Reprocessing nuclear waste -- practiced in France and several other countries but not in the U.S. where it was invented -- involves breaking down spent nuclear fuel to recover material for use in new fuels. Proponents say it reduces the amount of nuclear waste, resulting in less highly radioactive material that needs to be stored safely. Pictured: France's Cattenom nuclear power station. (Media credit/Toucanradio via Flickr)

Reprocessing nuclear waste to extract more energy from it, while expensive and controversial, is indeed to this day still practiced in France, the UK, Russia, India and Japan—but not in the United States, where it was invented. The process involves breaking down spent nuclear fuel chemically and recovering fissionable material for use in new fuels. Proponents tout the benefit of reducing the amount of nuclear waste, resulting in less highly radioactive material that needs to be stored safely.

Nuclear reprocessing was first developed in the U.S. as part of the World War II-era Manhattan Project to create the first atomic bomb. After the war, the embryonic nuclear power industry began work to reprocess its waste on a large scale to extend the useful life of uranium, a scarce resource at the time. But commercial reprocessing attempts faltered due to technical, economic and regulatory problems. Anti-nuclear sentiment and the fear of nuclear proliferation in the 1970s led President Jimmy Carter to terminate federal support for further development of commercial reprocessing. The military did continue to reprocess nuclear waste for defense purposes, though, until the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War made continuous ramping up of our nuclear arsenal unnecessary.

More recently, George W. Bush pushed a plan, the Global Nuclear Energy Project (GNEP), to promote the use of nuclear power and subsidize the development of a new generation of “proliferation-resistant” nuclear reprocessing technologies that could be rolled out to the commercial nuclear energy sector. Federal scientists came up with promising spins on reprocessing nuclear fuel while minimizing the resulting waste. But in June of 2009 the Obama administration cancelled GNEP, citing cost concerns.

Proponents of nuclear power—and of reprocessing in particular—were far from pleased with GNEP’s axing, especially in light of Obama’s earlier decision to close Yucca Mountain as the U.S.’s future nuclear waste repository. “GNEP may have gone away, but the need to recycle spent fuel in this country is more important than ever because of the government’s stupid decision to close Yucca Mountain,” said Danny Black of the Southern Carolina Alliance, a regional economic development group, on the Ecopolitology blog. “Without Yucca Mountain, the pressure is on the industry to do more with recycling.”

But a 2007 report by the nonprofit Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) would seem to justify Obama’s decision. IEER found that nuclear reprocessing would actually increase our volume of nuclear waste six fold. IEER also reported that France, which runs the world’s most efficient reprocessing operation, spends about two cents per kilowatt hour more for electricity generated from reprocessed nuclear fuel compared to that generated from fresh fuel. IEEE further reports that the costs to build the breeder plants needed to convert spent nukes into usable fuel would “create intolerable costs and risks.”

For now, U.S. nuclear plants will continue to store waste on site, with spent rods cooled in pools of water for upwards of a year and then moved into thick steel and concrete caskets. While proliferation and terrorism have long been risks associated with hosting nuclear plants on American soil, recent events in Japan underscores that even Mother Nature poses a threat. As such, advocates of reprocessing probably stand little chance of reviving plans in a political climate now so hostile to nuclear development.

CONTACTS: Ecopolitology, www.ecopolitology.org; IEER, www.ieer.org.

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. — AccuWeather.com — Nuclear facilities have become a target of Mother Nature this year, from the tsunami in Japan to recent flooding in Nebraska and the wildfire threatening Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.

Now jellyfish have prompted the shut-down of two reactors at a nuclear power plant in Scotland. Higher-than-average temperatures in the North Sea may be a factor.

The BBC reported that masses of jellyfish were obstructing the cooling water filters of EDF Energy’s Torness nuclear power plant Tuesday. The sea water is needed to ensure safe operations, and the filters act to prevent sea life and seaweed from entering the cooling system.

Efforts to clear the filters have been under way, but the reactors may not be back online until next week. EDF has reported no danger to the public or impact on the environment.

Jellyfish have been a problem for nuclear power plants in Japan in recent years as well, according to the BBC.

By Heather Buchman, Meteorologist for AccuWeather.com

The non-profit organization, Beyond Nuclear, calls nuclear power "counterproductive to efforts to address climate change effectively and in time" and says that funding diverted to nuclear deprives real climate change solutions, like solar, wind and geothermal energy, of essential resources. Pictured: The Three Mile Island nuclear generating station, circa 1979 near the time it suffered a partial meltdown. (Department of Energy photo)

In the wake of the Fukushima disaster in Japan, countries around the world that were growing more bullish on nuclear power are now reconsidering their future energy investments. Germany has shut down seven of its oldest nuclear reactors and is conducting safety studies on the remaining facilities; those that don’t make the grade could be closed permanently. Meanwhile, in earthquake-prone Chile some 2,000 demonstrators marched through the capital to protest their government’s enthusiasm for nuclear power. And China, the world’s fastest growing nuclear energy developer, has suspended the approval process on 50 nuclear power plants already on the drawing board, and begun inspections on 13 existing plants.

But despite calls to shutter the U.S. nuclear program, President Obama remains committed to the industry despite his stated opposition to it pre-election. In December 2007, Obama told reporters at a campaign stop in Iowa: “Until we can make certain that nuclear power plants are safe…I don’t think that’s the best option,” adding that he was much more keen on solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative fuels.

According to investigative journalist Karl Grossman, Obama changed his tune on nuclear as soon as he took office, “talking about ‘safe, clean nuclear power’ and push[ing] for multi-billion dollar taxpayer subsidies for the construction of new nuclear plants.” Right away, Grossman says, Obama brought in nuclear advocate Steven Chu as energy secretary, and two White House aides that had been “deeply involved with…the utility operating more nuclear power plants than any other in the U.S., Exelon.”

Undeterred by the Japanese nuclear disaster, Obama pledged just two weeks following the initial explosions at the Fukushima Dai-ichi facility that nuclear power should be revived in the U.S., as it provides “electricity without adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.” He added that he requested a comprehensive safety review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to ensure the safety of existing facilities. “We’ll incorporate those conclusions and lessons from Japan in designing and building the next generation of [nuclear] plants,” Obama added.

But just because nuclear energy isn’t a fossil fuel doesn’t make it green, given the ongoing risk of radioactivity. Also, reports the non-profit Beyond Nuclear, “Nuclear power is counterproductive to efforts to address climate change effectively and in time…funding diverted to new nuclear power plants deprives real climate change solutions, like solar, wind and geothermal energy, of essential resources.”

Indeed, if policymakers were able to divert the hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies to the U.S. nuclear industry every year to solar, wind and geothermal developers, there is no telling how quickly we could innovate our way to sustainable non-polluting energy independence and put the specter of nuclear power that much further in our rearview mirror. But it looks like as long as Obama remains in office, nuclear will remain a big part of our near term energy future, damn the torpedoes.

CONTACTS: Karl Grossman, karlgrossman.blogspot.com; Nuclear Regulatory Commission, www.nrc.gov; Beyond Nuclear, www.beyondnuclear.org.

Japan would be hard pressed to close all of its 54 nuclear reactors anytime soon, especially given that these plants provide over a third of the nation’s electricity supply and 11 percent of its total energy needs. Pictured: A Greenpeace vigil for Japan in front of the White House in Washington, DC (Media credit/Joe Newman via Flickr)

Most experts agree that Japan would be hard pressed to close all of its 54 nuclear reactors anytime soon, especially given that these plants provide over a third of the nation’s electricity supply and 11 percent of its total energy needs. Japan relies so much on nuclear power because it has so few other domestic sources of energy to draw upon. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, Japan is only 16 percent energy self-sufficient, and much of this comes from its now-wounded nuclear power program.

Despite producing only trifling amounts of oil domestically from fields off its west coast, Japan is the third largest oil consumer in the world behind the U.S. and China, as well as the third largest net importer of crude oil. Imported oil accounts for some 45 percent of Japan’s energy needs. Besides bringing in a lot of oil, Japan is the world’s largest importer of both coal and liquefied natural gas. Against this backdrop of imported fossil fuels, it’s no surprise that Japan has embraced nuclear power; worldwide, only the U.S. and France produce more nuclear energy.

Factoring in that it would take decades to ramp up capacity on alternative renewable energy sources—right now hydropower accounts for three percent of Japanese energy usage and other renewable sources like solar and wind only one percent—and that Japan must import just about all its fossil fuels, it becomes obvious that the country will need to rely on nuclear power for some time to come, despite the risks.

“Supplying the same amount of electricity by oil, for example, would increase oil imports by about 62 million metric tons per year, or about 1.25 million barrels per day,” says Toufiq Siddiqi, a researcher with the nonprofit East-West Institute. He adds that at the current price of oil per barrel (roughly $100), switching out nuclear for oil would cost Japan upwards of $46 billion per year. “Further, it would take almost a decade to build enough new oil, coal or natural gas-fired power plants to provide the equivalent amount of electricity, and tens of billions of dollars per year would be required to do so,” he concludes.

In the short term, the easiest way for Japan to make up for its reduced nuclear output is by importing more natural gas and other fossil fuels, sending its carbon footprint in the wrong direction. What’s less clear is whether Japanese policymakers’ pre-existing plans to increase the country’s nuclear capacity—the stated goal is to generate half of Japan’s electricity via nuclear power within two decades as part of a larger effort to trim carbon dioxide emissions—will still be followed following the Fukushima accidents.

The Fukushima plant failures are likely to impact the always evolving energy mix worldwide as well, not just within Japan. Many analysts expect the nuclear disaster in Japan to cause a shift toward the increased use of natural gas worldwide. Of course, the downside for the environment is that natural gas is a fossil fuel and its use contributes significantly to global warming. While solar and wind power can take up some of the slack, these and other renewables are at least decades away from the scalability needed to power a significant share of a modern industrial society’s energy requirements.

CONTACTS: U.S. Department of Energy, www.doe.gov; East-West Institute, www.ewi.info.

Japan’s top governmental spokesman told the media Sunday (late Saturday in the U.S.) that radiation at a besieged nuclear plant briefly rose above the legal limit and that a “partial meltdown” of one reactor may be underway.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano told reporters that the meltdown was likely underway at a second reactor affected by Friday’s 8.9 magnitude earthquake and resulting tsunami.

Three nuclear reactors are now in danger of meltdown, creating a potential ecological disaster of unprecedented proportions. It appears that redundant cooling and power systems have failed, particularly with the influx of water during the tsunami.

Tokyo Electric Power Co., owner of Fukushima Daiichi and Fukushima Daini, the two heavily damaged nuclear power complexes took a desperate measures in one reactor, pouring seawater and boric acid directly into the core, which, even if successful, would render the reactor useless.

Some 200,000 residents near the nuclear complexes are being evacuated beyond a 12.5-mile radius around the plants. Government officials are also distributing iodine pills to civilians, a step that is seen as a sign of increased danger and public health exposure.

The U.S. government and American companies told media outlets they have offered assistance to Japan, but that the country has not requested any help.

If China and the US agree on one thing it is that Burma is unstable and potentially dangerous.

According to an August 2004 embassy cable released by Wikileaks, the government of Burma has been building nuclear and missile sites deep underground with the help of the North Koreans.

“The North Koreans, aided by Burmese workers, are constructing a concrete-reinforced underground facility that is ’500ft from the top of the cave to the top of the hill above’,” the cable reads.

The cable sites an unnamed Burmese expatriate who turned into an American agent.

Burma had previously signed an agreement with Russia to construct a reactor for civilian energy, but that project has been stalled for years.

In a second cable, a Burmese businessman offered to sell the American embassy in Rangoon a supply of uranium, which the embassy agreed to buy.

Another cable shows that the Chinese government was starting to get frustrated with Burma/Myanmar over its instability and resistance to modernization.

A North Korean-built nuclear reactor in Burma would violate international law and present a significant security concern in the region.

President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. Some are ecstatic, some are confused and some are overcome with anger.

I thought it was an odd decision. Definitely. Especially given the other nominees which include the Cluster Munition Coalition, a group that strives to clean up cluster bombs and decrease accidental civilian war deaths and Dr. Denis Mukwege, an inspired young Conoglese physician who opened a hospital to treat female victims of sexual abuse.

Inspiring, to say the least. Deserving candidates, no doubt.

And then there’s the victor, Barack Obama, a Harvard law school graduate, community organizer, civil rights lawyer, law professor, junior senator and president of the most “powerful” country in the world. A stunning resume, but where are the accomplishments? The peace work, the advocacy, the results?

That’s what so many are asking. What so many are wondering. And while I, a supporter of Obama, do not think he deserved the award based solely on his accomplishments to date, I do believe the award was given for a reason, and a just, sane reason at that.

Innovative decision to award Obama prize

Now hear me out. Obama won the prize not just for what he has achieved in less than 10 months (which is quite a bit if you look at it with an open mind) but for how he changed the game and reshaped the face of a nation so hated and demonized for so many years. For the potential of peace on a plethora of fronts.

Obama is in the process of sewing together the gaping wound that is America’s international reputation; not an easy feat. It’s something that no other modern Democratic or Republican candidate could do in two terms, let alone a quarter of one.

The fact that the Norway-based committee stressed it made the prize decision based on Obama’s efforts to date was a little strange. I don’t really believe that to be the case, nor does anyone else, even the hardest and strongest Obama supporters. Obama doesn’t believe it either, rightfully so.

Strengthening the international reputation of the most “powerful”nation in‚ the world contributes to peace in many ways. His efforts toward nuclear disarmament are commendable. His decision to end the missile-defense system in Poland led to strengthened ties with Russia, a nuclear powerhouse. His administration has striven for peace with India, another nuclear nation.

His efforts to strengthen relationships and mend ties between Americans and Muslims was politically risky, but so right and groundbreaking morally.

His confusion on Afghanistan is warranted, no one knows what the hell is needed there, and the answer given (“more troops”) isn’t a surprising one. But he’s taking his time and not rushing.

Some view him as the “do-nothing” president or the president of “inaction.” I view him thoughtful and rational, and I’d rather he take weeks to decide the fate of thousands of American soldiers than make a quick decision (like the last guy) and put so many soldiers in harm’s way just because of political pressure from both sides of the spectrum, without thinking it through and weighing the options. That’s called reasoning.

His no-nonsense discussions with Iran, without preconditions, a proposition he was so ridiculed for during his campaign, showed the world he is committed to nuclear disarmament and a more peaceful Mid-East.

His speech in Cairo, though predictable, reaffirmed that idea. His quoting the Qu’ran was a great way to connect with an overwhelmingly large global group so alienated by American ideological extremists.

We elected him for that reason. Because he’s intelligent, thoughtful, peaceful, multi-racial and ambitious. It’s been less than 10 months. How many ambitions are achieved in 10 months? None. But the path to realizing those ambitions has been laid.

Oz

Let me make it a bit clearer by using a crude but wonderfully applicable analogy.

Think of Obama as Dorothy and his path to peace as the yellow brick road. When Obama crash landed in the White House after a whirlwind electoral campaign, he was ambitious, excited and ready to overhaul the system. Soon he realized that that’s not possible, at least not as quick as he thought. There are hundreds, if not thousands of people to please and political and social hurdles to vault.

Just as the Afghanistan war became more brutal and a reassessing of the plan was needed (just as Dorothy tried to find out from the munchkins how she could get back to Kansas), Obama was given hope, something he’d given, in abundance, to millions around the world.

The Peace Prize committee are the munchkins, they are Glinda (the good witch). They gave Obama direction, thanked him for his bravery and pushed him, inspired him (as he inspired us) to continue his work. To keep on going. After all, he doesn’t want to be the guy who won the prize and did nothing to deserve it. And no, he’s not already that guy.

There will be obstacles (the wicked witch, the fake Wizard of Oz) however Obama/Dorothy prevail in the end, defeating the evils that stand in their ways. Yes you can think he was awarded prematurely, but only if you view the award as something given only for hard results. More results will come, the award is faith in that.

In fact, the award was given because he’s changed the world’s mood. He’s made global citizens happier and more tolerant in times of economic uncertainty, global racially charged fear, terrorism and war.

Uninspired criticism

Today I came across an article on the British website timesonline.co.uk written by broadcaster/writer Minette Marrin. She claims, wrongly in my opinion, that Obama should never have accepted the peace prize. That he is undeserving, and she compares his victory to that of Henry Kissenger’s in 1973.

Ms. Marrin, that’s cold. It’s unfortunate that you can’t see past the present day.

Marrin ventures another guess as to why Obama accepted the prize, a very odd one. She ventures that the president accepted the prize just because two fellow Democrats, Al Gore and Jimmy Carter, also boast the prestigious medal in their respective trophy libraries.

As if the award were some piece of trivial memorabilia, some baseball card, that an 11-year-old pines for just because his best buddies have the same one. She then quotes an “American commentator” who said “it is like accepting an Oscar now for being likely to make an Oscar-winning movie next year.” A degradation of the award that is insulting to past winners and childish, to say the least.

Marrin goes on to ask “Can it be that Obama is already intoxicated with the exuberance of his own celebrity? For that is all he is so far “" a well-meaning super-celebrity.” Well-meaning? See the second section of this piece.

However there are many who wonder if Obama’s ego has been so inflated that he believes himself the savior of America and the world.

But to those of you who ask that, I ask why is he so “humbled” by the award? Why is it the man, the president, started off his acceptance and justification speech by talking about his two children? Yes, he has speech writers, but only he heard what his kids said that morning. And he remembered.

Yes Obama is a little egotistical, he is, after all, the president. But don’t forget, we gave him that ego (see: road to ’08 election).

Finally, for those who believe Obama didn’t deserve this prize, you hold a valid view. I too believe Dr. Mukwege or the Cluster Munition Coalition deserve an award of recognition for peace work.

My argument is that Obama’s victory isn’t unwarranted or undeserving. His accomplishments to date are impressive, his future is full of possibilities and the peace prize was awarded to him by a panel “instructed to encourage international co-operation, arms reduction and acts of engagement”‚ for his initiative and to ensure he keeps working towards his, and our, ultimate goal.

Peace.

So it continues. North Korea prolonged its apparent mission to alienate itself from the entire world by testing another short-range missile off its east coast Friday, the sixth launch in just a few days. Also, vehicular activity was seen at a long-range ballistic missile site north of Pyongyang, which could suggest an impending test, CNN reports.

On Thursday, the U.S. and South Korea elevated surveillance levels to their second-highest, just as they did when North Korea conducted their first underground nuclear test in 2006. The U.S. says it currently has no plans to bolster its forces in South Korea from the present tally of 28,000.

South Korean officials say the alert system, known as “Defcon” was not elevated after Friday’s firing. They did however say they would strengthen certain task forces that monitor the North’s activity.

“Additional intelligence assets, including personnel, will be deployed while reconnaissance operations over North Korea will increase,” said South Korean defense spokesman Won Tae-jae, according to the Yonhap News Agency.

Activity was also seen at the Yongbyon nuclear facility, according to South Korean officials. Troubling since in 2008, North Korea stated it had enough weapons-grade plutonium for seven atomic bombs, CNN reports.

As military along the South-North Korean border continue to sweat, North Korea has warned the world of “self-defense” measures if the UN Security Council decides to impose sanctions on the impoverished country.

“If the UN Security Council provokes us, our additional self-defense measures will be inevitable,” the foreign ministry said in a statement, the BBC reports.

In a response to increased tensions between the South and North, their bordering peninsula in the Yellow sea has seen the withdrawal of Chinese fishing boats. The boats normally operate near the Northern Limit Line (NLL), a UN-declared border line in the sea that the North refuses to recognize as the limit of their land ownership, and were seen leaving the area this week. Nearly 280 boats fish near the NLL for crab each year, and this year, that number has dropped to about 140, reports the BBC.

There promises to be more developments in the near future, so stick with Blast for ongoing coverage and check out the Terra blog for some analysis.

North Korea says it has trashed the truce that ended the Korean War more than 50 years ago, citing South Korea’s involvement with the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) as the main reason, BBC reports.

The PSI is a U.S.-led initiative that searches ships thought to be carrying suspicious goods in an effort to prevent the transfer and trafficking of weapons of mass destruction. South Korea joined the initiative as a response to North Korea’s underground nuclear test, and says it will, in an effort to protect its own safety, partner with the more than 90 countries already participating.

North Korea says the South’s actions are essentially a “declaration of war” (stupid, right?). “Any hostile act against our peaceful vessels, including search and seizure, will be considered an unpardonable infringement on our sovereignty,” said the government in a statement released to the state-run news agency, KCNA.

“We will immediately respond with a powerful military strike.”

It makes sense for the South to participate in the PSI, especially at this time, and especially after reports that steam was seen emanating from the North’s main nuclear facility in Yongbyon, about 60 miles from Pyongyang. The steam confirms North Korea is making good on a threat; to reopen the major plant and start manufacturing weapons-grade plutonium. And I’ll bet it’s not to power a time-traveling DeLorean.

The scrapping of the truce however is particularly worrisome for two main reasons. First, North and South Korea have, for the last 50 years, been at each other’s throats, but even though their border is the most heavily armed in the world, they’ve been peaceful. There have been no major attacks. Negating the deal after 50 years of tense relations and the introduction of a leader in the South that Kim Jong-Il truly hates could result in an explosion of conflict and a barrage of bullets and bombs along the heavily armed border.

Second, the recent nuclear and missile test and North Korea’s assurance that they are developing technology to weaponize their nuclear arsenal make them a respectable (in the worst sense of the word) and formidable opponent. The country cares more about its reputation of power than its own people, evidenced by the high level of poverty in the nation. This hampers the widely accepted notion that the North is just doing all this to emit some sort of ray of strength before the health of Jong-Il deteriorates so much that he must appoint one of his sons.

The government recognizes the seriousness of trashing a half-century old truce, and they wouldn’t have done it just to prove they could and would wipe the South off the map if one of their vessels is so much as approached by PSI forces.

North Korea is a bully. It’s pretty simple. It’ll dish out a lot of heat and provoke as many people as it can, but when you try to calm it down or help it in anyway other than the way in which it believes it should be helped, it just gets angry and smacks you in the face.

The nuclear test was a slap in the face to the international community and the UN. For days, diplomats have been trying to come up with ways to heal their wounds behind closed doors. Sanctions may be placed, actions will be condemned.

But as long as Jong-Il is Commander-in-Chief, his country’s actions will continue to confuse everyone to the breaking point.

Maybe just because he likes the attention. Or maybe because he really does hate everyone and everything that opposes him.

North Korea has fired more missiles just hours after the UN unanimously condemned yesterday’s underground nuclear test and the testing of three short-range missiles, the BBC reports.

The two short-range missiles, one ground-to-air and one ground-to-ship, were fired off east coast bases, south of Kilju, where yesterday’s nuclear test took place.

International diplomats are currently drafting a series of sanctions to be placed on North Korea, a country whose public is already quite poor.

North Korea again cited continued “hostile policy” from the U.S. as the reason for testing their nuclear arsenal.

“Our army and people are fully ready for battle… against any reckless US attempt for a pre-emptive attack,” said a piece by KCNA, the government’s official news outlet.

North Korea has also stated that South Korea’s recent decision to join the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), a U.S. led initiative of more than 90 nations to intercept ships suspected of carrying weapons of mass destruction, constitutes an act and declaration of war, another possible cause for the missile test.

Late Monday, President Obama spoke with leaders in both Japan and South Korea to assure them the U.S. is committed to protecting north-east Asia and Asia-Pacific from any threats by North Korea.

CBC reports UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon is urging North Korea to engage in talks with its Pacific neighbors and the U.S. if it wishes to remain part of the international community.

“The only viable option at this time for North Korea to remain as a responsible member of the international community is to return to the dialogue table,” Ban told reporters at a Helsinki news conference.

Stick with Blast for developments.

North Korea, one of the pillars of Bush’s “axis of evil”, conducted an underground test of a nuclear bomb last night about 50 miles northwest of the northern city of Kilju. According to predictions by Russian officials, the bomb generated a blast of between 10 and 20 kilotons, which places it in the range of “Little Boy” and “Fat Man”; the two atomic bombs that ravaged the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945.

North Korea is part of the Pacific-Asia region, which is also occupied by China, South Korea and Japan. China is the only other nuclear power in the region; however it is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which attempts to limit the spread of nuclear weapons around the world. China’s stance on nuclear weaponry has been fairly steady, though the proximity of this nuclear test could spur China to ensure its own nuclear arsenal is operational.

South Korea has been at odds with North Korea since the early 1950s, and the two are technically still at war even though an armistice was signed more than 55 years ago. Their border is the most heavily armed in the world, and the introduction of President Lee-Myung Bak has served to reignite hostility between the two countries. Bak has publicly called for the nuclear disarmament of North Korea, a demand that has angered Kim Jong-Il. But he’s always pretty angry.

The last regional neighbor is Japan, the only country to have ever been subjected to a nuclear attack and a steadfast supporter of all treaties and attempts to de-nuclearize unstable states. According to Al-Jazeera, “analysts fear that if Japan felt pressured into developing nuclear weapons, it would trigger an arms race‚ across the region.” Personally, after the atrocities faced by their people in 1945, I really don’t see any way in which Japan would seriously consider developing a nuclear arsenal.

North Korea hasn’t always been so defiant. It actually ratified the NPT in 1985, but withdrew from the treaty in 2003 after being accused by the U.S. of operating an illegal uranium weapons program, claims that were later said to be misinformed. Since then North Korea has been the subject of the six-party talks, a series of diplomatic sessions between China, the U.S., Japan, Russia, South Korea and North Korea to try and peacefully resolve all security concerns that stemmed from its withdrawal from the NPT.

Three years after the first six-party talks and just one year after admitting it had nuclear weapons, in 2006, North Korea launched seven missiles into the Sea of Japan and conducted an underground test of a nuclear device, citing “hostile U.S. policy” as the main cause. Following the two events, the UN Security Council unanimously agreed to impose economic and diplomatic sanctions on North Korea as a punishment for its defiance.

Soon after, in 2007, talks resumed and North Korea agreed to shut down its nuclear weapons facilities in exchange for fuel oil and the stabilization of international relations between the U.S. and Japan. The sanctions were periodically lifted by the U.S. and other countries as North Korea met certain requirements.

However, in April 2009, North Korea decided to pull out of six-party talks indefinitely after the UN Security Council criticized and labeled what North Korea claimed to be a failed satellite launch as a long-range missile test. The country then banned all international nuclear inspectors and vowed to continue enhancing its nuclear arsenal and technology, something, it seems by the magnitude of yesterday’s blast, it had been doing all along.

North Korea also tested ballistic missiles yesterday, which has incited some panic among civilians who see it as an indication of an impending nuclear attack. However according to several experts North Korea cannot launch a nuclear attack because it has not weaponized its nuclear arsenal.

So while this is a particularly troubling event, let’s see what comes of the UN meeting and what steps the international body will take to ensure this stops now. Hopefully it is, as many are predicting, just a method of compensation by Jong-Il. His health is rumored to be declining so quickly after last year’s stroke that he is already thinking about his replacement.

The favorite? Why, his youngest son, of course.

UPDATE: UN Security Council releases statement unanimously condemning North Korea’s actions. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon “‘strongly deplores’ the latest test as a ‘clear and grave’ violation of past resolutions,” CBC reports.

Stick with Blast for developments.

North Korea says it has “weaponized” more than 30 kilograms of plutonium after declaring an “all-out confrontational posture” on South Korea, according to IHT.

According to nuclear experts, 30 kilograms of plutonium is enough to make four or five bombs.

When North Korea declared its plutonium hoard to the U.S. last year, they refused to say how the plutonium was “weaponized” but did say that it was meant for use in missile warheads. After declaring, North Korea declined to allow inspection of said plutonium or any of its nuclear units.

If North Korea’s claims are true, it would make the U.S.’s job a lot harder. However, North Korean officials say they have devised a new set of negotiations they plan to put into play after President-elect Barack Obama steps into the Oval Office.

They did however say resuming diplomatic ties with the U.S. is not as important as‚ remaining‚ a nuclear power.‚ 

“We can live without normalizing ties with the United States, but we cannot live without a nuclear deterrent,” said a spokesman for North Korea’s Foreign Ministry, IHT reports.

This is dangerous, but I’m doubtful anything will really happen between the two countries, especially not during the first few months of Obama’s administration. Nothing will happen on a nuclear scale, obviously, they aren’t that nuts.‚ 

Plus, NK are big talkers when it comes to this kind of stuff.

Dear EarthTalk: I’ve heard that there are plans to build a large repository for nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but that plans have been slow and are very controversial. Where is our nuclear waste kept now and what dangers does it pose?   – Miriam Clark, Reno, NV 

Plans to store the majority of our nation’s spent nuclear fuel and other highly radioactive waste at a central repository underneath Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert 80 miles from Las Vegas were first hatched in the mid-1980s. But the project has languished primarily due to opposition from Nevadans who don’t want to import such dangerous materials into their backyard. Critics of the plan also point out that various natural forces such as erosion and earthquakes could render the site unstable and thus unsuitable to store nuclear isotopes that can remain hazardous to humans for hundreds of thousands of years to come. 

But the Bush administration is keen to jump-start the project and recently submitted a construction license application to develop the facility-which when completed could hold up to 300 million pounds of nuclear waste-with the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). In announcing the filing, Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman said that the facility being proposed can “stand up to any challenge anywhere,” adding that issues of health safety have been a primary concern during the planning process. 

But the administration has still not submitted a crucial document declaring how protective the facility will be with regard to radiation leakage. Bush’s Environmental Protection Agency concluded that the facility needs to prevent radiation leakage for up to 10,000 years. But a federal judge ruled that to be inadequate and ordered the administration to require protection for up to one million years. The White House argues that the NRC should press on with its review process and that the standard can be settled on later. 

Currently, without any central repository, nuclear waste generated in the U.S. is stored at or near one of the 121 facilities across the country where it is generated. Nevadans like Democratic Senator Harry Reid, who has doggedly opposed the Yucca Mountain repository, say it makes more sense to leave such waste where it is than to risk transporting it across the nation’s public highways and rail system, during which accidents or even terrorist attacks could expose untold numbers of Americans to radioactivity.  

But others say that the current system, or lack thereof, leaves Americans at great risk of radioactive exposure. The non-profit Nuclear Information and Resource Service concluded in a 2007 report that tons of radioactive waste were ending up in landfills and in some cases in consumer products, thanks to loopholes in a 2000 federal ban on recycling metal that had been exposed to radioactivity. 

As with all issues surrounding nuclear technology, where and how to dispose of the wastes is complicated. While some environmental leaders now cautiously support development of more nuclear reactors (which are free of fossil fuels) to help stave off climate change, others remain concerned that the risks to human health and the environment are still too high to go down that road. Whether or not the NRC approves plans for Yucca Mountain won’t resolve the larger debate, of course, but perhaps the greenlighting of other promising alternative energy sources could ultimately make nuclear power unnecessary altogether. 

CONTACTS: Nuclear Regulatory Commission, www.nrc.gov; Nuclear Information and Resource Service, www.nirs.org. 

Dear EarthTalk: Summer’s going to be a scorcher this year, and I’d like to know how I can keep cool indoors without just running my energy-hogging air conditioners all the time. Any tips? – John McGovern, Cohasset, MA 

According to Harvey Sachs of the non-profit American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, the movement of air over the skin is what’s key to keeping the body cool. So instead of turning on that A.C., see which direction the breeze is blowing outside (no matter how minimal it may be), and then open a few windows strategically to try to get it flowing through the house from end-to-end or side-to-side. 

If the breeze alone isn’t enough, apply some fan power. Even small tabletop fans, which can be had for $30 or so at Target and similar stores, can really whip the air around. Placing one facing in by the window where air is coming in, and one at an opposite window positioned to blow warm air out, can create a nice “wind tunnel” effect in pulling air through the house. 

This strategy can be especially effective at night when it is cooler. But then it’s important to shut the windows when you leave for the day in the morning to keep the cooler air in and the warmth of the new day out. Keep blinds shut and curtains drawn, too, as sunlight pouring into the house only creates more heat. And remember that lights left on are not only wasting electricity-they’re creating heat, as well. 

Ceiling fans also do a nice job of circulating air in the rooms you occupy most, and though they do require some up-front costs for installation they use only about 1/30th the electricity of a room air conditioner. 

Beyond moving the air around to keep cool, the website WikiHow.com lists several tips for using water to keep cool sans AC. One tried and true method is to wet your wrists and other pulse points with cold water, and then keep those spots cool by holding an ice cube wrapped in a face cloth against them. The relief is immediate, and this method will cool down the entire body-by as much as three degrees Fahrenheit-for upwards of an hour. Another WikiHow suggestion: Wear a short-sleeved shirt and keep the sleeves wet with cold water (from a squirt bottle, faucet or hose). Keeping the pant legs of long pants wet is also a good way to keep your legs cool. Add in a breeze or a fan, and you can actually get cold.  

Of course, if you just can’t live without air conditioning, there are greener options out there. For starters, a single window unit that keeps one room cool is far less energy intensive and polluting than central air conditioning that keeps all the rooms in the house (including those you’re not using) cool. Look for new models sporting the federal Energy Star label, which marks units as energy efficient. 

Another option for those in hot, dry climates is an evaporative cooler, which cools outdoor air through evaporation and blows it inside the house. These units make for a nice alternative to traditional central air conditioning, as they cost about half as much to install and use only one quarter of the energy overall.  

CONTACTS: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, www.aceee.org; WikiHow, www.wikihow.com; Energy Star, www.energystar.gov. 

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.