+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 52
Latest: Carnesia
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 16222
Total Topics: 264
Most Online Today: 2
Most Online Ever: 201
(December 08, 2019, 11:34:38 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 0
Total: 0

Forum > Nuke Puke

Nuclear Insecurity Today

<< < (4/14) > >>

AGelbert:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eiUWluJLHM&x-yt-cl=84924572&feature=player_embedded
Residents of Kingman, Arizona in Mohave County continue to die of cancer without federal compensation despite the FACT that radionuclide levels form fallout there are HIGHER than in other areas that ARE being compensated.  :o  >:(

AGelbert:
Global Conference Urges Ban on Uranium Mining and Nuclear Power    

Posted on Apr 24, 2015

By Paul Brown, Climate News Network
 
LONDON—Uranium mining across the world should cease, nuclear power stations be closed and nuclear weapons be banned, according to a group of scientists, environmentalists and representatives of indigenous peoples.

Three hundred delegates from 20 countries that produce uranium for nuclear power, weapons and medical uses called for an end to all uranium mining in a declaration launched on Earth Day this week at a meeting in Quebec, Canada.

The venue for the World Uranium Symposium was chosen because Quebec state is currently considering whether to continue its moratorium on uranium mining, having already closed down its only nuclear power plant in 2013.

Symbolic choice

The city of Quebec is also symbolic because this is where Canada, the US and the UK made a co-operation agreement in 1943 that led to the building of the world’s first nuclear weapons. Two of the resulting A-Bombs were used to destroy the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

But the symposium was more concerned about the damage that existing uranium mining is doing to the welfare of indigenous peoples, and the “erroneous view” that nuclear power can help solve the problem of climate change.

The declaration applauded the expansion of renewable energy and the significant strides in phasing out nuclear power following the growing awareness that “nuclear power is not a cost-effective, timely, practical or safe response to climate change”.


--- Quote ---
“The risks to health, safety and the environment represented by the entire nuclear fuel chain . . . greatly exceed the potential benefits for society”
--- End quote ---

It called for “a worldwide ban on uranium exploration, mining, milling and processing, as well as the reprocessing of nuclear waste, and the irresponsible management of radioactive waste”.

Dr. Eric Notebaert, associate professor of medicine at the University of Montreal, co-president of the Symposium, and member of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, said that the symposium delegates all agreed that “the risks to health, safety and the environment represented by the entire nuclear fuel chain—from uranium mines, to power reactors, to nuclear weapons, to radioactive wastes—greatly exceed the potential benefits for society”.

Dr. Juan Carlos Chrigwin, a physician affiliated with McGill University, and president of Physicians for Global Survival, said: “The issuing of this World Declaration on Uranium is the culmination of essential work carried out over many years by international coalitions who, despite geographical and cultural differences, share common objectives and who desire to shape a common vision of a better world.


--- Quote ---“Uranium does not provide a viable or sustainable approach for dealing with climate change, nor for providing isotopes for medical use. Today, there are a number of medical and energy alternatives that are cheaper and safer.”   
--- End quote ---

The declaration is open for organisations and individuals to sign on the internet and is bound to put further pressure on an industry already suffering from falling confidence.

The price of uranium has dropped from $138 a tonne in 2007 to less than $40 a tonne currently as plans to build more nuclear stations have been shelved in several countries.  :emthup:

While the search continues for rich new uranium deposits—particularly by China in Africa and the US in Greenland—it is unlikely to be economically viable to exploit them at current prices.

Carbon footprint
According to the World Nuclear Association, 52% of the world’s production comes from 10 mines in six countries. The largest is in Canada, followed by one in Australia, but the largest single producer is Kazakhstan, which has four mines in the top 10 in the world. In Africa, Niger and Namibia are also big producers.

While many pro-nuclear governments—including the UK’s—regard nuclear power as a clean, low-carbon form of energy, the politicians ignore the carbon footprint of the mines and the consequences for the health of workers.

It is in developing countries that the miners and the local environment tend to suffer most because of open cast mines. For example, large areas of Kazakhstan are too dangerous to inhabit as a result of mountains of uranium tailings and mildly radioactive dust.

The Symposium’s co-president, Dr. Dale Dewar—a physician who is associate professor at the University of Saskatchewan and is co-author of the book, From Hiroshima to Fukushima to You—summed up by saying:
--- Quote --- “We are calling on national and international leaders to protect our planet and our populations from any further nuclear catastrophes. Anything less would be irresponsible.”
--- End quote ---

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/global_group_seeks_ban_on_uranium_and_nuclear_power_20150424

How Much of Worldwide Disease Is Preventable? 
 
About one-fourth of all instances of disease are preventable and caused by environmental factors that could be changed, health experts say. Children are even more affected by diseases caused by environmental factors, with about one-third of all instances of disease being preventable in children younger than 5 years old.

It is estimated that about 13 million lives could be saved every year if precautions were taken to better manage environments. The main preventable worldwide diseases are diarrhea, malaria, lower respiratory infections and accidental injuries. These could be reduced by improved hygiene with water storage and handling of toxic substances, cleaner fuel usage and improved building safety.

More about preventable diseases:

The leading factors of diseases in the US are poor diet, lack of exercise, tobacco use and excessive alcohol consumption.

More than 90% of diarrhea-related conditions could be prevented by improving unsafe water supplies.

Nearly 3 million deaths each year are from cardiovascular diseases, which can be prevented in certain cases. This is nearly twice the amount of deaths from cancer.



Agelbert comment (I am Gelbert46 on WiseGeek):


The article is incorrect. Nearly 7 million people die each year of cancer. One in 10 humans were expected to get cancer in the 1950s. Thanks to nuclear power plant and atomic explosion Cesium-137 deposition throughout the globe, one in THREE people will get cancer.

The corrected sentence in the article, if the WHO (world Health Organization) wasn't prevented from telling the truth about radionuclide caused cancers by the IAEA, would be this:

The main preventable worldwide deadly diseases are all types of cancers. The rapid increase in the global cancer epidemic (one in three will get cancer in their lifetime) is caused by Cesium-137 planetary deposition from nuclear explosions and nuclear power plant radionuclide environmental contamination.  >:(.

http://www.wisegeek.com/how-much-of-worldwide-disease-is-preventable.htm#discussions




And about that "background radiation" that we are all supposed to have "evolved" to live under... ::)

Most “Background Radiation” Didn’t Exist Before Nuclear Weapons Testing and Nuclear Reactors.

Nuke pukes claim that we get a higher exposure from background radiation (when we fly, for example) or x-rays then we get from nuclear accidents.

News flash!

There was exactly zero background radioactive cesium or iodine before above-ground nuclear testing and nuclear accidents started.

Cesium-137 is unique in that it is totally anthropogenic. Unlike most other radioisotopes, cesium-137 is not produced from its non-radioactive isotope, but from uranium. It did not occur in nature before nuclear weapons testing began.

Fukushima has spewed much more radioactive cesium and iodine than Chernobyl. The amount of radioactive cesium released by Fukushima was some 20-30 times higher than initially admitted. And the cesium levels hitting the west coast of North America will keep increasing for several years. Fukushima is spewing more and more radiation into the environment, and the amount of radioactive fuel at Fukushima dwarfs Chernobyl.

As such, the concept of “background radiation” is largely Nuke Puke disinformation propaganda :P.  Most of the radiation we encounter today, especially the most dangerous types, did not even exist in nature before we started tinkering with nuclear weapons and reactors.

We all know that radionuclides cause genetic mutations and severe birth defects.

But most people are unaware of the fact that, due to the UBIQUITY of Cesium-137 in our environment, MOST of the cancers today and much of the cardiovascular disease as well as ANY soft tissue muscle related diseases are also caused by radionuclides that destroy both smooth and striated muscles. That means, the heart, the blood vessels, the intestines, the stomach lining, the lungs and every muscle in your body.

Cesium-137 goes EVERYWERE because your body thinks it is Potassium. Lodged in the heart muscle it begins to atrophy it. It happens more or less according to muscle mass location and activity. A doctor in Russia in the 1990s discovered Cesium-137 caused heart abnormalities in small animals, then in human children. He was put in prison for publishing his study.  ???

Neither the government of Russia or our Government CARES what radionuclides are doing to most humans. We have to MAKE THEM CLOSE THE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS by letting everyone know what is really happening out there.

And if you think the elite aren't making sure THEIR food isn't contaminated, you are kidding yourself!

We have to kill nuclear power or it will kill us. As it is many of us are already doomed because we have been exposed to too much Cesium-137 in our food or because we have lived too near a nuclear power plant.  >:( 

We have been lied to big time. Please Pass it on. 

AGelbert:
Renewables vs. Nuclear: Do We Need More Nuclear Power?

Tom DeRosa 
April 28, 2015



SNIPPET:


--- Quote ---So, here is the big question: why are renewables growing faster than nuclear, even in places like China where they are building the most reactors?

In places like the U.S., Japan and Europe, is it because of nutty environmentalists and anti nuclear groups? Isn’t that what happened with Vermont Yankee? Actually, no - Vermont Yankee really closed because the O&M costs became too high.

The real answers: risk, cost and time to build. 

--- End quote ---

Full two page article at link below:   

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2015/04/renewables-vs-nuclear-do-we-need-more-nuclear-power


COMMMENT by A. G. Gelbert 
 April 28, 2015 

We actually NEED to shut down all nuclear power plants because of the added cost (and energy use involved in that cost) of health care resultant from radionuclide degradation of the biosphere and human health.

Yes, the fossil fuel industry also is a partner in crime in offloading that "externalized cost" on to the biosphere and Homo sapiens. But it will be a cold day in hell before our governments and institutions have the intestinal fortitude to fine and imprison those welfare queen dirty energy corporations on the "subsides" gravy train robbing the people of tax dollars while they visit the people with added health care costs.

QUOTE:
The Jan. 8 statement from the more than 300 signers reads in part:

Nuclear power is not a financially viable option. Since its inception it has required taxpayer subsidies and publicly financed indemnity against accidents. New construction requires billions in public subsidies to attract private capital and, once under construction, severe cost overruns are all but inevitable. As for operational safety, the history of nuclear power plants in the U.S. is fraught with near misses, as documented by the Union of Concerned Scientists, and creates another financial and safety quagmire—high-level nuclear waste. Internationally, we’ve experienced two catastrophic accidents for a technology deemed to be virtually ‘fail safe’.

As for ‘advanced’ nuclear designs endorsed in your letter, they have been tried and failed or are mere blueprints without realistic hope, in the near term, if ever, to be commercialized. The promise and potential impact you lend breeder reactor technology in your letter is misplaced. Globally, $100 billion over sixty years have been squandered to bring the technology to commercialization without success. The liquid sodium-based cooling system is highly dangerous as proven in Japan and the U.S. And the technology has proven to be highly unreliable.

Equally detrimental in cost and environmental impact is reprocessing of nuclear waste. In France, the poster child for nuclear energy, reprocessing results in a marginal increase in energetic use of uranium while largely increasing the volume of all levels of radioactive waste. Indeed, the process generates large volumes of radioactive liquid waste annually that is dumped into the English Channel and has increased electric costs to consumers significantly. Not to mention the well-recognized proliferation risks of adopting a plutonium-based energy system.

As to the issue of what represents the best path forward to deal with climate change, the Jan. 8 statement notes:

We disagree with your assessment of renewable power and energy efficiency. They can and are being brought to scale globally. Moreover, they can be deployed much more quickly than nuclear power. For instance, in the U.S. from 2002 to 2012 over 50,000 megawatts of wind were deployed. Not one megawatt of power from new nuclear reactors was deployed, despite subsidies estimated to be worth more than the value of the power new reactors would have produced. Similarly, it took 40 years globally to deploy 50,000 megawatts of solar PV and, recently, only two and a half years to deploy an equal amount. By some estimates, another 100,000 MW will be built by the end of 2015. Already, renewables and distributed power have overtaken nuclear power in terms of megawatt hour generation worldwide.

The fact of the matter is, many Wall Street analysts predict that solar PV and wind will have reached grid parity by the end of the decade. Wind in certain parts of the Midwest is already cheaper than natural gas on the wholesale level. Energy efficiency continues to outperform all technologies on a cost basis. While the cost of these technologies continues to decline and enjoy further technological advancement, the cost of nuclear power continues to increase and construction timeframes remain excessive. And we emphasize again that no technological breakthrough to reduce its costs or enhance its operation will occur in the foreseeable future.
UNQUOTE

http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/nuke-puke/nuclear-insecurity-today/msg681/#msg681

And about that "background radiation" that we are all supposed to have "evolved" to live under...

Most “Background Radiation” Didn’t Exist Before Nuclear Weapons Testing and Nuclear Reactors.

Nuke pukes claim that we get a higher exposure from background radiation (when we fly, for example) or x-rays then we get from nuclear accidents.

News flash!

There was exactly zero background radioactive cesium or iodine before above-ground nuclear testing and nuclear accidents started.

Cesium-137 is unique in that it is totally anthropogenic. Unlike most other radioisotopes, cesium-137 is not produced from its non-radioactive isotope, but from uranium. It did not occur in nature before nuclear weapons testing began.

Fukushima has spewed much more radioactive cesium and iodine than Chernobyl. The amount of radioactive cesium released by Fukushima was some 20-30 times higher than initially admitted. And the cesium levels hitting the west coast of North America will keep increasing for several years. Fukushima is spewing more and more radiation into the environment, and the amount of radioactive fuel at Fukushima dwarfs Chernobyl.

As such, the concept of “background radiation” is largely Nuke Puke disinformation propaganda. Most of the radiation we encounter today, especially the most dangerous types, did not even exist in nature before we started tinkering with nuclear weapons and reactors.

In the 1950's one ten humans was expected to get cancer in their lifetime. GOOGLE what it is now (one is two or three depending on your gender). And don't believe the propaganda lie that, "The increased rates don't matter because more people are cured of cancer now". Yes, they can catch it sooner, but most people that get cancer STILL DIE FROM IT.

We all know that radionuclides cause genetic mutations and severe birth defects.

But most people are unaware of the fact that, due to the UBIQUITY of Cesium-137 in our environment, MOST of the cancers today and much of the cardiovascular disease as well as ANY soft tissue muscle related diseases are also caused by radionuclides that destroy both smooth and striated muscles.

That means, the heart, the blood vessels, the intestines, the stomach lining, the lungs and every muscle in your body.

Cesium-137 goes EVERYWERE because your body thinks it is Potassium. Lodged in the heart muscle it begins to atrophy it. It happens more or less according to muscle mass location and activity. A doctor in Russia in the 1990s discovered Cesium-137 caused heart abnormalities in small animals, then in human children. He was put in prison for publishing his study. ???

Neither the government of Russia or our Government CARES what radionuclides are doing to most humans. We have to MAKE THEM CLOSE THE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS by letting everyone know what is really happening out there.




AGelbert:
               
Rössing, Namibia

Uranium mining site

The Rössing uranium mine has been a cause for concern for more than 30 years. Unsafe and inhumane working conditions, occupational exposure to radioactivity and the contamination of the environment with uranium tailings and radioactive waste rock all pose serious public health problems.

History

The Rössing uranium mine was commissioned in 1976 by the international mining company Rio Tinto. Other major stakeholders include the governments of Iran and South Africa. Rössing is the world’s largest open-pit uranium mine and its production accounts for 10 % of Namibia’s total exports. Namibia is currently the world’s fifth largest producer of uranium.
Depending on the ore grade, about two to five tons of raw ore need to be processed in order to produce a single kilogram of refined uranium oxide. The rest is deposited near the mines as waste rock or tailings and still contains about 80 % of the ore’s original radioactivity. In 2005, 19.5 million tons of ore had to be mined in order to produce 3,711 tons of uranium oxide. According to Rio Tinto, this production required more than three million m³ of water and 226,000 tons of sulphuric acid for chemical leaching.

For the miners, who are mainly recruited from the poor black Nama community, the town of Arandis was built near the mine, while the white executives live in the coastal town of Swakopmund, about 70 km away from the harmful effects and radioactive fallout of mining operations.

There have been several cases of inadequate security measures at Rössing; an issue that has raised international concern, as fissile materials could fall into unauthorized hands. The most recent incident occurred in 2009, when workers stole 170 kg of uranium oxide from the mine and tried to sell it on the international market. They were caught, but the Global Threat Reduction Initiative still believes that security measures need to be increased at Rössing.

Health and environmental effects

As long as uranium remains deep in the soil, its alpha- and beta-emitting decay products, such as radon or thorium, pose virtually no harm to human health. As soon as it is brought to the surface, however, where it can spread as airborne dust particles or be dissolved in effluent water, humans can ingest the radioactive isotopes and can suffer from internal irradiation.

Miners at Rössing are exposed to uranium dust and inhale radon gas on a daily basis. Although vast quantities of water are used to keep uranium dust on the ground, the use of explosives in open-pit mining causes large radioactive clouds, which are carried to the fields and settlements of nearby Arandis and the region’s waterways.

Elevated levels of uranium were detected in nearly 80 % of groundwater samples, with the highest concentration of 528 µg/l 15 times above the WHO limit of 15 µg/l.

Studies have also shown quantitative health effects in the miners, which cannot be explained by confounding factors.

An independent case-controlled study performed by the Charité University Clinic of Berlin showed a sixfold increase in uranium excretion among uranium miners compared with the control group. The researches also found three times as many chromosomal aberrations, a significantly reduced lymphocyte count as a sign of hematopoietic damage, and lower testosterone levels, suggestive of gonadal damage.

The blood cells of Rössing miners showed similar defects as those found in the casualties of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima or the nuclear meltdown of Chernobyl. These findings echo newer scientific evidence that chronic exposure to low-level radioactivity can have effects similar to acute high-level exposure.

Outlook
Large-scale epidemiological studies would be needed in order to determine cancer incidence among the miners and inhabitants of the region, but none have been undertaken so far. Instead, Rössing Uranium Ltd commissioned a study  in order to refute the findings of the Berlin research group . In 2007, instead of examining the damage already caused, Rio Tinto decided to expand the Rössing mine, extend its runtime to 2016 and increase the output to 3,800 tons of uranium oxide per year. 

The people living near Rössing are suffering from the industry‘s appetite for cheap uranium – they, too, have become Hibakusha.  


Further information

A well-researched film about uranium mining at Rössing is “Yellow Cake – The Dirt Behind Uranium” by Joachim Tschirner: www.yellowcake-derfilm.de/index.php?id=209

References

Shindondola-Mote H. “Uranium mining in Namibia – the mystery behind ‘low level radiation’ .” Labor Resource and Research Institute, February 2009. http://somo.nl/publications-en/Publication_3061/at_download/fullfile “

Report to Stakeholders 2005.” Rössing Uranium. www.rossing-com.info/reports/stake_report_3MB.pdf

Duddy JM. “Nam uranium spooks the U.S..” The Namibian, February 3, 2010. www.namibian.com.na/indexx.php?archive_id=62401&page_type=archive_story_detail&page=2591

Kingel et al. “Groundwater quality assessment in the Khan- and Swakop River catchment.” Joint report of the German Federal Agency for Geoscience and Resources (BGR) and the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (MBZ), July 2010. www.bgr.bund.de/EN/Themen/Wasser/Projekte/abgeschlossen/TZ/Namibia/nausea_fb_en_pdf.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1

Zaire et al. “Unexpected Rates" of Chromosomal Instabilities and Alterations of Hormone Levels in Namibian Uranium Miners.” Rad Res 1997 May;147(5):579-84. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9146703
Agelbert NOTE: "Unexpected Rates" of DNA and other tissue damage, MY ASS! They didn't build that high class WHITE coastal town of Swakopmund about 70 km away from the Uranium POISON just for the ocean view!

http://www.nuclear-risks.org/en/hibakusha-worldwide/roessing.html

AGelbert:

--- Quote --- The five nuclear-armed countries that are parties to the NPT (US, Russia, UK, France and China) appear more comfortable working together to maintain and modernize their nuclear arsenals than they do to fulfilling their disarmament obligations under the treaty. Their common strategy appears to be “nuclear weapons forever.” 
--- End quote ---

Grand Bargain Is Not So Grand

by David Krieger

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has two major purposes and together they form a grand bargain. First, the treaty seeks to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other countries.  Second, the treaty seeks to level the playing field by the pursuit of negotiations in good faith to end the nuclear arms race at an early date and to achieve nuclear disarmament. The goal of the grand bargain, in other words, is a world without nuclear weapons.

For the most part the non-nuclear weapon states parties to the treaty are playing by the rules and not developing or acquiring nuclear weapons. However, one country – the United States – has stationed its nuclear weapons on the territories of five European countries otherwise without nuclear weapons (Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey), and agreed to turn these weapons over to the host countries in a time of war. The US has also placed all NATO countries plus Australia, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan under its “nuclear umbrella.” Collectively these countries are known as the weasel countries, non-nuclear in name but not in reality.

In addition, there has been nuclear proliferation outside the NPT. Three countries that never joined the NPT developed nuclear arsenals (Israel, India and Pakistan), and North Korea withdrew from the treaty and developed nuclear weapons. Despite all of this actual nuclear proliferation, attention seems to be primarily focused on the possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapons, even though Iran appears to be willing to take all necessary steps, including intrusive inspections, to assure the world that it is not seeking nuclear weapons.

It is the other side of the grand bargain, though, where things really break down. The five nuclear-armed countries that are parties to the NPT (US, Russia, UK, France and China) appear more comfortable working together to maintain and modernize their nuclear arsenals than they do to fulfilling their disarmament obligations under the treaty. Their common strategy appears to be “nuclear weapons forever.”    

The US, which plans to spend $1 trillion on modernizing its nuclear arsenal over the next three decades, is also largely responsible for the modernization programs of Russia and China as a result of unilaterally withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in 2002 and placing land- and sea-based missile defenses close to the Russian and Chinese borders. Since missile defenses can also be part of an integrated plan to launch first-strike attacks, Russia and China may feel compelled to maintain the effectiveness of their nuclear deterrent by enhancing their offensive forces to counter US missile defenses. Avoiding such defensive-offensive escalations was the purpose of the ABM Treaty in the first place. One can get a better sense of this by imagining the US response if Russian missile defenses were placed on the Canadian border and Chinese missile defenses were placed on the Mexican border.

The parties to the NPT just completed a month of negotiations for their ninth five-year review conference. The conference ended in failure without agreement on a final document to guide the work of the parties over the next five years. The US, UK and Canada refused to support a conference to begin negotiating a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction to take place by March 1, 2016. This conference, promised when the NPT was extended indefinitely in 1995, has been put off previously and now it has been put off yet again.

Even if there had been consensus on a final document from the 2015 NPT review conference, however, it would not have been a strong or satisfactory document. The nuclear-armed parties to the treaty spent their time at the meetings watering down the disarmament provisions to which they had previously made an “unequivocal undertaking.” The nuclear-armed states and the weasel states, despite their protestations, don’t seem serious about keeping their commitments to achieve nuclear disarmament. Increasingly, the non-nuclear weapons states and civil society organizations are coming to the conclusion that the nuclear-armed countries are not acting in good faith and, as a result, the grand bargain is not being fulfilled.

A positive and hopeful outcome of the conference, though, is that the non-nuclear weapon states may be sufficiently fed up with the nuclear-armed countries to act boldly to push ahead on a new path to nuclear disarmament. More than 100 countries have now endorsed the Humanitarian Pledge, initiated by Austria, to work for a new legal instrument to prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons, just as has been done for chemical and biological weapons and for landmines and cluster munitions. This legal instrument could take the form of a new Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty.

Also on the positive and hopeful side are the bold and courageous Nuclear Zero lawsuits filed by the Republic of the Marshall Islands against the nine nuclear-armed countries in the International Court of Justice in The Hague and separately against the US in US federal court. These lawsuits seek declaratory relief, stating that the nuclear weapon states are in violation of the disarmament provisions of the NPT and of customary international law, and seek injunctive relief ordering the nuclear-armed countries to initiate and engage in negotiations in good faith for total nuclear disarmament. A well-attended side panel at the NPT review conference provided an update on the status of the lawsuits.

This is the 70th year since nuclear weapons were used on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There are still over 16,000 nuclear weapons in the world. Enough is enough. It is time to abolish these weapons before they cause irreversible damage to civilization, the human species and other forms of life. We owe it to ourselves and to future generations of life on Earth to break our chains of complacency and demonstrate that the engaged human heart is more powerful than even nuclear arms.

David Krieger  is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and the author of ZERO: The Case for Nuclear Weapons Abolition.

http://www.wagingpeace.org/grand-bargain-not-so-grand/

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

+-Recent Topics

Experts Knew a Pandemic Was Coming. Here’s What They’re Worried About Next. by Surly1
May 12, 2020, 07:46:22 am

Doomstead Diner Daily by Surly1
May 12, 2020, 07:40:17 am

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 11:47:35 pm

Money by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 11:27:30 pm

Creeping Police State by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:35:38 pm

COVID-19 🏴☠️ Pandemic by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:19:30 pm

Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:07:28 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 09:54:48 pm

🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️ by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 09:10:24 pm

Intelligent Design by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 06:38:41 pm

Go to full version