Sunday, October 22, 2017

Petition REVOKE Nuclear Waste Storage Permit at #SanOnofre




Your signature on this Petition will send a message, loud and clear to the California Coastal Commission that the permit they approved for Edison was flawed and must be revoked. The Special Conditions in the Coastal Permit that are twenty years out are well intended, but should have been required from the start. Other countries currently use nuclear waste storage systems that could meet those reasonable requirements today. Their containers can be inspected, repaired, maintained, monitored and transported without cracks. The thin canisters being used at San Onofre have none of these attributes because they were only intended for temporary storage.

SIGN NOW: Petition REVOKE Nuclear Waste Storage Permit at San Onofre

Saturday, October 7, 2017

NOBEL PEACE PRIZE 2017 goes to International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) !!



International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)

Prize motivation:
 "for its work to draw attention to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons and for its ground-breaking efforts to achieve a treaty-based prohibition of such weapons"
International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) - Facts


The Call from Oslo

Listen to when Executive Director of ICAN Beatrice Fihn receives the news that International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons has been awarded the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize.

"This Will Mean the World to Us"

Telephone interview with Beatrice Fihn, Executive Director of ICAN, following the announcement of the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize on 6 October 2017. The interviewer is Adam Smith, Chief Scientific Officer of Nobel Media.
Beatrice Fihn describes the significance for ICAN of receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. In the interview, recorded immediately after she had heard the news, she also describes the groundswell of public opinion bringing new momentum to efforts to ban nuclear arms, commenting: "The cold war is over a long time ago, we can no longer accept these weapons."

Transcript of the Interview





Tuesday, September 26, 2017

Take Action: Restrict First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017 – Coalition Against Nukes


It’s time to call your representatives and insist they co-sponsor bills H.R. 669 and S. 200, the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017, introduced by Congressman Ted W. Lieu (D | Los Angeles County) and Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Massachusetts). Their press release follows.
Don’t know who your reps are? Look them up!
Find my House reps now.
Find my Senators now.
CONGRESSMAN LIEU, SENATOR MARKEY INTRODUCE THE RESTRICTING FIRST USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS ACT OF 2017
January 24, 2017
Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Washington – Today, Congressman Ted W. Lieu (D | Los Angeles County) and Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Massachusetts) introduced H.R. 669 and S. 200, the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017. This legislation would prohibit the President from launching a nuclear first strike without a declaration of war by Congress. The crucial issue of nuclear “first use” is more urgent than ever now that President Donald Trump has the power to launch a nuclear war at a moment’s notice.
Upon introduction of this legislation, Mr. Lieu issued the following statement:
“It is a frightening reality that the U.S. now has a Commander-in-Chief who has demonstrated ignorance of the nuclear triad, stated his desire to be ‘unpredictable’ with nuclear weapons, and as President-elect was making sweeping statements about U.S. nuclear policy over Twitter. Congress must act to preserve global stability by restricting the circumstances under which the U.S. would be the first nation to use a nuclear weapon. Our Founders created a system of checks and balances, and it is essential for that standard to be applied to the potentially civilization-ending threat of nuclear war. I am proud to introduce the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017 with Sen. Markey to realign our nation’s nuclear weapons launch policy with the Constitution and work towards a safer world.”
Upon introduction of this legislation, Senator Markey issued the following statement:
“Nuclear war poses the gravest risk to human survival. Yet, President Trump has suggested that he would consider launching nuclear attacks against terrorists. Unfortunately, by maintaining the option of using nuclear weapons first in a conflict, U.S. policy provides him with that power. In a crisis with another nuclear-armed country, this policy drastically increases the risk of unintended nuclear escalation. Neither President Trump, nor any other president, should be allowed to use nuclear weapons except in response to a nuclear attack. By restricting the first use of nuclear weapons, this legislation enshrines that simple principle into law. I thank Rep. Lieu for his partnership on this common-sense bill during this critical time in our nation’s history.”
Support for the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017:
William J. Perry, Former Secretary of Defense – “During my period as Secretary of Defense, I never confronted a situation, or could even imagine a situation, in which I would recommend that the President make a first strike with nuclear weapons—understanding that such an action, whatever the provocation, would likely bring about the end of civilization. I believe that the legislation proposed by Congressman Lieu and Senator Markey recognizes that terrible reality. Certainly a decision that momentous for all of civilization should have the kind of checks and balances on Executive powers called for by our Constitution.”
Tom Z. Collina, Policy Director of Ploughshares Fund – “President Trump now has the keys to the nuclear arsenal, the most deadly killing machine ever created. Within minutes, President Trump could unleash up to 1,000 nuclear weapons, each one many times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. Yet Congress has no voice in the most important decision the United States government can make. As it stands now, Congress has a larger role in deciding on the number of military bands than in preventing nuclear catastrophe.”
Derek Johnson, Executive Director of Global Zero – “One modern nuclear weapon is more destructive than all of the bombs detonated in World War II combined. Yet there is no check on a president’s ability to launch the thousands of nuclear weapons at his command. In the wake of the election, the American people are more concerned than ever about the terrible prospect of nuclear war — and what the next commander-in-chief will do with the proverbial ‘red button.’ That such devastating power is concentrated in one person is an affront to our democracy’s founding principles. The proposed legislation is an important first step to reining in this autocratic system and making the world safer from a nuclear catastrophe.”
Megan Amundson, Executive Director of Women’s Action for New Directions (WAND) – “Rep. Lieu and Sen. Markey have rightly called out the dangers of only one person having his or her finger on the nuclear button. The potential misuse of this power in the current global climate has only magnified this concern. It is time to make real progress toward lowering the risk that nuclear weapons are ever used again, and this legislation is a good start.”
Jeff Carter, Executive Director of Physicians for Social Responsibility – “Nuclear weapons pose an unacceptable risk to our national security. Even a “limited” use of nuclear weapons would cause catastrophic climate disruption around the world, including here in the United States. They are simply too profoundly dangerous for one person to be trusted with the power to introduce them into a conflict. Grounded in the fundamental constitutional provision that only Congress has the power to declare war, the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017 is a wise and necessary step to lessen the chance these weapons will ever be used.”
Diane Randall, Executive Secretary of the Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quakers) – “Restricting first-use of nuclear weapons is an urgent priority. Congress should support the Markey-Lieu legislation.”
The Arms Control Association – “The Arms Control Association applauds Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) for reintroducing legislation to highlight the unconstrained and undemocratic ability of the president to initiate the first-use of U.S. nuclear weapons.… The inauguration of President Donald Trump has heightened fears about the sole authority of the commander in chief to use nuclear weapons. Both Republicans and Democrats have expressed deep concern about his erratic behavior and loose talk on nuclear weapons. Now is the time to put responsible checks on the use of nuclear weapons in place. Such a decision is far too important to be left in the hands of one person.”
###

Take Action: Restrict First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017 – Coalition Against Nukes


Monday, September 18, 2017

#DONTNUKETHECLIMATE :: COP23 / Nov. 2017 / BONN (GERMANY)


Jasmine Bright photo

The solutions to the climate crisis are clear: A rapid, just transition to a nuclear-free, carbon-free energy system. The only sure way to stop the global warming impacts of energy use is to transition as quickly as possible from antiquated energy models of the 20th Century and their polluting nuclear power and fossil fuel technologies … to the safe, clean, affordable and sustainable renewable, efficient, and smart technologies of the 21st Century.

Nuclear power in particular cannot solve the climate crisis. Indeed, its continued use exacerbates global warming by preventing the deployment of clean energy systems.

Among a myriad of other problems, nuclear power is:

Rooted in human rights violations and environmental racism: First Nations, people of color and low-income communities are targeted for uranium mining and radioactive waste. Radiation harms women and girls at twice the rate as their male counterparts. And radioactive pollution indiscriminately harms future generations, poisoning the environment for hundreds to thousands of years.



Too Dirty: Nuclear reactors and the nuclear fuel chain produce vast amounts of lethal radioactive waste, which grow whenever nuclear power is used. The nuclear fuel chain is responsible for far more carbon emissions than renewable energy generation and improved energy efficiency. All reactors routinely emit radiation and radioactive waste. Scientific bodies agree have confirmed that there is no “safe” level of radiation exposure.

Too Dangerous: Continued use of nuclear power will inevitably lead to more Fukushimas, Church Rocks, and Chernobyls. The technology and materials needed to generate nuclear energy can be diverted to nuclear weapons programs.

Too Expensive: Nuclear power is the costliest means possible of reducing carbon and methane emissions; its use crowds out investment in clean energy sources.

Too Slow: Use of nuclear power to reduce fossil fuel emissions would require an unprecedented nuclear construction program, beyond the capability of the world’s manufacturers within an acceptable time frame.

Clean energy, including solar, wind, geothermal, energy efficiency, distributed generation, electricity storage and other advanced technologies can meet the world’s energy needs without carbon and methane emissions, radioactive waste, and other pollutants.

Sign our petition


COP23 / Nov. 2017 / BONN (GERMANY)



Beware nuclear industry’s fake news on being emissions free | Letters | Environment | The Guardian


David Blackburn says we need decentralised energy sources; David Lowry on nuclear not being zero-carbon technology; plus letters from David Hayes and Fred Starr

…Your incisive editorial makes many strong points, not least highlighting the exigencies of potential security compromises and terrorism vulnerabilities of the planned new nuclear reactor at Hinkley Point. But there is a fatal flaw in the argument you set out. The editorial asserts: “Nuclear power has a trump card: it is a zero-carbon technology which delivers a continuous, uninterrupted supply.”

This is demonstrably untrue. On the latter point, you only have to consult the published operating record of reactors to see this is an unsustainable claim. All reactors have lengthy planned outages (shutdowns) for operational reasons; some have significant unplanned outages due to operational failures; and in the extreme case of post-accident safety prudence, such as in Japan, their 54 reactors were all closed for years after the 2011 Fukushima disaster – and became hugely expensive “stranded assets.”

On alleged zero-carbon status of nuclear plants, you repeat a similarly erroneous assertion made in your editorial of 1 October 2005 (Pre-empting debate), where you wrote: “The big advantage of nuclear generation is that it does not produce environmentally degrading emissions in the way that fossil fuel generation does.”

You printed my response to this assertion (There is nothing green about Blair’s nuclear dream, 20 October 2005) in which I set out the various ways the carbon footprint of nuclear power is substantial, if the whole “cradle-to-grave” nuclear fuel chain (uranium mining, milling, enrichment, fuel production, in-reactor fuel irradiation, storage and final long-term management) is properly calculated. I pointed out that the nuclear industry’s proponents, such as those gathered at last week’s World Nuclear Association jamboree in London, are fond of spreading fake news such as describing nuclear energy as “non-carbon emitting”. It is about time this dangerous falsehood was confined to the dustbin of history…

read: Beware nuclear industry’s fake news on being emissions free | Letters | Environment | The Guardian

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

The end of Cassini | Karl Grossman




by Karl Grossman –

The crashing of the nuclear power-energized Cassini space probe into Saturn – a process that began on April 22, Earth Day – will culminate this Friday, September 15. The probe – containing more deadly plutonium than has ever been used on a space device­ – will then reach Saturn’s atmosphere and disintegrate as it plummets to Saturn.
The Cassini space probe was launched 20 years ago despite protests around the world. The $3.27 billion mission constituted a huge risk. Cassini with its 72.3 pounds of Plutonium-238 fuel was launched on a Titan IV rocket on October 17, 1997 despite several Titan IV rockets having earlier blown up on launch…
more: The end of Cassini - NationofChange


Thursday, August 17, 2017

Help Save Our Clean Energy Future! #nonukes :: Don't Let #DirtyEnergy Trump the #Climate




Don't Let #DirtyEnergy Trump the #Climate 

Stop the $100+ Billion Nuclear and Coal Bailout


The Trump administration is planning radical actions to advance a dirty energy agenda. Pulling America out of the Global Climate Agreement and ditching the Clean Power Plan are not enough for President Trump. He and his administration want to promote fossil fuels and nuclear power—and to block solar, wind, and the clean energy revolution Americans want and need. 

The Department of Energy wants to expand coal and nuclear power, keeping us tied to two of the dirtiest and most poisonous energy sources ever created. Energy Secretary Rick Perry has issued a report absurdly stating that nuclear and coal are vital to national security. President Trump and Secretary Perry are pushing for a massive coal and nuclear bailout as part of a new policy for “Energy Dominance”. 

This would be a farce if they weren’t serious about it. For decades, dirty energy promoters have tried to sell their poison power under the banner of “energy independence”. But we can’t get more truly independent than generating power from the free sun shining on our rooftops and winds blowing through the fields—not to mention the vast amount of free “negawatts” we never use with smart energy efficiency and conservation.


No—President Trump’s plan is to make Americans pay more for dirty, dangerous coal and nuclear power plants. A nuclear and coal bailout will likely cost hundreds of billions of dollars—dollars that could be used to create a 100% clean energy transition. President Trump refuses to spend a fraction of that amount to support global climate action, but he can’t wait to give mountains of our hard-earned cash to dirty energy executives who have created global warming and nuclear waste.

We have to stop it!

The 2016 election was not a referendum for climate denial and dirty energy. Americans want good jobs and clean air and water and healthy food and communities. 

If the president really wants to revive our economy, create jobs, revitalize local communities, and boost small businesses—then clean energy is the only way to go. Our green energy economy can create millions more jobs than dirty energy could ever provide again. Solar and wind are already creating ten times as many jobs as coal and nuclear for the amount of energy generated. 

The time is now to stop Trump’s dirty energy agenda. Please join us—sign the petition opposing the nuclear and coal bailout. 

And after that, pass it on to your friends and to your contacts on facebook, twitter, Instagram, etc.

Stay tuned for more actions to take as we build this campaign to save our 100% Clean Energy Future!

www.NIRS.org
www.facebook.com/nirsnet
www.twitter.com/nirsnet

8.21 NYC Rally: No War With North Korea!


RALLY OUTSIDE OF SENATOR SCHUMER AND SENATOR GILLIBRAND'S OFFICES
Hosted by Peace Action New York State

Tell Senators Schumer and Gillibrand:
NO WAR WITH NORTH KOREA
NO MORE WAR
NO MORE NUCLEAR WEAPONS
TAKES NUKES AWAY FROM TRUMP

Starting this Monday, August 21 until August 31, U.S. and South Korean forces will kick off the Ulchi Freedom Guardian joint military drills, highly provocative and threatening rehearsals for war involving tens of thousands of soldiers simulating surgical strikes on North Korea.

Pyongyang revoked its threat against Guam - and said it would wait to see what the United States would do! We cannot risk the safety of our allies, troops abroad, Guam residents, North Korean families and U.S. citizens because this Administration refuses to even acknowledge that there are diplomatic solutions on the table.

A proposal on the table to avert war and start talks is “freeze for freeze” in which North Korea suspends its nuclear and missile testing in exchange for halting or scaling back massive US-South Korean military exercises. A growing number of American officials are calling for this “freeze for freeze,” which has also been proposed by North Korea, China and Russia.

In an August 14, 2017 poll, 76% of Americans said they want diplomacy to resolve the North Korean nuclear crisis. We call for an end to dangerous brinkmanship and the start of talks!

We demand:

1.) Stop reckless brinkmanship; Start Talks Now! Suspend US-ROK military rehearsals for war in exchange for North Korea’s halting of nuclear and missile testing.
2.) De-escalate tensions and build mutual trust by reuniting Korean Americans with their families in North Korea, and repatriating the remains of US servicemen still in North Korea.
3.) Start the peace process towards signing a peace treaty to formally end the Korean War.
4.) Senators Schumer and Gillibrand must support SJR 200 for a U.S. No First Strike Policy and take these weapons AWAY from the impulsive actions of 45!

Rally: No War With North Korea! (Facebook event page)
Peace Action New York State | Peace Demands Action

Thursday, August 10, 2017

No Climate Money for Nuclear Power - NIRS


August 8, 2017
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
 Tim Judson, NIRS
+1 212-729-1169 (mobile)
TimJ@nirs.org
Peer de Rijk, WISE-International
+ 31 20 6126368
Director@wiseinternational.org
Gedelitz, Germany – An international coalition lead by organizations from nine countries launched a new campaign today–“Don’t Nuke the Climate”–to ensure nuclear power and other false climate solutions do not derail global efforts to reduce the extent of global warming. The coalition is mobilizing for the COP 23 global climate conference in November, where the nations of the world are meeting to make critical decisions on how to solve the problem of climate change. Specifically, the fate of $100 billion per year of investment is at stake the Green Climate Fund. Nuclear power companies are attempting to gain access to the fund to finance uneconomic power projects, which their own governments and the private sector will not or cannot fund.
The coalition’s website and petition can be found on the website: http://www.dont-nuke-the-climate.org
The Paris Climate Agreement, signed by 195 countries, established a global consensus for the goal of limiting global warming to at most 2.0 C (3.8 F), with an ambition to go no higher than 1.5 C (2.7 F). The Paris Agreement’s targets are not arbitrary: a global average temperature rise of 1.5-2.0 C will still have enormous human, economic, and environmental impacts: sea-level rise, severe storms, drought and food shortages, resource conflicts, refugee crises, etc. Achieving these goals is literally a matter of life and death, but there is much uncertainty about the global community’s ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions quickly enough to meet those goals.
The Don’t Nuke the Climate coalition is mobilizing for Bonn with the simple message: we can and must meet the goals of Paris–real, viable climate solutions are at hand–but not if we waste time and money on false solutions like nuclear power. The coalition mobilized in 2015 for the COP 21 climate conference in Paris, and grew to a total of 500 organizations worldwide supporting the “Don’t Nuke the Climate” call.
“We urgently need to tackle climate change. But we have to do this in a just way,” said Peer de Rijk, director of WISE-International. “This means we must actively exclude false solutions like nuclear power, as we otherwise will be thrown back in time and  increase the environmental crisis.”
“Nuclear power is a serial human rights violator and its promotion will worsen the very climate justice problems the Green Climate Fund is supposed to solve,” said Tim Judson, executive director the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, based in the U.S.A. “Nuclear corporations target First Nations and Global South countries are for radioactive contamination and resource destruction, radiation has a disparate impact on women and girls, and these persistent pollutants are hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years, creating indiscriminate impacts on future generations. The Green Climate Fund must never be used to finance such violations of human rights and principles of climate justice,” Judson concluded.
The coalition is opposing intensified efforts by the nuclear power industry to gain access to financing for nuclear power projects through the Green Climate Fund (GCF). The GCF was founded through global climate talks in 2009, and the 2015 Global Climate Agreement set a target of $100 billion per year in financing to Global South countries for reducing greenhouse gas emissions (labeled “mitigation” measures) and infrastructure to withstand the impacts of climate change (labeled “adaptation” measures).
“South-Africa is in urgent need for robust climate action,” said Makoma Lekalakala That means money for adaptation but also clean, affordable, safe new energy for everyone. A choice for nuclear would only increase the financial burden put upon millions of South-Africans.”
“The Indian state often blocks international negotiations on climate citing the needs of its poor,” said Kumar Sundaram, director of Dianuke in India. “But that in reality is nothing more than the Indian elite and industries demanding for the right to be equally irresponsible with the climate. Domestically, the government policies are only widening the energy access gap and imposing nuclear, coal and big dam projects that threaten to destroy fragile ecologies and most vulnerable communities. It’s unfortunate that the Indian government’s climate policy reinforces the myth of nuclear power being safe and clean. India is standing on the wrong side of history in the post-Fukushima world – setting up world’s biggest, costliest and most unsafe imported nuclear plants by undermining safety and environmental clearance norms and brutalizing massive but peaceful grassroots. India cannot be allowed to be a liability-free market where the declining global nuclear lobby rehabilitates itself.”
Nuclear power’s economic failures are worsening, with major firms such as Westinghouse and Areva going bankrupt, reactors being shut down, and new reactors canceled due to excessive costs, chronic construction delays, and aging infrastructure. Without access to massive amounts of public dollars such as the GCF, the industry faces inevitable decline, and cannot compete against true climate solutions, such as solar, wind, and energy efficiency and conservation.
As a result of, the industry has intensified its lobbying effort since Paris, and now includes industry trade associations, such as Foratom; the International Atomic Energy Agency; major nuclear corporations, including Rosatom, Russia’s state-owned nuclear corporation, which is targeting developing nations for nuclear development; and nuclear professional organizations and front groups, including the World Nuclear Society and Nuclear for Climate.
“Nuclear is dying – without taxpayer subsidies,” said Reinhard Uhrig, Head of Campaigns for Global 2000, the Austrian affiliate of Friends of the Earth International. “It now promotes itself as ‘green’, carbon-free electricity (which it is not) to get at public money such as in the climate funds established to combat global warming in particular in the global south. We cannot let the nuclear lobby get away with this – no subsidies for nuclear!”
“Nuclear is too expensive and takes too long to build, and we need real climate solutions today,” said Vladimir Sliviak, executive director of Ecodefense, based in Russia. “The effective approach is developing renewable energy and energy efficiency. We don’t have money or time to spend on false solutions.”
The coalition is urging nations participating in the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) to prohibit the use of the Green Climate Fund on technologies that make the societal and environmental impacts of climate change worse, like nuclear power, so-called “clean” coal, large-scale hydro-power, hydraulic fracturing for natural gas and oil, food- and forest-based biomass, and REDD+ — which are broadly considered false solutions and frequently entail human rights violations.
“There is no acceptable solution worldwide for high level radioactive waste, the only consequence is to stop nuclear power right now,” said Kerstin Rudek from Bürgerinitiative Umweltschutz Lüchow-Dannenberg, based in Germany.
“It’s a shame that Germany failed to include the uranium enrichment facility in Gronau and the fuel element factory in Lingen in its nuclear phaseout policy. Both facilities export to nuclear power plant in Belgium and in France. Germany needs a complete nuclear phaseout and has to start immediately with phasing out coal as well.”
Organizations leading the “Don’t Nuke the Climate” coalition represent nine nations spanning four continents:

Global/International
World Information Service on Energy – International
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War
Africa
Earthlife (South Africa)
Asia
Dia-Nuke (India)
Ecodefense (Russia)
KFEM (South Korea)
Europe
Bürgerinitiative Umweltschutz Lüchow-Dannenberg (Germany)
Global 2000 (Friends of the Earth – Austria)
North America
Nuclear Information and Resource Service (U.S.A.)

Download press release.

-30-


No Climate Money for Nuclear Power - NIRS



Tuesday, August 8, 2017

ATOMIC LEGACY ART - Women Eco Artists Dialog




WELCOME TO THE ISSUE ABOUT THE ISSUE THAT WON’T GO AWAY "ATOMIC LEGACY ART" WEAD--WOMEN ECO ARTISTS DIALOG ONLINE MAGAZINE ISSUE #5: Dedicated to the Future. INTRODUCTION by Susan Leibovitz Steinman https://directory.weadartists.org/atomic-art
ATOMIC LEGACY ARTISTS:


• Feature Artist Helene Aylon created her Earth Ambulance in 1982. For ten+ years she drove the Ambulance across the United States to Strategic Air Command bases, gathering people to collectively “rescue earth”—from the United Nations Plaza, to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. https://directory.weadartists.org/the-earth-ambulance


• Writing about post-Fukushima Japan, writer/publisher HIROKO SHIMIZU brings a sampler of anti-
nuclear activist artists, followed by a long interview with charismatic philosopher-artist ICHI IKEDA. Ikeda works with small rural communities creating large visions of clean water and collective action. https://directory.weadartists.org/japanese-anti-nuclear-art...


• German artist Insa Winkler traveled to Chernobyl with an activist artists’ collective who work with the “forgotten” people living there. She brings back the stories of people still living there, and the projects they worked on. https://directory.weadartists.org/missing-landscape-reflexion-chernobyl


• Working in New York and New Mexico, artist Eve Andrée Laramée creates complex installations and videos about radioactive damage to people and land by resident nuclear industries. https://directory.weadartists.org/tracking-our-atomic-legacy


• Long time anti-nuclear activist artist Beverly Naidus’ experiences are deeply personal and close to heart. Having suffered from serious environmental illnesses in the past, her work confronts the nuclear industry as a tool for healing and power. https://directory.weadartists.org/nuked-notes-journey


• ANN T. ROSENTHAL has been combining anti-nuclear activism and art since 1982. She shares her “atomic pilgrimage” from Guam to Japan to New Mexico to Washington’s Hanford Nuclear Reservation. https://directory.weadartists.org/infinity-city

• Raised a “downwinder” (living near a reactor), Southern California political artist Laura Lynch charts a history of nuclear industry over seven decades and its negative environmental impact. In her ART OF PROTEST she calls on humans to regain “consciousness” to face the real costs of nuclear power. https://directory.weadartists.org/the-art-of-protest


COMMENTARIES:


• ON MY MIND: Art critic and EcoArt South Florida founder Mary Jo Aagerstoun asks Can Anti-Nuke Activist Art Be A Form Of EcoArt? while critiquing Florida’s arsenal of aging failing nuclear plant dangers. https://directory.weadartists.org/anti-nuke-ecoart


• JAMES LERAGER presents a photographer’s atomic legacy portfolio https://directory.weadartists.org/a-photo-essay-nuclear-history-nuclear-destiny


• Cecile Pineda shares part of her recent book Devil’s Tango. 
https://directory.weadartists.org/by-invitation-only


• JL MALBROOK reports on a feminist conference at the The New School for Design in NYC on April 5, 2012. https://directory.weadartists.org/shifting-terrain


ATOMIC LEGACY ART - Women Eco Artists Dialog


Tell the NRC--No Nuclear Waste Trafficking with Canada or Any Other Countries!!!

Last week, we told you about the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's (CNSC) plan to amend the licenses for twelve Canadian nuclear power reactors on Lake Ontario to allow them to export their nuclear waste to the United States and other countries.  Now, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is seeking to amend export license XW008/05 that would allow a US company, Diversified Scientific Services, Inc. (DSSI) that burns mixed radioactive and hazardous waste in an industrial boiler, to  transport back to Canada the refuse from Canadian radioactive oils, solvents, grease, paint chips and resins (laden with radioactivity). 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has already given blanket approval via a “General License” to importers of foreign radioactive wastes to secretly bring those wastes into the U.S. without revealing their origin or characteristics,  without public notification or input - and with no opportunity for a public hearing to either investigate or challenge these dangerous radioactive wastes from entering our communities, workplaces, and consumer products. 
Tell the NRC to reject this license amendment that allows international nuclear waste trafficking. Comments due August 10th by 11:59 pm.
SIGN NOW


Saturday, August 5, 2017

New U.S. reactor construction collapses because it's “prohibitively expensive”: the fight for justice continues | Beyond Nuclear


South Carolina electric utilities have scrapped finishing construction for two half-built Westinghouse reactors admitting that nuclear power is “prohibitively expensive.” The abandonment of the V.C. Summer Units 2 and 3 in Jenkinsville, SC comes with an estimated $11 billion in sunk costs and still projected six years from completion. The cancellation adds to the growing number of tombstones for once championed “milestones” in an atomic power revival. The inability to control the “cost-of-completion” and “time-to-completion” is the fundamental economic failure behind this recent collapse of the nuclear industry. In fact, these same reasons were featured in a 1985 Forbes magazine cover story “Nuclear Follies” describing the development of commercial atomic power as “the largest managerial disaster in U.S. business history where only the blind and the biased can say the money was well spent.”
There is not one nuclear power project in the United States that has ever been built on budget and on time, only more or less grossly out of proportion. The country is littered with the abandoned hulks of the 20th Century’s "nuclear error” including Seabrook Unit 2 in New Hampshire, Shoreham in New York, Midland in Michigan, the “Whoops” reactors in Washington, Bellefonte in Alabama, Marble Hill in Indiana and Zimmer in Ohio. These sites stand as monuments to nearly 100 more cancelled construction projects.   
The recent collapse of V.C. Summer 2 &3 now weighs heavier on the only remaining new reactor construction in the U.S. at Vogtle units 3 and 4 in Waynesboro, Georgia. With the bankruptcy of Westinghouse Electric and still mounting financial trouble for its Japan-based parent company Toshiba, Southern Company and Georgia Power were handed the dubious oversight and management of construction by the U.S. Department of Energy for the two Westinghouse reactors still being built there. The fate of the Vogtle boondoogle is still uncertain even with Toshiba giving $3.7 billion to Southern Company to contractually cut loose of the project and spread the cost out over more owners. Just how much and how long it will take to complete the untested design remain inescapable questions.  Southern Company's new projected cost-of-completion for Vogtle has balloned to $25 billion.  Southern is under pressure to tell the Georgia Public Service Commission by end of 2017 whether it plans to go forward with completion of the Vogtle expansion.  The decision could come as early as the end of August 2017.
The repeated and predictable economic failure of atomic power sends an ever direr warning of the shear folly in wasting billions more dollars and decades longer only to predictably fall short in the challenge to abate climate change. Again, nuclear power is exposed as an unreliable partner in any “energy mix” with renewable power from the wind and sun, energy efficiency and conservation. Nuclear power, new and old, only serves to divert and deplete necessary resources and squander the precious little time that remains.
The collapse of the nuclear industry further lay bare the economic and environmental justice struggles still ahead to hold corporations accountable to greed, fraud and desecration.
Accolades are much deserved to the environmental and consumer protection groups that have been involved from the beginning with the proposed Summer and Vogtle expansions. These same organizations are now demanding ratepayer restitution and protection from still more fleecing.
As Tom Clements, South Carolina’s advisor to Friends of the Earth (FoE) puts it, “The decision to abandon the V.C. Summer project is of monumental proportion and is a full admission that pursuit of the project was a fool’s mission right from the start.” According to Clements, the abandonment of construction now portends a fight for economic justice where, “Rather than applauding the decision this is a time for reflection and to prepare for formal proceedings before the PSC that will review how this debacle happened and how to refund ratepayers money due to a string of imprudent decisions.”
Sara Barczak with the Southern Alliance for Safe Energy (SACE) is wondering how much longer it will take Southern Company to pull the plug on Vogtle 3 and 4. Still she continues the call for “stopping the forced draining of customers’ wallets” there. Indeed, as Barazk observes for V.C. Summer, “A very costly door has closed on the so-called nuclear renaissance” and the awaited announced cancellation of Vogtle 3 and 4. 

Beyond Nuclear - Home - New U.S. reactor construction collapses because it's “prohibitively expensive”: the fight for justice continues


Friday, August 4, 2017

No red button. No nukes. Never again. Media Advisory for big upcoming action. Read all about it...


“March for Nuclear Abolition & Global Survival”

– Major Rally, March & Nonviolent Direct Action on Aug. 9 at Livermore Lab will commemorate the atomic bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki at the site where U.S. is designing new nuclear weapons; call on Trump Admin. to sign Ban Treaty & reduce, not escalate, U.S. and global nuclear dangers…
Media Advisory - for immediate release August 3, 2017
Contacts: Marylia Kelley, Tri-Valley CAREs, 925-443-7148; cell, 925-255-3589 Dr. Robert Gould, Physicians for Social Responsibility, SF Bay Area, cell 415-407-8972
“March for Nuclear Abolition & Global Survival”
August 9, 2017 Action at Livermore Lab 8 AM
Tri-Valley CAREs




DANIEL ELLSBERG, EMMA'S REVOLUTION & MORE!

Rally and Nonviolent Action @ Livermore Lab (where they develop nuclear weapons right here in the Bay Area) to commemorate the U.S. bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and to protest nukes! Peace Camp the night before.