Hiroshima/Nagasaki Memorial Day – Mon 6th August 2012

 Aberdeen City, Events, Featured, News  No Responses »
Jul 262012
 

nuclear-explosion-600x751
With Thanks to Jonathan Russell  and Aberdeen CND.

Aberdeen CND invites you to mark the 67th anniversary of the first use of nuclear weapons.

In August 1945 the US dropped 2 atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

We will release 200 peace lanterns on the River Dee to commemorate the 200,000 men, women and children who died.

There will also be short contributions from persons representing Student organisations, Trade Unions, Faith Groups and Civic leaders.

maphiroshimapic

Date: Monday 6th August 2011, at 8.30pm
Venue:  the Fisherman’s Hut on the River Dee
(by Riverside drive – See map)

CND campaigns to stop any future mass destructions! We call on the Government to:
  • Scrap the Trident nuclear system. 
  • Cancel plans for the next generation nuclear weapons
  • Work for international nuclear disarmament

For further details contact:   www.banthebomb.org/AbCND  or telephone Jonathan on 07582-456-233

The Economics Of Trident: Part 2

 Aberdeen City, Information  No Responses »
Jun 142012
 

This is the second article produced by Aberdeen and District CND on the economics of the UK nuclear deterrent system Trident. This article relates to the economics of the Scottish situation last week’s article looked at the wider UK. We would recommend that you read both articles. With Thanks to Jonathan Russell.

imagescab79c49
The STUC/CND report of 2007 demonstrated the inaccuracy of claims that upwards of 11,000 jobs would be lost to Scotland if Trident was not replaced. It found that the loss of Jobs would be (only) 1,800.
In a recent article in the Scottish CND Magazine John Ainslie has said that there are less than 500 civilian jobs in Faslane and Coulport which are directly involved in supporting the Trident weapon system.

To put this in perspective, up until 2007 over 40, 00 Scottish Defence related jobs had been shed since 1990 without significant government intervention to ensure alternative employment.

  • At 2007 prices, of the then £1 billion annual procurement costs of Trident replacement, the annual cost to Scotland would have been £238 million,
  •  Combined costs of £85 million annual procurement, with £153 million a year share of existing and continuing costs of Trident.

A debate and vote on Trident took place in the Scottish Parliament in June 2007. In this debate the Scottish Parliament voted conclusively against the renewal of Trident, demonstrating the clear opposition of the Scottish people to the UK government’s course of action. Following on from this, the Scottish Government set up a working group on Scotland without Nuclear weapons.

The working party had the following to say on the economic effects of not renewing Trident.

 “The UK government has made significant investment over the years in upgrading the facilities at HMNB Clyde, including £300 million in the past two years and has announced that HMNB Clyde can have a continuing role as a strategic naval facility for conventionally armed naval forces, to take advantage of significant assets already in place and the UK  governments maritime change programme offers the opportunity in the long run for stability of employment, without nuclear weapons at HMNB Clyde.”

The effect of expenditure on Trident replacement on Scottish budgets, in the context of future Comprehensive Spending Reviews, will have a negative impact on public expenditure in Scotland with a corresponding effect on jobs: the STUC/CND investigation estimated that replacing Trident could cost Scotland 3,000 jobs.

The working group considered that a planned programme of defence diversion adequately resourced, could ensure that an equivalent or greater number of jobs can be created in the local economy.

The more recent BASIC commission report by Professor Keith Hartley points out that though Glasgow is an area of high unemployment it is part of the wider Clyde economy where there are alternative job prospects. Staff and facilities are in the main transferrable however some staff and facilities are so highly specialised that they can only be used for submarine work.

  Global climate change is emerging as a major future security challenge

Aberdeen has 12 firms that would be affected by the replacement of Trident. With an average spend of just under two million on each firm involved in Scotland this would affect the Aberdeen economy.

Government would require appropriate policies to adjust to these changes. It must be remembered that spending in other ways would lead to more jobs .

Choices have to be made about what it is best to spend public money on.

  • For many the cry would be that money is better spent on saving some of our health, education and welfare services from at least some of the cuts that are planned;
  • Others would say that these finances would be better spent on keeping our conventional military resources
  •  Others would say our spending should go on overseas aid.
  •  Other Capital expenditure in transport, green technology or housing infrastructure would be a far more effective way of invigorating the economy than spending our increasingly reduced public spending on nuclear weapons.

Of course firms like BAE systems and Babcock’s would argue differently. We would argue that this money, however it is spent; it should not be on the renewal of Trident.  Further the priority should not be on military spending unless aimed at developing our role in peace keeping.

On another front we would question our priorities; Global climate change is emerging as a major future security challenge.

  • Expenditure on nuclear weapons could consume resources that might otherwise be used in the fight against climate change;
  • Climate change is one of the drivers which will influence the long term affordability of nuclear weapons.
  •  If we re-invest the money that is to be spent on Trident we could make the UK/SCOTLAND a worldwide leader in wave and tidal power technology and create hundreds of jobs, more than compensating for the jobs lost by cancelling Trident.
  •  This in turn would help re-build our economy, which in turn, would help protect our public services. A win-win-win solution!

cameron-antoinette-trident-fetishist
The credit crunch and global economic meltdown has compounded pressure on the affordability of Britain’s Nuclear weapons.

The time is ripe to stop the replacement of Trident and it would be one significant step in getting rid of Nuclear Weapons worldwide; it could further help us start concentrating on the real problems we face, both at a UK/SCOTTISH and world level.

Aberdeen and District CND have monthly meetings at 7.30pm on the second Monday of each month held on the top floor of the Belmont Cinema, Belmont Street, Aberdeen.
http://banthebomb.org/AbCND/index.php/CND

 

The Economics Of Trident

 Aberdeen City, Information  No Responses »
Jun 072012
 

This week we examine the UKdimension of the Economics of the UK’s nuclear deterrent Trident,  and next week we will look at  Scottish dimension.  This is one of a series of articles being produced by Aberdeen and District Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). You can read further articles in both past and future editions of Aberdeen Voice.  With thanks to Jonathan Russell.

economic-crisis-92911
Given the global recession and the United Kingdom’s huge debt crisis, a major area of concern is whether, in a time of massive cuts, Trident should be a priority of our public spending.
The estimated lifetime cost of more than £80 billion to replace Trident will have a significant effect on other public spending and, if the experience of such replacements replicates what has happened in the United States, costs could be more than double that amount.

A recent BASIC Trident Commission report has stated that the non-replacement of Trident could produce substantial cost savings of up to £83.5 billion over the period 2016 – 2062.

The Ministry of Defence faces cuts of up to £74 billion over the next ten years and a £36 billion deficit on projected capital programmes.  On top of this, there will be a bill exceeding £20 billion for the capital costs of Trident replacement over, more or less, the same period.

In April, 2010, under the heading The UK does not need a nuclear deterrent, Lord Bramall, the former Chief of Defence Field Marshall, challenged the wisdom of replacing Trident in the following letter to the Times:

“It is of deep concern that the question of Trident replacement is at present excluded from this process (the Strategic Defence Review).  With an estimated cost of more than £80 billion, replacing Trident will be one of the most expensive programmes that this country has seen.  Going ahead will clearly have long-term consequences for the military and defence equipment budget that needs to be carefully examined.

“Given the present economic environment in which the defence budget faces the prospect of worrying cuts and that we have already an estimated hole in the defence equipment budget of some £35 billion, it is crucial that a review is fully costed.”

He also added that the option of nuclear disarmament needs to be carefully evaluated as:

  • both the running costs and the disposal of nuclear waste costs are often ignored when discussions take place about the costs of replacing Trident
  • the £20 billion capital costs were a considerable underestimate and
  • the running costs went up from £1 billion in 2006 to £3.1 billion in 2010.

The £80 billion cited by Lord Bramall included the running costs of the present and successive programmes and the disposal costs of nuclear waste.

UK CND point out that £3.1 billion a year would pay for approximately 31,000 houses and create employment directly in construction and through the supply chain, for 62,000 people.  Given the UK housing shortage, this would be a win-win situation resulting in both growth in the economy and the provision of much needed social housing.

imagescakx6kh4
The vulnerability of employment loss UK wide would be most acute in Barrow-in-Furness and, to a lesser extent in Aldermaston and Burchfield.
Professor Keith Hartley, in the recent BASIC report, analyses the impacts arising from possible options and concludes that, if the government decided to cancel the Trident programme, the UK would be looking at job losses of around 9,200 after 2025 and the loss of 21,700 jobs in 2052.

The latter losses are linked to Astute-class submarines and would allow plenty of time for future governments to intervene in particular exposed local economies like Barrow on Furness.  It should also be remembered that submarine manufacture is particularly capital intensive, so more alternative jobs could be created with the same investment.

Trident is there for defence purposes – it is not the best means of creating employment – and, unlike other UK defence industries, it provides no obvious long term benefits in the form of exports, or extensive technology spin-offs to other products or to the rest of the economy.

Job losses should also be put in proportion: between 1990 and 1995 employment in the Barrow shipyards fell from 14,250 to 5,800, a much greater figure than the possible job losses if Trident was cancelled.  The state of the economy and labour markets, including local labour markets at the time, would also affect the economic impact of the cancellation of Trident

In line with the TUC’s 2009 support for Just Transition towards a fuel-efficient green economy, government funded programmes, such as those operated in the United States under the Base Realignment Closure programme, should be adopted now.

The scientific, design and technical skills concentrated in Barrow were identified by the International Energy Agency as having the potential to be used for the development of new technological niches in the efficient production of marine and sub-sea energy.

Next week’s article will deal with the Scottish dimension of the Economics of the UK’S nuclear deterrent Trident

  • Aberdeen and District CND hold meetings at 7.30pm on the second Monday of each month on the top floor of the Belmont Cinema, Belmont Street Aberdeen

Nuclear Power Accidents And Depleted Uranium

 Aberdeen City, Information  No Responses »
May 312012
 

This is one of a series of articles being produced by Aberdeen and District Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND).  You can read further articles in both past and future editions of Aberdeen Voice. With thanks to Jonathan Russell.

Even a nuclear power plant that suffers accidental damage has dire long-term consequences, for instance those following Fukushima’s nuclear disaster and although the first reports suggested that harvests contained levels of contamination well under the safety limit for human consumption:

51650160_fukushima1-blast-624

  • more recent research by the Universities Space Research association in the US State of Maryland has found that the area of eastern Fukushima had levels that exceeded official government limits for arable land and
  • researchers estimated that cesium-137 (the longest lasting contaminant) found close to the nuclear plant was eight times the safety limit, while neighbouring regions were just under this level.

Much more worryingly, there is a daily struggle to keep 1,500 rods cool which, otherwise, would release huge amounts of radiation into the atmosphere.

If hit by another similar earthquake, the US National Council on radiation protection, along with Japanese experts, have stated that if there were another earthquake, there is a 70% chance that the entire fuel pool structure would collapse, leading to a disaster that would release 134 curies of cesium -137 – roughly 85 times the amount released at Chernobyl.

These experts believe this would destroy the world environment and our civilization, which has led to Japan decommissioning its entire nuclear program and move to Green Energy.  In Germany, the public outcry has led them to stop building nuclear power stations and engage in a programme of closing down existing ones and moving even more to Green Technology.

  We have yet to find out the long term effects of the depleted Uranium

Of course Nuclear Technology has improved since the building of the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear power plant and neither Scotland, nor the United Kingdom, is likely to be affected by an earth quake the size of the one in Japan.

Nuclear power stations have to take this possibility into account in their design (the Health and Safety Executive did note two problems with seismic design at the Heysham and Torness nuclear power plants).

Fukushima has highlighted the extremely scary potential for disaster if we go down the nuclear route as many risks, such as human error and terrorist attacks, would still exist.  Also some nuclear power stations, such as Torness, are located near to the sea and the rise in sea levels could lead to flooding.

The present Scottish government is committed to closing down our nuclear power stations while, in contrast, the UK  government is planning to build nuclear power stations, although German firms which would have been involved have pulled out.

c1070d3e-7508-401b-b306-05e9f2655df3_500
We have yet to find out the long term effects of the depleted Uranium used by Western forces and NATO in recent conflicts from Iraq, to Afghanistan, to Libya.

What we do know is that death rates and serious malformations of many babies have already greatly increased as a result of the use of depleted uranium in our Western weaponry.  But what might happen in the case of unavoidable accidental damage, or terrorist action and what might survivors then regret?

Aberdeen and District CND have meetings each month at 7.30pm on the top floor of the Belmont Cinema Belmont Street Aberdeen

Climate Change Effects From The Use Of Nuclear Weapons

 Aberdeen City, Information  No Responses »
May 242012
 

nuclearwintercity
This is one of a series of articles being produced by Aberdeen and District Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). You can read further articles in both past and future editions of Aberdeen Voice. With thanks to Jonathan Russell.

Western and Soviet scientists in the 1980s exchanged information on the effects of the use of Nuclear Weapons on climate.

Their findings were that:

  • Nuclear explosions would send massive clouds into the astrosphere blocking so much sunlight that a nuclear winter would result.
  • Global temperatures would plunge 20 to 40 degrees centigrade for several months and remain 2-6 degrees centigrade lower for 1-3 years.
  • Up to 70% of the earth’s stratospheric ozone layer would be destroyed allowing huge doses of ultra-violet light to reach the earth’s surface.
  • The UV light would kill much of the marine life that forms the basis of the food chain – it would also blind animals and humans.
  • The cold and dust would create widespread crop failures and global famine.

More recent research in the United States, based on a sophisticated atmospheric oceanic climate model that had an excellent track record of simulating the cooling effects of past volcanic eruptions, concluded that the 1980s predictions of nuclear weapon winter effects were if anything underestimates.

Furthermore, even limited nuclear war poses a significant threat to the earth’s climate. This would further have an effect on climate change capable of causing economic chaos.

images-3
The problems of climate change are already evident. The International Energy Agency projects that unless societies build alternatives to carbon-emitting energy technologies over the next five years, the world is doomed to harsher weather, drought, famine, water scarcity, rising sea levels – leading to the loss of island nations and many coastal areas.

The use of Nuclear Weapons would make this possibility, if we’re foolish enough to continue along the nuclear road, even more of a threat to human and animal life.

Aberdeen and District CND have monthly meetings held at 7.30pm on the second Monday of each month on the top floor of the Belmont Cinema, Belmont Street, Aberdeen.

Firestorms Caused By A Nuclear Attack

 Community, Information  No Responses »
May 172012
 

This is one of a series of articles being produced by Aberdeen and District Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). You can read further articles in both past and future editions of Aberdeen Voice. With thanks to Jonathan Russell.

 

firestorm1
All nuclear bomb explosions cause many small fires; these can coalesce into one massive fire known as a firestorm.

As the fire heats the air it causes winds of hurricane strength directed inward towards the fire, and this in turn fans the flames.

In Hiroshima a firestorm developed. About 4.4 square miles were utterly destroyed.

The Effects Of Nuclear Radiation

 Community, Information  No Responses »
May 112012
 

This is one of a series of articles being produced by Aberdeen Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). You can read further articles in both past and future editions of Aberdeen Voice. With thanks to Jonathan Russell.

0000270606-011
The Soviet nuclear testing site in present Kazakhstan is just one of the many places in the world that remain dangerously radioactive to this day.
The release of radiation, which is unique to nuclear explosions, has many horrendous effects.

The types of radiation include:

  • Gamma
  • Neutron
  • Ionizing

These are emitted not only at the time of detonation but also for long periods afterwards. At the time of the detonation people are killed primarily by blast and thermal effects, with radiation a major factor only in a few cases, for it is mostly residue from radio-active fallout from the weapon debris, fission products, and in the case of ground burst, radiated soil. The radiation effects on people depend on:

  • The amount of radioactive energy deposited in the body
  • The ability of the radiation to harm human tissue
  • The organs affected.

Areas affected include:

Hair- loss, leaving small clumps; the thyroid, which is particularly vulnerable to radiation; the blood system, affected for up to ten years with long term risk of leukaemia and lymphoma; it can cause heart failure; and at high levels brain damage leading to death; damage to the intestinal lining, leading to vomiting and diarrhoea – and eventually death; some victims will become sterile; long-term survivors are prone to cancer.

11
According to Japanese data, there was an increase in anaemia among people exposed to radiation. In some cases the decrease in white and red blood cells lasted up to ten years.

Cataracts were common in those partly shielded from the explosion.

Keloids, i.e. mounds of raised and twisted flesh, were found in 50-60 per cent of those burned by direct exposure to radiation.

http://www.globalzero.org/nukesout

Thermal Effects of Nuclear Weapons

 Aberdeen City, Information  No Responses »
May 032012
 

This is one of a series of articles being produced by Aberdeen and District Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). You can read further articles in both past and future editions of Aberdeen Voice. With thanks to Jonathan Russell.

we03a
Approximately 35 percent of the energy from a nuclear explosion is an intense burst of thermal energy.

The effects are similar to the effect of a two-second flash from an enormous sun-lamp.

  • Initially, most of the energy goes into heating the bomb materials and the air in the vicinity of the blast.
  •  Temperatures of a nuclear explosion reach those of the interior of the sun, about 100,000,000 Celsius.
  • Two pulses of thermal radiation emerge from the fire ball that is created. The first pulse, lasting a tenth of a second, consists of radiation in the ultra-violet region. The second pulse lasts for several seconds. It carries 99 per cent of the total thermal radiation. It is this radiation which causes the skin burns and eye injuries suffered by exposed individuals.
  •  It also causes all combustible materials to break into flames, the amount of damage greater in clear air than cloud. The fireball itself – an extremely hot and highly luminous spherical mass of air and gaseous weapon residues, (see article on blast effects) occurs within less than one-millionth of one second of the weapon’s detonation, the fireball rising like a hot air balloon.

images5_0
Immediately after its formation, the fireball begins to grow in size engulfing the surrounding air. This growth is accompanied by a decrease in temperature (because of the increase in size).

As explained, the fireball rises like a hot air balloon. Within seven tenths of one millisecond from detonation, the fireball from a one megaton weapon is about 440 feet across, and this increases to a maximum size of 5,700 feet across in 10 seconds.
It is then rising at a rate of 250 feet per second.

we07
After a minute, the fireball has cooled to such an extent that it no longer emits visible radiation. It has risen roughly 4.5 miles from the point where it burst.

As the fireball increases in size and cools the vapour condenses to form a mushroom cloud containing solid particles of the weapon’s debris, as well as many small drops of water derived from air sucked into the rising fireball. Added to this, winds suck in dirt and debris from the earth.

Flash burns are one of the serious consequences of nuclear explosions. They result from the absorption of radiant energy by the exposed skin.

 

 

The Blast Effects Of Nuclear Weapons

 Community, Information  No Responses »
Apr 262012
 

This is one of a series of articles being produced by Aberdeen Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). You can read further articles in both past and future editions of Aberdeen Voice. With thanks to Jonathan Russell.

we05

The first damage comes from the explosive blast or fireball which takes place immediately after impact. The shock wave of air from the blast radiates outward, producing sudden changes in air pressure, thus demolishing large buildings, while people and smaller objects are destroyed by the wind.

Raymond Briggs, author of Children’s picture story book The Snowman, also produced a cartoon book about nuclear war called When the Wind Blows which is well worth a read.

images-2
The size of the fireball depends on the size of the bomb used. The effect of a one megaton is initially 44 ft. across but in ten second moves to 5-700 foot. Just imagine the effect of 1,000 megaton Nuclear Bombs!

If the bomb explodes above ground and then expands until it hits the ground, a second, faster wave of pressure is formed.

When this catches the first wave the two waves join together; the pressure then becomes twice that of the initial blast.

we01
People are actually quite resistant to direct blast effects. 

The danger comes from the collapse of buildings, which leads to people being crushed, suffocated, or left with serious injuries which frequently result in death.

Emergency health services would, if available, have but little effect.

The blast also magnifies thermal radiation burn injuries, tearing away severely burned skin, creating raw wounds which readily become infected.

 Older Entries  Newer Entries