling system” design, the two reactors at Diablo Canyon draw in millions of gallons of sea water a day from Diablo Cove for cooling, then discharge it at heat back into the cove. This has resulted in a massive destruction of marine species and habitat, wiping out the bull kelp, causing withering syndrome among black abalone, and driving away indigenous marine species.
Diablo Canyon’s owners, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), have long been planning to close the plant by 2025, given the high cost of making the necessary repairs and safety upgrades needed to shore up the plant against earthquake risk. The danger of this latter runs beyond meltdown to the large inventory of highly radioactive waste stored at the precarious site.
But recently, California governor, Gavin Newsom, publicly pondered the idea of seeking part of the Biden administration’s $6 billion bailout to keep old nuclear plants running, using the funds to delay Diablo Canyon’s closure.
It’s not actually Newsom’s decision, as PG&E would have to apply for the funds and, so far, the utility has signaled little enthusiasm. Given the billions of dollars needed to refurbish and upgrade the plant to reduce its marine impacts and protect against earthquakes, it makes more economic sense for PG&E to invest in renewable energy alternatives. And, as NRDC’s Ralph Cavanaugh pointed out to the LA Times, “solar, storage and other clean energy sources could replace Diablo cheaply and reliably.”
The Times article itself pointed out “Rescuing Diablo Canyon is far from California’s only option for averting blackouts.” Some of those options, the Times, said, were “adding batteries to the grid, paying homes to use less energy and coordinating electricity supplies more closely with Western states. Longer-term options include investing in geothermal energy and offshore wind.”
In the meantime, Diablo Canyon keeps operating and the seismic risks persist. Just how great are they? California activist, Harvey Sherback, has studied them for years. Here is his assessment:
By Harvey Sherback
California’s Central Growing Valley is America’s most productive agricultural region providing more than half of the fruits, nuts and vegetables grown in the United States. Sadly, Diablo Canyon’s two nuclear reactors sit on our state’s central coastline and because coastal winds have a tendency to blow inland, there’s the frightening prospect that a megathrust earthquake, “The Big One”, could trigger a nuclear meltdown sending radioactive clouds into the Central Valley which would irradiate and poison much of the Central Valley’s produce.
Furthermore, Diablo’s radioactive plumes could contaminate the drinking water that flows from the Sierra Mountains through the Central Valley and into cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles, which would lead to a mass migration out of California.
Read MoreMeltdown at Palisades averted
Political leaders must now do the right thing and secure lethal radioactive waste
The May 20 announcement that one of the country’s most dangerous nuclear power plants, long scheduled to close, had shut down 11 days early, was welcome news. But even though the closure means a meltdown cannot now happen — putting in danger the Great Lakes drinking water supply — grave risks remain at the site. Political moves are also afoot to cut short the closure and apply for a portion of the Biden administration’s $6 billion bailout fund to keep struggling reactors open. But the plant should not start back up. The following is the statement by Beyond Nuclear’s radioactive waste specialist, Kevin Kamps, following the shutdown announcement.
By Kevin Kamps
We are thankful that Palisades shut down before it melted down. The 51-year old atomic reactor has the worst embrittled reactor pressure vessel in the U.S., which was at increasing risk of catastrophic failure due to pressurized thermal shock.
To accommodate Palisades’ operation, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) simply weakened and rolled back the safety standards, multiple times over decades.
Palisades also has a severely degraded reactor lid, and worn out steam generators that needed replacement for the second time in the reactor’s history.
All three were major pathways to core meltdown, which an NRC commissioned report, CRAC-2 (short for Calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences, also known as the 1982 Sandia Siting Study or as NUREG/CR-2239) estimated would have caused a thousand peak early fatalities (acute radiation poisoning deaths), 7,000 peak early radiation injuries,10,000 peak cancer deaths (latent cancer fatalities), and $52.6 billion in property damage.
When adjusted for inflation alone, property damages would have surmounted $150 billion in Year 2021 dollar figures.
And as Associated Press investigative reporter Jeff Donn wrote in his four-part series “Aging Nukes,” shortly after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear catastrophe began in Japan in 2011, populations have soared around U.S. atomic reactors, so casualties would now be even higher.
Donn cited reactor pressure vessel embrittlement and pressurized thermal shock risk as the top example of NRC regulatory retreat. Thank goodness no such nuclear nightmare unfolded at Palisades during its operations, but Consumers Energy (from 1971 to 2007) and Entergy (from 2007 to 2022) were willing to take those risks on the shoreline of the Great Lakes, drinking water supply for more than 40 million people in eight U.S. states, two Canadian provinces, and a very large number of Native American First Nations downstream and downwind, as well as up the food chain.
Read MoreAfter the meltdown
Reactors in a war zone and potential health consequences
By Cindy Folkers, Beyond Nuclear (US) and Dr Ian Fairlie, CND (UK)
Nuclear power plants are vulnerable to meltdown at any time, but they are especially vulnerable during wars, such as we are seeing in Ukraine, as evidenced by Russian attacks on the six-reactor Zaporizhizhia nuclear power facility and on the closed nuclear facility at Chornobyl.
Media articles often dwell on the conditions that could spark a meltdown, but attention should also be paid to the possible human health consequences. We answer some questions about the short-term and long-term consequences for human health of a radiological disaster at a nuclear power plant.
What happens at a reactor during a major nuclear power disaster?
The main dangers would arise at the reactor and at its irradiated fuel pool. Loss of power can result in both of these draining down, as their water contents leaked or boiled away. This would expose highly radioactive fuel rods, resulting in meltdowns and explosions as occurred at Fukushima in Japan in 2011, where large amounts of radioactivity were released into the environment.
Explosions, as happened at both Chornobyl and Fukushima, eject radioactive nuclides high into the atmosphere, so that they travel long distances downwind via weather patterns, such as winds and rain. The result is radioactive fallout over large areas, as occurred at Chornobyl and Fukushima. The map below, from the European Environment Agency, shows that the dispersion and deposition of caesium-137 (Cs-137) from the Chornobyl catastrophe in Ukraine in 1986 was far-reaching — covering 40% of the land area of Europe, as it followed weather patterns over the 10-day period of the accident.
Contrary to what many people think, the radioactive fallout from Chornobyl reached the UK (2,500 km away) in 1986 as also shown in the above map.
Read MoreNuclear dependence
Europe must cut off Russian nuclear supply routes
From Ecodefense, Russia
Europe needs a plan in place for cutting ties with Russia’s nuclear giant Rosatom, says 2021 Right Livelihood Award winner and co-chairman of Ecodefense Vladimir Slivyak.
With the European Union tightening its sanctions against Russia, banning Russian imports of oil, gas, and coal has emerged as one powerful tool to starve the Kremlin’s war machine of funding it needs to continue its brutal aggression in Ukraine.
But one other major source of Russia’s revenue in Europe has largely remained unnoticed: Russia’s supplies of nuclear fuel and services to European nuclear power plants.
Seeking to close this gap in Europe’s concerted action against the war in Ukraine and to provide a comprehensive picture of the union’s reliance on Russian nuclear technology, environmentalists Patricia Lorenz, of Friends of the Earth Europe, and Vladimir Slivyak, a 2021 Right Livelihood Award laureate and co-chairman of the Russian environmental group Ecodefense, jointly presented over Zoom Russian Grip on EU Nuclear Power – an overview of Russia’s businesses and supply chains serving the European nuclear market.
The report comes on the heels of the European Parliament’s resolution demanding a full embargo on Russian nuclear fuel as well as oil, gas, and coal, and as Moscow’s war reveals the terrifyingly irresponsible actions at the hands of Russian troops at or near the sites of Ukraine’s nuclear power plants.
Through its uranium-producing mines, the fuel manufacturing subsidiary TVEL, and a number of other enterprises – including the German firm NUKEM and the Czech-based Škoda JS – as well as ties with France’s Framatome, Russia’s nuclear giant Rosatom earns billions supplying uranium, fuel assemblies, and maintenance, storage and transport services to nuclear companies and power plants in European countries. This includes fuel deliveries to Soviet-built nuclear power plants in Ukraine.
Read More
Beyond Nuclear International 